Its document Su1044 on the DDW online planner portion of their website.
Simply type in "Su1044" into the search box.
The Mayo study is entitled, "Knowledge of a Positive Cologuard Result Improves Yield and Quality of Colonoscopy" - - - by David Johnson
Send me an email at my screen-name address and include a phone number (so that I can confirm) and I will send you a link to the specific place at the DDW site and the reference numbers of the 3 presentations.
There was a study presented by a biostatistician from Stanford at DDW that showed:
Cologuard used on a three year interval in patients 50-80 years of age would render FIT not cost effective when Cologuard achieves a 1.7X higher compliance rate than FIT.
For example, at a compliance rate of 40% for FIT and a compliance rate of 69% for Cologuard, FIT would no longer be cost effective relative to using Cologuard for screening.
And we all know, that the compliance rate for FIT is not as high as 40%.
The Veterans Administration 5-year study had it pegged at 15% over 5 years.
The USPSTF presented data in regards to using a 3-year screening interval for Cologuard this past week at DDW. It was highly supportive.
Its interesting that you bring up COST EFFECTIVENESS over time in regards to the USPSTF. Did you not see their cost effectiveness study that was presented at DDW last weekend?
I'm surprised that you haven't seen this USPSTF study by their technical group.
I mean, after all you are such a big "expert" at being on your knees.
There were a number of presentations made at DDW (which is a gastro-doc annual conference) that involved studies on Cologuard. Besides the data presented recently by Mayo in regards to a positive Cologuard leading to GI docs spending 46% longer searching for polyps.... there were also two studies (one by authors from the USPSTF and another from Stanford) that demonstrated that Cologuard used once every 3 years is incrementally cost-effective.
Perhaps BioPiggy can weigh in on this since she usually attends these clinical type conferences?
And I believe that 3.4 million a year turn 65.
The age at which you are eligible for Medicare.
Still doesn't matter.
Its pretty clear that the FDA has become more "friendly" towards OFF LABEL use as long as the Company doesn't do anything other than speak the truth about their clinical data and studies.
Do you really think that ANTHEM signed onto Cologuard because they wanted to increase their costs?
And the FDA has recently reversed itself on "off-label" use given their settlement with AMRN based on the First Amendment and commercial speech.
Exact Sciences has never "promoted" CG as a replacement for Colonoscopy or individuals who have already been symptomatic for colon cancer.
But you might want to ask yourself why a large National Insurer like ANTHEM decided to cover it last year.
Put your "thinking" cap on and let us all know why an insurance company would want to offer Cologuard.
I think that you can see some of the same faces in other photos of the Exact marketing team.
I wouldn't worry about it.
I think that the average viewer who has an average IQ level . . . understands that BOTH men and women have colons.
Tell me something Biopiggy.....
You seem real good looking when it comes to looking into the REAR VIEW MIRROR.
Were you doing that back in December of 2014 when EXAS was trading $29.85 after you and all of your clown friends got short the stock at $14 in April of 2014?
Yeah, you are a real genius.
Such a genius that you lied about being at the Investor / Analyst Day Reception last June.... as well as being in New Orleans last month for the AACR Meeting where the USMD study was announced via a poster presentation by Dr. Berger.
You actually claimed that the 400 patient USMD data was merely a re-hashed subset of data from the "Deep C" FDA clinical trial. And yet you also claimed in one of your posts that you were THERE in New Orleans for the presentation of the USMD data. More lies....
You lie so much you can't even keep your lies straight.
Yeah... you and Whitney Tilson (and all the other clown friends of Travis Dickmeister and Cathy the Podiatrist) were really good calling this one when you all got short at $14 in April of 2014 and by year end it was trading nearly $30.
EXAS spent the next 6 months selling off to $21 before rallying to $32.85 in just 7 weeks..... blowing out of the water every short in the process.
First you claimed that Cologuard would never get FDA approval. Then you claimed that it would never get an NCD under Medicare. Then, after you failed to KNOW what you were talking about during those 2 events..... you claimed that Cologuard would never get reimbursed for more than $170. Wrong again, clown. It got reimbursed for $504. Even your Cable Car Clown friend in San Francisco made a fool out of himself on that one.
Your track record here has been well documented.
As if your "opinion" moves the needle on a stock that is 94% owned by Institutions. Funny how I don't recall any of the shorts here claiming that Cologuard wouldn't make the USPSTF guidelines.
You are a Clown.
Reimbursement in the UK is literally non existent.
Their healthcare is a joke.
You must have failed Basic Math in High School Geeezer.
EXAS has 750 employees.
Cutting 29 positions is only 3.8% of the entire work force.
If anyone has been noticing the most recent stock option grants.... they added 81 new people based on their Feb. 26th SEC filing and another 70 after that.
Cutting 17 people in the field and 12 in Madison insignificant.
It's just a part of optimizing resources and emphasizing your target business.