Pharmacy and Urgent Intervention Triage
Q1 Anigiomax can reduce the complication rate of high risk procedures. Each complicated case costs hospital $8000 in unreimbursed care, as insurances don’t pay for complications arising from procedures done. For very high risk patients, the difference of outcomes for Angiomax and Heparin is significant to consider using it.
Q2 the industry standard was to charge 10 times the cost of production, which would put it at $400, given that the company is spending less on R&D, they could afford to lower the price. Company chose to price it at $410/vial
Q3 the drug is still a hard sell, based upon the large difference in the cost of Generic medicine Heparin ($2/vial) and Angiomax, while the application of the drug remains narrow, as far as FDA approval. The adoption profile will be dependent upon making the drug acceptable to physicians, pharmacists and Hospital administrators. They all of different goals so strategy would have to be applied to appeal to physicians on the basis of quality, pharmacist and Hospitals, on the basis of reduced cost of care. In fact, Medicines Co sponsored a trial ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, which showed a cost reduction of $572/patient with Angiomax monotherapy.
Q4 I’d promote the drug by appealing to physicians for lower complication rate and to the Hospitals for lower cost of care, decreased readmission rate
Q5 this business model is very risky, the key is to have expertise in identifying the drugs, which were abandoned by the parent companies for any reason. Pharmaceutical companies, after spending millions of dollars in research, don’t typically abandon their product development, unless they are convinced that their product would be a failure, due to variety of reasons. If proper identification can be done, it saves a large chunk of R&D dollars, especially if the drug is in later stages of development.
Q6 If ANgiomax is successful, the business model will get a boost for
Q2 the industry standard was to charge 10 times the cost of production, which would put it at $400, given that the company is spending less on R&D, they could afford to lower the price. Company chose to price it at $410/vial
Q3 the drug is still a hard sell, based upon the large difference in the cost of Generic medicine Heparin ($2/vial) and Angiomax, while the application of the drug remains narrow, as far as FDA approval. The adoption profile will be dependent upon making the drug acceptable to physicians, pharmacists and Hospital administrators. They all of different goals so strategy would have to be applied to appeal to physicians on the basis of quality, pharmacist and Hospitals, on the basis of reduced cost of care. In fact, Medicines Co sponsored a trial ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, which showed a cost reduction of $572/patient with Angiomax monotherapy.
Q4 I’d promote the drug by appealing to physicians for lower complication rate and to the Hospitals for lower cost of care, decreased readmission rate
Q5 this business model is very risky, the key is to have expertise in identifying the drugs, which were abandoned by the parent companies for any reason. Pharmaceutical companies, after spending millions of dollars in research, don’t typically abandon their product development, unless they are convinced that their product would be a failure, due to variety of reasons. If proper identification can be done, it saves a large chunk of R&D dollars, especially if the drug is in later stages of development.
Q6 If ANgiomax is successful, the business model will get a boost for