Thank you. Just catching up with the 4-5 most recent posts.
I was wondering if you have any thoughts on radio-pharmaceuticals, say copper-64 (Cu-64 or 64Cu) or other isotopes? That is imaging as an EARLY detection tool? Seems less invasive and potentially more scalable (mass market type of product)?
Question - does your calculation assume any given prescriber would split their orders across >1 provider, assuming competition? Or is it more likely that a prescriber would prefer one provider and send all their patients there? In the latter case, does that change the impact of competition? Would I just need to cover 67 prescribers as long as they are super loyal?
The only way to get to profitability is increasing productivity of S&M spend and in large part the challenge with the comparison to Exact is difficult because the test is just not the attractive for the patient. In other words, every dollar spent on S&M ends up delivering less than what it should, assuming benchmarks from pharma around S&M productivity are relevant comparators. The interesting question is does a blood based option which is highly preferred by patients deliver better return on S&M and can companies pursue an enterprise approach to selling that allows them to juice the return on a lower cost base. Note that Mammograms have much greater compliance (penetration) and there are no promotional efforts outside of MD's recommending screening and advocacy building awareness. My point in raising Mammography is that you could forsee a technology (blood based potentially) driving greater penetration than Exacts current #'s and overall screening rates increase over time, driving up the size of the TAM.
I believe the way forward is through consumers - especially those that have been affected closely by "too late" diagnosis of family and friends - and who are likely to be willing to pay more than the minimum price to be tested every few years. I'll be running a study that will look at that exact question very soon - and I'm looking forward to the answers.
Great note. The only other upside lever for sales efficiency I’ve been thinking about is if the tests go viral. There’s something deeply unsexy about the cologuard test but with the right marketing could see it work with an MCED. Think the Peter Attia Dr. Oz of the world pushing these tests. Also, multiple companies marketing might be more TAM expanding (which has been a challenge with Cologuard), so combined spend could be beneficial in the end. Overall tend to agree with your skepticism
Hi Edward.
Thank you. Just catching up with the 4-5 most recent posts.
I was wondering if you have any thoughts on radio-pharmaceuticals, say copper-64 (Cu-64 or 64Cu) or other isotopes? That is imaging as an EARLY detection tool? Seems less invasive and potentially more scalable (mass market type of product)?
Thanks.
Question - does your calculation assume any given prescriber would split their orders across >1 provider, assuming competition? Or is it more likely that a prescriber would prefer one provider and send all their patients there? In the latter case, does that change the impact of competition? Would I just need to cover 67 prescribers as long as they are super loyal?
The only way to get to profitability is increasing productivity of S&M spend and in large part the challenge with the comparison to Exact is difficult because the test is just not the attractive for the patient. In other words, every dollar spent on S&M ends up delivering less than what it should, assuming benchmarks from pharma around S&M productivity are relevant comparators. The interesting question is does a blood based option which is highly preferred by patients deliver better return on S&M and can companies pursue an enterprise approach to selling that allows them to juice the return on a lower cost base. Note that Mammograms have much greater compliance (penetration) and there are no promotional efforts outside of MD's recommending screening and advocacy building awareness. My point in raising Mammography is that you could forsee a technology (blood based potentially) driving greater penetration than Exacts current #'s and overall screening rates increase over time, driving up the size of the TAM.
I believe the way forward is through consumers - especially those that have been affected closely by "too late" diagnosis of family and friends - and who are likely to be willing to pay more than the minimum price to be tested every few years. I'll be running a study that will look at that exact question very soon - and I'm looking forward to the answers.
Great note. The only other upside lever for sales efficiency I’ve been thinking about is if the tests go viral. There’s something deeply unsexy about the cologuard test but with the right marketing could see it work with an MCED. Think the Peter Attia Dr. Oz of the world pushing these tests. Also, multiple companies marketing might be more TAM expanding (which has been a challenge with Cologuard), so combined spend could be beneficial in the end. Overall tend to agree with your skepticism