FreeStyle Libre

Discussion in 'Abbott' started by Anonymous, Oct 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    This new device is doing well in Europe. If you read the blogs, tweets, and other sites it is obvious that it is a very helpful meter for those who have diabetes.

    I know some will post here and talk about "old technology" and it "cost too much", etc, etc. But the truth is simple, ADC came up with a very cool tool for these patients. For those who worked on this product be proud that you made life much easier for many people.
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Yes it is an interesting new product. And for some patients it will have an enthusiastic following as it really will make a positive difference for them.

    But are there enough buyers to turn a profit?
    In a word - no.

    Patients have a choice of paying full price for Libre or getting a free and for most quite adequate strip from their health provider. Paying extra is not something large numbers of people will do.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It cost, at present, about $5/day. I suspect it will drop lower at some point in time. One post showed a disassembled sensor and there is only a battery and one IC and a few passive parts. Can't cost that much to make.

    The real question is what will this be reimbursed? If, let say the price goes down to $4 a day, and the reimbursement is $2 (maybe the same as 3 or 4 strips). Then the user cost is $2 a day or about $700/yr. CGM cost $15/day or $5,500/yr. I think there will be a market for FGM if Abbott can get some level of reimbursement for Libre.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Reimbursement is a moving target. The rates are going one way - downwards.

    But that isn't the only or even the most serious problem. The nature of the product means it is only an interim solution, a watered down version of CGM without an insulin pump. It will be overtaken by competition within 5 years.

    Now that would be ok if the product sold strongly from the get-go, like a new mobile phone.
    But that is not possible in a market where most users are not buyers. Not with ADC in its current form.

    Now someone else could well make a success of this - but with 50 staff not 1500. Any ADC buyer would have to completely change the operation to make a profit.
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It is still in test mode, a scaled mini-launch, carefully controlled, with costs being off-set. The number of people's hands it is in is extremely limited. It has been "in market" for weeks, not months. Way too early to male any conclusions.

    You have to stop being so defensive and desperate. No one has said it is not a "cool tool", or that you shouldn't be proud of how you updated this US-developed technology. You made it better, despite the handicap of accomplishing this feat in the 3rd world.

    We had to pass on this because it couldn't sell enough in the US to go into production. And that was pre-Obamacare. The market situation is even worse here now that we are on the threshold of European style socialized, government run healthcare.

    Or are you doing PR?
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    He's talking about Europe. The cost is being subsidized by ADC.

    In the US, BGM costs about $1.52 per day for a Type I, and $0.76 per day for Type II. This is course not Freestyle, which costs 2.5X these costs per day, and why, incidentally, we are not preferred and loose formularies all the time, and consequently sales and share are in a steady decline.

    CGM, or our latest iteration, Fusion, will not be approved for Type II. Navigator was rejected, and so will Fusion. That is the kiss of death: the only way CGM prices can get to what you quote is with the efficiency of mass quantity mfg, i.e Type II's. In other words, the current prices are heavily subsidized by ADC in order to open the door for discussion.

    Technologically for Type I's it has advantages, but the hugh cost per day is only off-set by its usage in a small percentage of Type I's.

    Net-net, there is absolutely no way ADC can afford to launch any CGM product anywhere. i mean really launch this, not this controlled test in Europe.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Read this. It's a pretty good summation and may be helpful. I know the latter part of this will be a surprise to those of you in the 3rd world, but this is the direction of the US. This was a response to one of you in the ADC thread that some one wrote. Perhaps not all 100% accurate, but I though it was interesting and in-line with what we are hearing and seeing.

    "In a couple of weeks, in a few back-water markets, in what is essentially a test, you have concluded Libre to be a success? Based on what, a few videos?

    There's a long way to go before anything can be determined about this product's viability. Not for what it does, but for going in to full production and a real launch. In the USA. The key barrier to CGM is, and always has been, the cost vs. the opportunity.

    It has already been determined that to meet the minimum criteria to justify a launch it has to be approved for Type II. In the USA that has been a flat out and resounding "no" from all the Plans and formularies.

    In Europe, the market is small enough that a test launch with Type I's, with ABT defraying the cost to match existing products, is acceptable. Not so in the USA.

    In the USA, the cost must be a minimum neutral to existing tools to get on formulary. For Type II's, who do not need CGM, the cost neutral is unreachable. Libra was an attempt to lower the cost. ABT went as far as it could, but it is still too high.

    The other barrier for the USA is accuracy. All meters in the US must meet FDA regs for accuracy, meaning they are all +/- in a small acceptable range. IOW, all meters perform the same. Word is that CGM may fall just outside that range. It can be argued that CGM benefits outweigh that for those that need it, and I agree. BUT the FDA would need to change regs, meaning the approval process is exponentially more daunting than it already is.

    Libre is, as others have pointed out, "old" technology, just brought up to date.

    Here's the future, and where this idea can approach being cost effective: went the sensor can be easily implanted in-office at a routine visit, and remain long term, as in years. And there is no meter, but an app and a universal reader found on all smart watches, which then feed smart phones and patient dashboards at the medical office.

    That future will come, and is on the drawing boards at literally thousands of companies globally right now. Everyone that makes a fit band or similar product, or a smart watch, or a medical device. This is in its infancy, and all those wrist bands and smart watches are not even the first generation. It will take several years for standards to evolve, where a common reader is used on all wearables.

