And the really perplexing fact that this cash rich company that has done buybacks in the past, refuses to address the subject, even at these undervalued levels.
To Ma................What is going on??????? Outside of cash on the bs, your many china acquisitions and GEHC agreement are worth about 3 cents. That is a direct reflection on your abilities as a CEO. Do you feel like the failure you are??????????? The market says you are a failure and shareholders are suffering for it.
What are you doing?
They cant sell without filing form 4, and there has been none. Srybnik and his bro own about 100m shares and they also would have to file. But, there are other "ways" of manipulating stock down(the short volume) to make a lowball private offer. Is that happening? Who knows but the stock price here is way silly given the about 13 cents in cash and recent uptick in equipment sales ans solid GE agreement.
Ma's silence(no cc, no pr on cost savings) while stock declines gives merit to conspiracy theories.
Well, good luck to you. Its a shame that Ma's incompetence has so destroyed long time shareholders's conviction. The irony of it all is that this is how bottoms are made.
Ma is a disgrace and if he were fired, stock would rally 20+%.
What is the evidentiary threshold for invoking CED? Evidentiary standards for medical technology decisions are by necessity characterized by somewhat elastic definitions. In coverage determinations, Medicare has been guided by, and has struggled with, its rather vague statutory authority to pay for items and services that are “reasonable and necessary.” A question that looms over every attempt to initiate CED is what evidentiary threshold triggers the policy. At the May 2012 MEDCAC meeting, Sean Tunis, former chief medical officer at CMS, suggested that CED could be initiated if a “moderate level of confidence” existed based on available evidence that the item or service would improve health outcomes and that “the benefits considered were more likely than not to exceed risks.” That formulation usefully focuses on improving health outcomes and the idea that benefits should exceed risks. However, the actual evidence standard remains rather hazy and challenging to operationalize
Not talking about a blitz. To release real data on 1000 patients on vaso's main product that shows big savings for decreased frequency of hospital admissions is not hype. And CMS would have no problem with it. Cost savings are real and much needed in the heart area; all other drugs have failed to show any efficacy.There is zero excuse for not putting out some kind of PR, unless you didnt want to attract buyers in company stock.........................No cc after decent earnings? Complete lack of communication with shareholder base.
Shareholders deserve to know; what is going on here?
This study of the one year follow up on over 1000 patients should be sent to CMS to support increased coverage and get into the CED program. This is the first positive news we have had on eecp and the company doesnt even put it on its blog? This should be on all the news wires, yet vaso hides it. What is going on with this company. Why is stock pinned on the lows of .17? Is a 25 cents private bid in the works?
What are you doing, Ma?
I remain a long term shareholder and continue to hold shares making me one of the largest holders relative to the insider ownership published (I know others with larger holdings that are non insiders). What is the company doing to convince me (and others) to remain invested? What reason would there be for NOT putting out a PR on the study below and emphasizing Vasomedical's commitment to EECP and studies like this going forward that show the real and immediate impact of embracing and adopting therapies such as this instead of the current status quo that is more expensive with lower efficacy?
I and others have certainly not been tooting the company horn over the last year and with good reason. The stock price is trading at 3 year lows, there continues to be substantial selling by long term shareholders that have become disillusioned by management/strategy, and silence like this that has brought in to question the company is ultimately responsible to. There is also no secret that major outside shareholders are dissatisfied/upset with the increasing, overall compensation of insiders while the stock price continues to decline and languish. It is further exacerbated by not a single insider purchase on the open market by insiders in the last two years the stock has declined. Dr. Ma has been asked directly by me and others in public forums about this lack of insider purchasing and have still not received a specific response/reason why they are not purchasing or not able to. Dr. Ma said "I wish I could buy shares" in the online interview in the summer of 2013 when asked this question but never provided the reason why he could NOT in follow up questions on conference calls. While we are certainly frustrated with these decisions and reactions/inactions by mgmt., that has not deterred us from being ardent supporters of EECP therapy and the potential, disruptive implications the therapy has on the cardiac community for long term care.
The silence and lack of transparency the last 12-24 months is beyond disconcerting. To have a major study like this go unnoticed or un-promoted by the company is beyond comprehension.
I remain a long term shareholder and continue to hold shares making me one of the largest holders relative to the insider ownership published (I know others with larger holdings that are non insiders). What is the company doing to convince me (and others) to remain invested? What reason would there be for NOT putting out a PR on the study below and emphasizing Vasomedical's commitment to EECP and studies like this going forward that sh
This was sent to me by a long time shareholder here and was sent to company Part 1
Mr. Beecher - just read through the article below and this appears to be the most/one of the most significant trials since PEECH with respect to awareness and viability of EECP in the medical, governmental, and investment arenas. Accepted by third party, internationally recognized doctors by world renown medical facilities - the statement: "The average hospitalization and physician charge in the US was $17 995, and the average EECP cost was $4880, yielding an annual cost savings/patient of $17 074." can not be overstated enough. Long term shareholders such as myself have been aware of this benefit and implications of the therapy on the cost aspects for angina/CHF for years but this study seems to be a major part of the "missing link" needed to really bring this therapy to the forefront of the discussion in AAC and CMS circles.
Vasomedical has been notoriously silent on all fronts recently (website, PRs, social media, blog) and did not even issue a PR on 1Q15 results or offer an investor conference call. This study has major implications for the viability of EECP going forward and was released on 5/11 and today is the 19th. Where is Vasomedical in the PR department to let the public know what they are doing and how they are going to make a return for the shareholders?
If vaso is gathering all this data, why are they not appying for the CED program. Ma seemed to imply that keeping records that CED would want would be time consuming, but they are keeping records. What is Ma doing? Why is he hiding these results? WHy is he not applying for CED? Why is stock manipulated by shorts and kept down at this crazy valuation?
This study was not a trial which is why i couldnt find on clinicalTrial gov site. It is an analysis of those 1000 + past and current users of EECP. Its very much what the CED program would demand. Ma said at the last CC they were thinking of going with the CED(gov would pay for all eecp therapy ).
In any event, great results, big patient population and deserves publication
Reduced hospitalizations and cost savings in heart patients? This is the Holy Grail. No drug has shown to do that. CLDN just failed on its heart drug, which had an endpoint of fewer hospitalizations with drug vs placebo. It had a 500 million dollar market cap before trial failure. Now, it has nothing and is STill valued at twice the market cap of vaso.
Markets stay ineffecient for only so long. Wake Up Ma. You are not a private company yet.
Yes, its my fault.............lol
This stock is way undervalued. Even on a low ball private bid, a nice premuim from this level.
Looks like it was done or at least sponsered by Stony Brook. Still a news blackout at vaso. This should be released by the PR dept to the newswires. And yet, not even on the silly blog. Why is vaso hiding. Amazing stock still sitting there after big volume day.
Department of Cardiovascular Disease, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York.
2Department of Cardiology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York.
3Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
4Department of Medicine, St Vincent Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Data for 1015 patients were analyzed. Hospitalization occurred in 55.2% of patients, an average of 1.7 ± 1.4 hospitalizations/patient, in the 6-month period before 35 hours of EECP; and in 24.4%, an average of 1.4 ± 1.0 hospitalizations/patient, during the 6- to 12-month period after EECP. The average hospitalization and physician charge in the US was $17 995, and the average EECP cost was $4880, yielding an annual cost savings/patient of $17 074.
Treatment of refractory angina patients with EECP resulted in improvement in angina and functional class accompanied by a sustained reduction in health care costs over 1 year of follow-up.