Cardionet Vs LifeWatch

[Anonymous]

Haha, yeah that CN guy likes calling everyone an idiot. He really feels offended when people tarnish his beloved Cardionet. I can pick out 6 or 7 different posts of him calling someone out but not justifying himself.
None of the new telemetry devices can back themselves up with a study because an event monitor is just as accurate.

Really? EMs are just as accurate as MCOT? So you do not read the Journal of Electrophysiology do you?

CardioNet proven to be nearly 3x superior to LOOP event monitors at detecting clinically significant Atrial Fibrillation in all patients 23% vs. 8% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 17% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting clinically significant arrhythmias 52% vs. 16% (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting Afib/Aflutter 24% vs. 2% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 19% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors
In all patients, an arrhythmia was confirmed or excluded as the primary cause of the symptom in 88% of CardioNet patients vs. 75% LOOP patients (p=0.008).

3X ....3X...3X....Proven FACT, not Salesperson BS...

 

[Anonymous]

Let's talk the facts. Randy hired all his friends, paid that joke of VP of Operations John I $400,000+ for his expertise, which is zero in cardiovascular service industry. Then he hires "Wonder Boy" Matt, who thinks talking red wine will "impress" someone or at least a new manager..... Trust me, if MD's knew what Randy was paying his friends at Cardionet, there would be zero RX's coming out of any office in the US! Now, let's talk the other downfalls of CN. Phil L woudn't know a CMS fee change if it hit hit him 5 months in advance. Oh, I forgot, he was told by sales and management in January 2009 but he said, "I have not been told by my Highmark contacts that anything is changing or being discussed!" What a joke, doesn't even know that they are reviewing!!! What did he do before CNet, stocking at Target?
One day someone in upper managment or the Board of Directors will come to the same conclusion the sales team did long ago:
* Chris S. was the guy who started the sales team, built the sales team, and he didn't drink wine as his first choice in adult beverages to impress the sales force.
* Phil L. is so over his head. Does anyone know what Terri and that other chick do in contracting? Maybe that's why you missed the CMS review, your girls didn't remind you.
* Ann S. doesn't show up for work for 5 days in a roll, let alone know how to manage a department. Her department is a disaster. She also get's rid of anyone who she thinks will blow the whistle on her!!!!
* John I is more concerned over a new phone or travel contract than patient care in his area. He has a $400,000+ salary and stock options for bringing a hair-dressor to the national meeting to talk Customer Service! His area is them main screw up in CS!!!!ecause they were laying in the sun!!!!
* Anna M. is on Cafe Pharma at the Residence Inn and counting her 2 million in last years stock sell (see Insider information on Yahoo Finance, BEAT). Gee, you would think she would get a face lift!
* Matt the wonder boy is clueless, has a managment team that hasn't ever managed anything but "good times", and is more concerned over his wine that his sales team.
* And finally, has anyone figured out how JR still has a job after 1 1/2 years of zero marketing? He now manages 4 CTS AE's who are just calling on the same people that the AE's were calling on 1-2 years ago.
WAKE UP! You have a great sales team but ZERO SUPPORT and you haven't been around long enough to know that your time is coming soon, the door will open and shut on you soon!!!!!
##########################################################################################################################

WOW, What a homo.

Question: Didn't Rob A start the salesforce with Jim S and wasn't he the one who hired Chris S?

 

[Anonymous]

Haha, yeah that CN guy likes calling everyone an idiot. He really feels offended when people tarnish his beloved Cardionet. I can pick out 6 or 7 different posts of him calling someone out but not justifying himself.
None of the new telemetry devices can back themselves up with a study because an event monitor is just as accurate.

Let's make something clear...Doctors like event monitors bc they can get a hook up fee...Most are so money driven that they do not care to see the clinical side. They feel that they have been using EMs for so long they will continue to do so and collect the extra few dollars for the hook up. Has nothing to do with clinical studies....These drs are the same as Madoff....Greed trumps what is best for the patient

 

[Anonymous]

Does Cardionet have any third party nonbiased studies done by anyone who is not affiliated with the company? Consequently, is it such a crime to be a "wannabe" to such greatness that is Cardionet?

Picking on the fact that Dr Prystowsky was in charge of the study, or that it was sponsored by CN, is a very ignorant way to put down a study that was accepted by the Journal of EP...Did you know that most studies are sponsored by interested companies? Did you know that regardless of who "pays" for the study, there are very specific guidelines that have to be followed and these are carefully scrutinized and reviewed? Are you suggesting that Dr Prystowsky, or any other physician would risk their reputation by falsifying data? If EM are so great, then why hasn't an EM company sponsored their own study head to head with MCOT?

I hate ignorance

 

[Anonymous]

Really? EMs are just as accurate as MCOT? So you do not read the Journal of Electrophysiology do you?

CardioNet proven to be nearly 3x superior to LOOP event monitors at detecting clinically significant Atrial Fibrillation in all patients 23% vs. 8% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 17% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting clinically significant arrhythmias 52% vs. 16% (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting Afib/Aflutter 24% vs. 2% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 19% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors
In all patients, an arrhythmia was confirmed or excluded as the primary cause of the symptom in 88% of CardioNet patients vs. 75% LOOP patients (p=0.008).

3X ....3X...3X....Proven FACT, not Salesperson BS...

First of all who was the physician doing this study? Second, you did not compare to auto trigger monitors. Just traditional loop recorders. Continue to drink the Kool Aide and shave your head. LOOP, LOOP, LOOP, LOOP, LOOP!!!! Wake up.

 

[Anonymous]

Really? EMs are just as accurate as MCOT? So you do not read the Journal of Electrophysiology do you?

CardioNet proven to be nearly 3x superior to LOOP event monitors at detecting clinically significant Atrial Fibrillation in all patients 23% vs. 8% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 17% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting clinically significant arrhythmias 52% vs. 16% (p<0.001)
In patients with syncope or presyncope, CardioNet proven greater than 3x superior to LOOP event monitors for detecting Afib/Aflutter 24% vs. 2% (p<0.001); In the same group of patients, CardioNet detected asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation 19% vs. 0% in LOOP event monitors
In all patients, an arrhythmia was confirmed or excluded as the primary cause of the symptom in 88% of CardioNet patients vs. 75% LOOP patients (p=0.008).

3X ....3X...3X....Proven FACT, not Salesperson BS...

What a r*****.. Your new name is SNOOP-a-LOOP. I expect you to use your new name on every single post you make.
Everyone knows that your "study" was comparing a MCOT device to a regular looping monitor. Why didnt CN compare the MCOT with a auto-trigger device?!? Go ask your manager that one and come back with an answer. huh? -a-whuat? durp? I'm an idiot? durp?..... Get out of town..

 

[Anonymous]

Cardionet management are ploting to let people go. Its offical google (cardionet investors fraud).

 

[Anonymous]

Picking on the fact that Dr Prystowsky was in charge of the study, or that it was sponsored by CN, is a very ignorant way to put down a study that was accepted by the Journal of EP...Did you know that most studies are sponsored by interested companies? Did you know that regardless of who "pays" for the study, there are very specific guidelines that have to be followed and these are carefully scrutinized and reviewed? Are you suggesting that Dr Prystowsky, or any other physician would risk their reputation by falsifying data? If EM are so great, then why hasn't an EM company sponsored their own study head to head with MCOT?

I hate ignorance

A small space and not everyone can offer stock options to the entire family in return for the work.

You don't know much about how studies are conducted. You are the ignorant one.

 

[Anonymous]

1) investor fraud
2) insurance fraud

 

[Anonymous]

First of all who was the physician doing this study? Second, you did not compare to auto trigger monitors. Just traditional loop recorders. Continue to drink the Kool Aide and shave your head. LOOP, LOOP, LOOP, LOOP, LOOP!!!! Wake up.

Even though your response is lacking professionalism I will respond....bc traditional EMs (LOOPs) are what doctors are using, not auto trigger AF monitors. Why would CardioNet compare themselves to a class of monitors with such a low market share? I gave y ou enought information to know which study I am referring to, so if you need me to tell you than you have not done your homework. This is not the playground...grow up, do your homework and put auto triggers in their clinical place....they are not MCOT.

 

[Anonymous]

What a r*****.. Your new name is SNOOP-a-LOOP. I expect you to use your new name on every single post you make.
Everyone knows that your "study" was comparing a MCOT device to a regular looping monitor. Why didnt CN compare the MCOT with a auto-trigger device?!? Go ask your manager that one and come back with an answer. huh? -a-whuat? durp? I'm an idiot? durp?..... Get out of town..

I already responded to the other person (maybe it was you again)..I will repeat for the slow...BC traditional Event Monitors hold the lion share of the monitoring business after Holters...Auto Trigger monitors have such a small market share...why would CardioNet invest in a study to compare themselves with a modality that physicians did not use, accept or care about.....If I had to ask my manager this one, then I would not be very well informed. Just the fact that you think you can blindside me with this rhetoric that you get from your sales meetings shows your lack of professionalism, maturity and intelligence....

 

[Anonymous]

Even though your response is lacking professionalism I will respond....bc traditional EMs (LOOPs) are what doctors are using, not auto trigger AF monitors. Why would CardioNet compare themselves to a class of monitors with such a low market share? I gave y ou enought information to know which study I am referring to, so if you need me to tell you than you have not done your homework. This is not the playground...grow up, do your homework and put auto triggers in their clinical place....they are not MCOT.

Not one person has said that ATs are MCOT. However, ATs would have performed better in the study, much better. Most likely they would have been determined to be equivalent since they utilize the same algorithms. ATs were starting to gain traction within this space and now physicians have started to use them and in some places in place of MCOTs. Do your homework and learn how MCOT really works. Physicians have and some have determined that given price and the fact they capture the hook up fee, ATs work just as well. If ATs were compared in the study there is no way the 3x claim could have been made. Given the current situation- investor and insurance fraud claims- you can see that the study seems even more misleading. Just another example of the misguided corporate culture taking place at CN.

 

[Anonymous]

I already responded to the other person (maybe it was you again)..I will repeat for the slow...BC traditional Event Monitors hold the lion share of the monitoring business after Holters...Auto Trigger monitors have such a small market share...why would CardioNet invest in a study to compare themselves with a modality that physicians did not use, accept or care about.....If I had to ask my manager this one, then I would not be very well informed. Just the fact that you think you can blindside me with this rhetoric that you get from your sales meetings shows your lack of professionalism, maturity and intelligence....

Rhetoric??? Modality not accepted?? Your company is the one provding the rhetoric and corporate brainwashing. The reason is because if compared to autotriggers, which are/were being used, the study turns out way different. No way the 3x claim is ever made. Given the current situation- investor and insurance fraud claims- just another example of the spin in which CN operates.

 

[Anonymous]

Even though your response is lacking professionalism I will respond....bc traditional EMs (LOOPs) are what doctors are using, not auto trigger AF monitors. Why would CardioNet compare themselves to a class of monitors with such a low market share? I gave y ou enought information to know which study I am referring to, so if you need me to tell you than you have not done your homework. This is not the playground...grow up, do your homework and put auto triggers in their clinical place....they are not MCOT.

Is that really what you think? That CN chose to compare with a King of Hearts over an autotrigger because docs dont use autotrigger event monitors?!?! wow....WOW. Are you part of management at CN? I hope not, but if so please do three things for me. First, go call your Marketing Manager for the Real answer. Then, go call your executive managers and wish them well as they get taken away to the slammer for fraud. Finally, call all your accounts and wish a good life as you will be fired today.
Time for me to go out and sell my new telemetry device to all of your accounts since you wont have a job this afternoon. Yeah thats right, I can now win my accounts back that you stole!

 

[Anonymous]

Anyone get fired yet?!?

 

[Anonymous]

Is that really what you think? That CN chose to compare with a King of Hearts over an autotrigger because docs dont use autotrigger event monitors?!?! wow....WOW. Are you part of management at CN? I hope not, but if so please do three things for me. First, go call your Marketing Manager for the Real answer. Then, go call your executive managers and wish them well as they get taken away to the slammer for fraud. Finally, call all your accounts and wish a good life as you will be fired today.
Time for me to go out and sell my new telemetry device to all of your accounts since you wont have a job this afternoon. Yeah thats right, I can now win my accounts back that you stole![/QUOTE


Yeah good luck with that a**hole

 

[Anonymous]

Is that really what you think? That CN chose to compare with a King of Hearts over an autotrigger because docs dont use autotrigger event monitors?!?! wow....WOW. Are you part of management at CN? I hope not, but if so please do three things for me. First, go call your Marketing Manager for the Real answer. Then, go call your executive managers and wish them well as they get taken away to the slammer for fraud. Finally, call all your accounts and wish a good life as you will be fired today.
Time for me to go out and sell my new telemetry device to all of your accounts since you wont have a job this afternoon. Yeah thats right, I can now win my accounts back that you stole!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLO. Little disgruntled? Good luck with that device.

 

[Anonymous]

Is that really what you think? That CN chose to compare with a King of Hearts over an autotrigger because docs dont use autotrigger event monitors?!?! wow....WOW. Are you part of management at CN? I hope not, but if so please do three things for me. First, go call your Marketing Manager for the Real answer. Then, go call your executive managers and wish them well as they get taken away to the slammer for fraud. Finally, call all your accounts and wish a good life as you will be fired today.
Time for me to go out and sell my new telemetry device to all of your accounts since you wont have a job this afternoon. Yeah thats right, I can now win my accounts back that you stole![/QUOTE


Yeah good luck with that a**hole

Take away the name calling and there is not much in what you post.....Let me repeat for the VERY VERY SLOW....The lion share of the market nationwide is with traditional Event Monitors and this is the market share CN was going after....If you cannot agree that anyone would rather have 20% of the traditional EM market compared to 20% of the Auto trigger market, then your arrogance is far greater than your ignorance. If your device is so great, then how did you lose your accounts to CN? What part of the country are you in? My employment status is exactly the same as it was last week....is YOURS?

 

[Anonymous]

Not one person has said that ATs are MCOT. However, ATs would have performed better in the study, much better. Most likely they would have been determined to be equivalent since they utilize the same algorithms. ATs were starting to gain traction within this space and now physicians have started to use them and in some places in place of MCOTs. Do your homework and learn how MCOT really works. Physicians have and some have determined that given price and the fact they capture the hook up fee, ATs work just as well. If ATs were compared in the study there is no way the 3x claim could have been made. Given the current situation- investor and insurance fraud claims- you can see that the study seems even more misleading. Just another example of the misguided corporate culture taking place at CN.

ATs do not have the same algorithm...just look at the notification criteria. Many physicians are greedy and care more about the extra hook up fee that they get from using Holter, ATs or EMs...If CN was able to be hooked up in the office then you can bet that CNs MCOT would be preferred. You know it. AT's don't work just as well in patient care...what good is capturing the data if it sits in the monitor until the patient downloads it? Auto trigger without auto transmission is no more effective that a traditional EM. Read your own response...NOW physicians are starting to use them....this was not the case when the study was planned and conducted. In business, you go after the big fish, not the guppies. In regard to claiming that the study is misleading,...I am amazed that you would suggest that the EPs would falsify data....I don't mind you objecting that the study was not done with ATs, but it is really unprofessional to diminish the study as it compares to EMs by suggesting that it is invalid...If your company thinks ATs are "just as good" as CN's MCOT, then do a study and prove it. Are the studies you use comparing AT's to MCOT, or are they comparing them to EMs? Hmmmmmmmm. Pot calling the kettle black it seems....

 

[Anonymous]

ATs do not have the same algorithm...just look at the notification criteria. Many physicians are greedy and care more about the extra hook up fee that they get from using Holter, ATs or EMs...If CN was able to be hooked up in the office then you can bet that CNs MCOT would be preferred. You know it. AT's don't work just as well in patient care...what good is capturing the data if it sits in the monitor until the patient downloads it? Auto trigger without auto transmission is no more effective that a traditional EM. Read your own response...NOW physicians are starting to use them....this was not the case when the study was planned and conducted. In business, you go after the big fish, not the guppies. In regard to claiming that the study is misleading,...I am amazed that you would suggest that the EPs would falsify data....I don't mind you objecting that the study was not done with ATs, but it is really unprofessional to diminish the study as it compares to EMs by suggesting that it is invalid...If your company thinks ATs are "just as good" as CN's MCOT, then do a study and prove it. Are the studies you use comparing AT's to MCOT, or are they comparing them to EMs? Hmmmmmmmm. Pot calling the kettle black it seems....

Well since you guys are the ones whining about the reimbursement situation, why dont you do a study to justify why a MCT device should get much much higher reimbursement than an AT.