    For diabetes monitoring, the game will be two things:

    First, the sensor where, you guessed it, the lowest cost will win. Sensors will have to meet FDA requirements, so they will all have to perform the same, as BGM does today.

    Second, the app and integration into medical practitioner's office. To win the data must seamlessly integrate with patient dashboards. The winners on the overarching universal systems will be, yes of course, software providers who can bring together all of the new patient data that will stream in from wearable and other apps patients will have.

    Now where does ADC fit in this future? Is ADC the low cost provider of anything? The implanted sensor business will be a commodity business. Does anyone think ABT will play there?

    Is ADC a software company? What has been our track record on anything close to this? Yep, typical ABT stand-alone, incompatible, cumbersome junk. We are a pharma company, and will stick to what we know best.

    So Navigator and Libre are bi planes at the dawn of the jet age. Necessary, yes. Good products and ideas, yes. But very short term. ABT know this, and that is why it pulled the R&D plug long ago, and had been trying to exit glucose monitoring for years.

    Libre is, my guess, a live demonstration to convince someone to buy the technology. Someone who wants to be the low cost provider of sensors perhaps?"
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You don't know anything about this product. You have been consistently wrong about the technology. Wrong about the Abbott commitment to production. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    You are the only person I know who considers Germany, Italy , and the UK "third word". Libre was not released in the US because many companies find it faster to start with Europe given how slow the FDA can be with new ideas.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Are you diabetic? Do you use insulin? I know people who are and who do use insulin or have children who are type I. They will use whatever tool they can find to keep themselves and loved ones safe. To assume that they will not spend money on new products assist in this is very foolish.

    You and others on this board forget that the reasons for these testing tools are to help people manage their condition. CGM does that very well but it is too costly and cumbersome (in it's current form). FGM does almost the same thing for a third or a fourth the cost . It is a better way to protect yourself or those you care for. BGM is useful but it is an old obsolete technology.

    It won't be much longer before low cost CGM like devices sending data to a cell phone will be the standard of care. Abbott may not move fast enough to stay up with all this but at least they tried.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The limited launch makes perfect sense as a technology demonstrator. And the European Union is certainly not the third world.

    But has any BGM product over the last 30 years been viable without significant US sales ? I do not believe so.

    A full US launch within 6 months will prove their long term intentions to back this product. If there isn't one, we can conclude that no volume manufacture is planned.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I agree. Diabetes monitoring technology is at an inflection point and Abbott's Libre is the first affordable CGM system. If Abbott is truly going to play this they need to launch FGM in the US soon.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    ????
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    This is strictly a door stop. Nobody wants an over priced unit insurance will not pay for.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Really? I guess you have complete knowledge about this. Bull crap.

    If any new system can show improved outcomes, that is if the cost of the system saves the insurance company money because the system prevents or reduces disease complications, the insurance company will pay. Thus as these new technologies roll out, FGM, cheaper CGM, or others, they will be adopted if they improve outcomes.

    Why do you think BGM is now paid for? It showed that it can prevent further diabetes related problems thus saving the insurance companies money.

    This board is full of Luddites....no forward thinking about the potential of new ideas and technologies.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Medicare won't pay for this. Too expensive.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You're probably right. But, as the other guy said, at $700 a year it is affordable. And if the price drops, which it will, it is easier to justify buying it. Others here say that the blogs and tweets have no meaning. Not true. Follow the discussions. Many of these type ones and insulin using type twos feel that paying an extra few bucks a day to stay healthy and alive is worth it. Consider, at $4 a day this product only cost as much as a morning latte. I saw one blog about a mother who used Libre on their five year old daughter. Not allowed yet but, she checked the reading against a meter. The numbers were spot on.

    However, traditional CGM at $15 to $20 day is a different story.

    So, this is a game changer. It does almost the same function as CGM for much less. Affordably less. Patients will pay for a product that makes their life easier and safer. This is a similar scenario to what happened with BGM. Another thing to remember it cost about $70 for an A1C test. Doctors do this once every two or three months for insulin users. Libre does this as part of the product function. So there some is savings for in this.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Yes, it's good you agree with your own post... My my you poor dear. All worked up, are we?
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    And it still costs 4x BGM, with what may be less accuracy. Again, you completely miss the point. Are you thick? No one has said it'the not a good product and has benefits. It's simple economics. Stick to the EU. You can't understand the USA market.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You haven't a clue. ADC tried for the last half dozen years to play that game. And completely failed. Over 90% of the U.S. market is paid for. There is mot enough business out of the 10% to keep BGM afloat. As for Cfusion, like CGM, the plans have already said no be side it's too expensive. Your desperate defense is getting pathetic.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    And I imagine you still use a $20 a month flip phone because it is cheaper? Or do you have an iPhone or Samsung that cost a few bucks more. Average monthly bill for a smart phone is not much less than the cost of this new CGM device. How many will pay that extra few bucks so they don't have to test with a BGM at night? Or wake up their 5 year old type one child to get a reading? Right around the corner there will be true cost effective CGM that is easy to use and sends the data to a cell phone. The data and alarms can go anywhere at that point. Not to even mention the hospital uses. The Abbott product is just the beginning. Others are working on similar maybe better technologies. You are so blinded by cost that you don't see the added value of new technology. What is pathetic is your limited imagination and total lack of understanding of technological progression.