How long until Flemming gets fired?

Quote
The vacation email he sent this morning could indicate it's really an extended vacation while they look for a way to spin things. And the take over rumor would give FO his just rewards. Oh karma.
 






anonymous said:
I've admired his commitment to rare diseases and unmet needs philosophy on pipeline, but serious question here. If you build a R&D platform and pipeline that treats mostly rare diseases, how do you make a profit long term?

It is admirable to go after orphan drugs with the goal of helping these patients that have no other alternative, but these diseases are rare for a reason.....not very many people have them. What happens to a business when there aren't enough customers?

As much as the liberals want pharma to behave like a non-profit, it doesn't work that way. Pharma has every right to get ROI and profit from its intellectual property by letting the market decide how great the drug is, but how does it do that when you treat a condition that affects 1 out of every 150,000 people?

Point being that if it weren't for Vyvanse making billions, how would Shire have a future? Shire has to have a bell cow drug for the masses to have solid footing financially.

Again. Very admirable and feels good at the NSM to hear stories from these patients, but as an investor it does not appear to be sustainable. If FO is fired, it will be this strategy of being the global leader in rare diseases that does him in.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't have a clue about pharma pricing/profitability and just wanted to rant about "liberals" attacking the industry.

Some quick economics: when demand for a product is high, companies have the ability to raise prices (duh - I'm sure you knew that already). However, demand in pharma isn't only measured by the number of people requesting access to a drug, but also by the need for your product. Basically, insurers and payers are willing to pay much, much more for a life-saving drug (for a rare condition) than for something like Vyvanse. Naturally, Vyvanse sales dollars are so high because of scale effects (large number of customers), while on the other hand rare disease sales are high because of relatively higher prices. So even though a rare condition may affect only 1 out of every 150,000 people, the treatment for such a disease may be lifesaving, thus placing a much higher demand for the product. In this case, pharmas can charge very high prices for a drug that effects a small group of people. In many cases these rare disease drugs are used by patients to treat their condition for the rest of their life. This is very different from traditional drug products that are taken sporadically or for a short duration as prescribed by a physician to treat a common condition. Also, rare disease drugs are usually biologics, which pretty much insulates them from generic competition, so pharmas that focus on rare disease products rarely have to worry about the looming loss of revenue from having a drug come off of patent protection.

Here's an example: Take a drug that affects 10 million people and costs $300 per patient per year to treat. This would equate to $3 billion of annual revenue for the pharma company. Now consider a rare disease that affects 100,000 people and costs $50,000 per patient per year to treat. That is $5 billion of annual revenue for the rare disease pharma company.

Now do you see how your rant on liberals making pharma into non-profits and rare disease doesn't make sense?
 






You should be a math teacher

anonymous said:
You clearly don't have a clue about pharma pricing/profitability and just wanted to rant about "liberals" attacking the industry.

Some quick economics: when demand for a product is high, companies have the ability to raise prices (duh - I'm sure you knew that already). However, demand in pharma isn't only measured by the number of people requesting access to a drug, but also by the need for your product. Basically, insurers and payers are willing to pay much, much more for a life-saving drug (for a rare condition) than for something like Vyvanse. Naturally, Vyvanse sales dollars are so high because of scale effects (large number of customers), while on the other hand rare disease sales are high because of relatively higher prices. So even though a rare condition may affect only 1 out of every 150,000 people, the treatment for such a disease may be lifesaving, thus placing a much higher demand for the product. In this case, pharmas can charge very high prices for a drug that effects a small group of people. In many cases these rare disease drugs are used by patients to treat their condition for the rest of their life. This is very different from traditional drug products that are taken sporadically or for a short duration as prescribed by a physician to treat a common condition. Also, rare disease drugs are usually biologics, which pretty much insulates them from generic competition, so pharmas that focus on rare disease products rarely have to worry about the looming loss of revenue from having a drug come off of patent protection.

Here's an example: Take a drug that affects 10 million people and costs $300 per patient per year to treat. This would equate to $3 billion of annual revenue for the pharma company. Now consider a rare disease that affects 100,000 people and costs $50,000 per patient per year to treat. That is $5 billion of annual revenue for the rare disease pharma company.

Now do you see how your rant on liberals making pharma into non-profits and rare disease doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...
 






when Flemming gets ousted, watch Perry and the rest of the ass kissers flip on him to save their own hides. They know nothing about this business and will suckle any teet that will keep them employed.

Best thing that could happen to Shire is all new leadership.
 












anonymous said:
Do the stockholder really know what is going on? Does WallStreet tink this is a profitable company? Ha! Hey IRS and FDA can you say "AUDIT TIME" ?
Click to expand...
Other pharmas likely have Shire on their target list and would jump at the chance to snap it up for a good price. I'm sure a few are licking their chops. After the acquisition they can just sell off what they don't want. Now question is, will Phlegm come back from his beach vacation early to do the negotiations?
 


















anonymous said:
You clearly don't have a clue about pharma pricing/profitability and just wanted to rant about "liberals" attacking the industry.

Some quick economics: when demand for a product is high, companies have the ability to raise prices (duh - I'm sure you knew that already). However, demand in pharma isn't only measured by the number of people requesting access to a drug, but also by the need for your product. Basically, insurers and payers are willing to pay much, much more for a life-saving drug (for a rare condition) than for something like Vyvanse. Naturally, Vyvanse sales dollars are so high because of scale effects (large number of customers), while on the other hand rare disease sales are high because of relatively higher prices. So even though a rare condition may affect only 1 out of every 150,000 people, the treatment for such a disease may be lifesaving, thus placing a much higher demand for the product. In this case, pharmas can charge very high prices for a drug that effects a small group of people. In many cases these rare disease drugs are used by patients to treat their condition for the rest of their life. This is very different from traditional drug products that are taken sporadically or for a short duration as prescribed by a physician to treat a common condition. Also, rare disease drugs are usually biologics, which pretty much insulates them from generic competition, so pharmas that focus on rare disease products rarely have to worry about the looming loss of revenue from having a drug come off of patent protection.

Here's an example: Take a drug that affects 10 million people and costs $300 per patient per year to treat. This would equate to $3 billion of annual revenue for the pharma company. Now consider a rare disease that affects 100,000 people and costs $50,000 per patient per year to treat. That is $5 billion of annual revenue for the rare disease pharma company.

Now do you see how your rant on liberals making pharma into non-profits and rare disease doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...

Insurers and payers are never willing to pay more for anything- lifesaving or not
 
























Flem gambled and went all in with rare disease... HE BET WRONG... it was well known it was not a good decision at the time and even more well known now... it's rare disease... even if u do charge $400 a year per patient there aren't a lot of them and yes it is morally wrong to charge that much...I only went to college for 4 years and I figured it out before he bought baxalta and overpaid by billions... i have also called out every other bad decision including ped and adult NBU territories.... some of those relationships just might have helped this GEP debacle and Mydayis launch... i didn't need med school to figure that one out... Flem and his band are incompetent and need to go...
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote