sharetrader
  1. #19291
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    962

    Default

    My question is, given these announcements have driven the SP, and you have no other proof od adoption, is the current SP warranted?

  2. #19292
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psychic View Post
    My question is, given these announcements have driven the SP, and you have no other proof od adoption, is the current SP warranted?
    I guess we will know with a bit more clarity in couple of weeks. Either way I don't see them delivering the dough in a substantial way from these announcement till starting FY2022.

  3. #19293
    Alley Cat Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Hoagy’s Alley
    Posts
    1,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psychic View Post
    My question is, given these announcements have driven the SP, and you have no other proof od adoption, is the current SP warranted?
    Who knows?

    I remain a shareholder and I am positive about the future because.

    A. The test costs about $100 and sells for $ 1000 approx
    B CX way less invasive than cystoscopy
    C Insurers will save money.
    D very large market potential

    PEB is speculative but in my view has huge potential but we will have to wait 2 years at least before we see substantial growth and some profitability.
    Last edited by Brain; 06-05-2021 at 04:50 PM.

  4. #19294
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Can I unpack and comment on these responses for you then.

    NCCN Guidelines: The inclusion of urine molecular tests for UC markers into the NCCN
    guidelines in 2019 is specifically for follow up of high-risk NMIBC with level 2B evidence,
    as indicated. This inclusion language is a departure (improvement) from previous
    versions which explicitly excluded the use of urinary UC markers for all follow up
    patients. The use of urinary UC markers is specifically referenced in the NCCN review
    language and collectively refers to those biomarker tests assessed in the 2015 Review
    paper by Chou et al. which includes Cxbladder.

    Use of urinary biomarkers went from explicity excluded to "may use" as an adjunct in high risk nmibc surveillance only, with the weakest 2b recommendation. Yes, Cxbladder was one of the tests mentioned by Chou et al who came up with conclusion that Urinary biomarkers should not be used. You will find no support there, from memory the study was critical of both results and bias of available studies.
    (ie studies funded by Pacific Edge). At best it is mentioned in passing.

    Implying to the market that Cxbladder was now part of the clinical pathway seems downright misleading to me.

    Kaiser Permanente (KP): The commercial arrangements of the relationship with KP are
    confidential however as stated, the agreement covers all of the available Cxbladder
    products. You are correct that the initial clinical evaluation of Cxbladder by KP was in a
    hematuria evaluation setting and we would have expected this to translate to KP
    adopting Cxbladder Triage, however KP indicated that they wished to introduce
    Cxbladder into their organisation in the follow up surveillance setting to start with. This
    is their decision and entirely understandable since it allows KP clinicians to maintain
    contact with their bladder cancer patients as they socialise the Cxbladder technology
    within the organisation (clinicians and patients alike). We have every expectation that
    KP will at some point publish their hematuria study data and in time will also extend their
    adoption of Cxbladder into the hematuria evaluation setting, but ultimately that is their
    decision.

    So they don't argue. The much ramped Triage review was a flop, no acknowledgement about this to market. Odd for a Company on the podium for Investor relations. Maybe KP are concerned about imaging being the adjunct as Minerbarejet is, I don't know.
    But okay, hopefully they will adopt in time. KP have been looking into ways they can reduce unnecessary cytoscopies for many years.
    We have no evidence of uptake of Monitor at this stage, sure is taking a long time to bed into the KP system or however it was PE explained the lag

    July LCD by CMS: The link you have provided is an earlier version of the ‘proposed
    LCDÂ’ which was in circulation for consultation. The final published LCD is L35396 and
    the exclusion language relating to Cxbladder you refer to was removed following
    submissions from Pacific Edge and other parties such that now the only requirement for
    reimbursement by CMS is the use of valid CPT codes and the statement of medical
    necessity. Medical necessity is determined by the referring physician and does not
    require that Cxbladder is used instead of cystoscopy, since in most cases Cxbladder is
    used in addition to cystoscopy in the US. Provided these criteria are met (which they are
    for all CMS patients) Pacific Edge is receiving 100% (full) reimbursement for claims
    within 40 days of claim submission. As we noted in the newsletter and at the half year,
    CMS related tests accounted for a significant proportion (~67%) of our commercial test
    throughput in the US for the first half of FY21 – this is quite different from the ‘very few’
    you suggest.

    L35396 does not seem to mention Cxbladder at all but will take PE’s word for it that the Monitor and Detect tests are included in the approved Novitas schedule which I cannot access but the LCD references. But the draft we have is certainly not supportive and so that must have been a very convincing argument by PE to have the final policy contradict this. Some proof would be nice.

    For me it comes back to this“medically necessary” requirement then, the part I struggle to have confidence in most. Cxbladder is largely being used as an adjunct to cystoscopy. The physician must be able to certify that the test is necessary when the AUA say they should not and the NCCN guidelines offer the weakest “may use” as an adjunct (and for monitoring high risk NMIBC only)

    If they are able to demonstrate in the financial results 100% reimbursement of all CMS tests as this reply suggests then I will be happy that they are making the progress they claim – regardless of my wild interpretation of the guidelines. I will try work out an estimate of what that should mean later…

    "Medically necessary" implies
    (a) it is in accordance with nationally accepted standards (ie The AUA / NCCN guidelines)
    (b) It is clinically appropriate and effective
    (c) Not primarilly for personal comfort or convenienceof patient or physician

    United Healthcare: As stated in the newsletter and as announced to the NZX United
    Healthcare have commenced coverage of Cxbladder in the Medicare Advantage
    policies. We have provided you with a link to their policy. View Full Policy - PDF (page
    2 of 52).

    They agree. CxBladder is only covered by United under its Medicare Policy, not those it underwrites itself.
    Aside from the tricky notion they present that United are aboard and all their customers have access to Cxbladder, then seemingly it is only for those under Medicare, only as an adjunct in surveillance of high risk NMIBC, only when considered medically necessary.

    We will see.
    Last edited by psychic; 07-05-2021 at 11:41 AM.

  5. #19295
    AWOL
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Vacation
    Posts
    2,782

    Default

    Given that the Medicare covers most of the population over 65 and Bladder Cancer as a disease falls mainly in that group I would suggest they (United) may find it "medically unnecessary" to include all the others.

  6. #19296
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minerbarejet View Post
    Given that the Medicare covers most of the population over 65 and Bladder Cancer as a disease falls mainly in that group I would suggest they (United) may find it "medically unnecessary" to include all the others.
    Then why exclude those outside this group, why hasn't United covered Cxbladder under its own policies?

    United cover only those in that group under Medicare. Medicare say tests are covered if medically necessary. Medically necessary means must be recommended under clincal guidelines. Clinical guidelines say maybe(?) use tumour markers as an adjunct in surveillance of high risk non muscle invasive bladder cancer only (otherwise do not use).

    How many tests do you reckon?

  7. #19297
    AWOL
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Vacation
    Posts
    2,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psychic View Post
    Then why exclude those outside this group, why hasn't United covered Cxbladder under its own policies?

    United cover only those in that group under Medicare. Medicare say tests are covered if medically necessary. Medically necessary means must be recommended under clincal guidelines. Clinical guidelines say maybe(?) use tumour markers as an adjunct in surveillance of high risk non muscle invasive bladder cancer only (otherwise do not use).

    How many tests do you reckon?
    "Tens of thousands"



    You did ask.

    With all the shenanigans over Covid how do you follow clinical guidelines if you cant get into the clinic to follow them?
    Last edited by Minerbarejet; 09-05-2021 at 11:40 AM.

  8. #19298
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minerbarejet View Post
    "Tens of thousands"



    You did ask.

    With all the shenanigans over Covid how do you follow clinical guidelines if you cant get into the clinic to follow them?
    Haha, yes, several tens of thousands perhaps.

    And a fair question that, I have no idea but I'm going to guess that Covid or no Covid, Urologists are still turning a coin through cysto's.

  9. #19299
    Alley Cat Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Hoagy’s Alley
    Posts
    1,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psychic View Post
    Haha, yes, several tens of thousands perhaps.

    And a fair question that, I have no idea but I'm going to guess that Covid or no Covid, Urologists are still turning a coin through cysto's.
    I would expect the insurance companies will get pissed off with the Urologists taking the more expensive option. Both the insurance companies and the patients will be in PEB’s corner.

  10. #19300
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain View Post
    I would expect the insurance companies will get pissed off with the Urologists taking the more expensive option. Both the insurance companies and the patients will be in PEB’s corner.
    Can't agree, the US Insurers are not in PEB's corner yet, Cxbladder is investigational only and not covered. They will always need to follow gold standard. It is simply not a Cystoscopy vs Cxbladder test thing in the US yet, Cxbladder is only an adjunct in Surveillance, and an expensive one at that.

    I've never really understood the price point around the tests tbh. Perhaps if the tests were a tenth of the price and on high volume they might have become mainstream as an excellent adjunct to both Cytology and cystoscopy years ago? So many promising tests being developed these days, price will become an issue sooner or later.

    I'd question if a cystoscopic exam is more expensive than Cxbladder atm. Not my understanding.
    Last edited by psychic; 09-05-2021 at 03:01 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •