Natera sales

Quote
I also noted that they are now in contract with United, BCBS, Anthem, Aetna, Humana and Cigna. We will see what that does to revenue in Q2 as bills will be less and collection will be contracted not appealed. But they are certainly heading in a much better direction than SQNM.
 












anonymous said:
Not really - turnover seems to be a major component. A recent glassdoor review noted that "over 200 people left in the last few years, not good." And this was from the company's recruiter.
Click to expand...

Yes - of those two hundred - bulk majority was all the employees tied in via quest and Progenity. They have hired massive amounts of people and grown from 150 employees to 600 employees in just past 2 years. Nice detective work though. Sounds like a recruiter lost his contract and was upset. I mean - who goes on glass door to post anything nice or positive?
 






anonymous said:
Yes - of those two hundred - bulk majority was all the employees tied in via quest and Progenity. They have hired massive amounts of people and grown from 150 employees to 600 employees in just past 2 years. Nice detective work though. Sounds like a recruiter lost his contract and was upset. I mean - who goes on glass door to post anything nice or positive?
Click to expand...

That's not what I hear. Our very own MH in marketing who left Natera to join us has said that their marketing department is a real mess with extreme turnover. Furthermore, many senior execs have left including their CMO, VP of finance, VP of sales (our beloved DC)...

There is a strong correlation between the quality of company and their Glass door ratings. Apple is rated 4.0. Google is 4.4. Facebook is 4.5. LinkedIn is 4.4.

Within the world of healthcare, Genentech is 4.1, Illumina is 4.0, Counsyl is 3.8, Pac Bio is 4.0.

On the other extreme, Valeant is rated 2.1, Natera is 2.7 and we are at 2.8.

So at least we are beating Natera in something!
 






anonymous said:
That's not what I hear. Our very own MH in marketing who left Natera to join us has said that their marketing department is a real mess with extreme turnover. Furthermore, many senior execs have left including their CMO, VP of finance, VP of sales (our beloved DC)...

There is a strong correlation between the quality of company and their Glass door ratings. Apple is rated 4.0. Google is 4.4. Facebook is 4.5. LinkedIn is 4.4.

Within the world of healthcare, Genentech is 4.1, Illumina is 4.0, Counsyl is 3.8, Pac Bio is 4.0.

On the other extreme, Valeant is rated 2.1, Natera is 2.7 and we are at 2.8.

So at least we are beating Natera in something!
Click to expand...

Haha! Fair enough. The majority of employees I interact with here love it. Pertaining DC, he simply was offered a position he wouldn't have been able to get to at Natera. Good people leave to advance their careers, it's nothing more than that. He is now with another start up where is completely in charge and not 2nd fiddle to anyone else. Our CMO still has a ton of stock in the company and is just contracting with a bunch of new companies and traveling. Again, life choices that aren't really indicative of the company culture. As far as marketing dept, isn't that the case for every company? You know as well as I do in the medical field, it's always on to the next best thing with a high frequency. Dare we try to compete with the pay and lifestyle of unicorns like FB, Apple, Google and LinkedIn, haha!
 












none of this matters anyway to Sequenom in the long run. If reps arent looking for plan B they are idiots; they will be out of work from acquisition by Q4. new VP was brought in to clean up and prep for purchase. Just think about it. It all adds up, not to mention what has been flying around the street lately.
Done deal.
 






anonymous said:
none of this matters anyway to Sequenom in the long run. If reps arent looking for plan B they are idiots; they will be out of work from acquisition by Q4. new VP was brought in to clean up and prep for purchase. Just think about it. It all adds up, not to mention what has been flying around the street lately.
Done deal.
Click to expand...

Natera will purchase Seq

Write that down.
 


















it will and then fire sale time

All those Seq customers will finally have a better test forced on them, and will finally see what they've been missing.

#callingtheunpregnantpregnant
 
























anonymous said:
it will and then fire sale time

All those Seq customers will finally have a better test forced on them, and will finally see what they've been missing.

#callingtheunpregnantpregnant
Click to expand...

A real test? Your BS test can't classify 15% of the population the majority of the time. Your sensitivity and specificity don't include the 20% positive aneuploidy you excluded to get your inflated numbers. I forgot a 6% positive predictive value is really good when classifying 22q. Real test? Your test is nothing but shit packaged in a gold wrapper, billed at 10k for cytogenetics and charged 10$ to patients.


Panorama....what a joke.
 






Besides... In that "study", which was retracted, you classified that woman as Non-reportable... Which generally happens, with your test, anyhow....

That was merely a product of what to expect with your platform.
 






anonymous said:
A real test? Your BS test can't classify 15% of the population the majority of the time. Your sensitivity and specificity don't include the 20% positive aneuploidy you excluded to get your inflated numbers. I forgot a 6% positive predictive value is really good when classifying 22q. Real test? Your test is nothing but shit packaged in a gold wrapper, billed at 10k for cytogenetics and charged 10$ to patients.


Panorama....what a joke.
Click to expand...

.93 cents a share, that's a joke.

Wanna hear another joke?

Calling two non-pregnant women pregnant and reporting FF of 3.9% and 4.1% LOLOLOL

THATS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL!
 












anonymous said:
A real test? Your BS test can't classify 15% of the population the majority of the time. Your sensitivity and specificity don't include the 20% positive aneuploidy you excluded to get your inflated numbers. I forgot a 6% positive predictive value is really good when classifying 22q. Real test? Your test is nothing but shit packaged in a gold wrapper, billed at 10k for cytogenetics and charged 10$ to patients.


Panorama....what a joke.
Click to expand...

What study are you referencing where they didn't include 20% positive anueploidy. Also, if it was a positive call, shouldn't you include it to increase PPV and Sensitivity? I'm confused why they wouldn't include 20% of their anueploidies... Do explain and cite the study please.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote