Are the EDR tests reimbursed by: Medicare Blues Oxford Aetna Can they compete if a competitor can duplicate their testing?
I have heard that this company has lots of open positions, a lot of turnover and is sometimes late with their paychecks.
Great company, culture, Pipeline, opportunity, Money,,,,,,Lots of travel though. And no, I am not management.
This company is old news. Outdated technology, old tired reps, no new studies...relying on business from Dr's who don't even know why they use them anymore...tests are very questionable as are methods... Run...this smells bad
Chemo resistance (sensitivity) has been around for a very long time - Oncotech has the advantage that no else who has it (genzyme - who may be eliminating it & US labs). The tests are seen as a bit different by docs since oncotech pushes it as their first line but the tests were set up exactly the same (by the same person) at all three companies - hired - quit - hired - fired i think. Mostly research docs at cancer center these days. docs want to know what will work what most likely will not (see egfr, etc). Many companies are pushing the personalized medicine route but no one has a grouping of tests that together can assist a doc on where to go with their treatment. Those will come but it will be time. I know some very good people from there (no longer there) and nice to have small portfolio for testing so you can target - but just not enough interest from docs. If you need a job and want oncology experience for a stepping stone - not a bad deal. Especially now since many biotech undestand how hard and clinical lab is and teh "perception" is finally where it should be - much harder than selling med. And i sell a med (used to sell lab).
Have you heard any thing about Precision Therapeutics. I might have interview upcoming with them, but can not find any unbiased info. Do you have any idea what their reps make? I am hearing 200-300K do know if that is anywhere near accurate? I ask because it sounds as though you have some info on this field. Thanks,
sounds like bs at that compensation - docs are wary of chemo response tests as they ususally do not give you what else WILL work not just will not. I am with start up that directs docs to specific therapy based on a number of factors so adoption has been pretty good - genetics is where it is at. 23 day turn around time (per breast study) will not fly.
not yet but when we grow then we will..........good luck. most will be start up unless a big boy scoops up their technology/markers.
Medicare Cuts and the Demise of Oncotech Oncotech was an American laboratory providing individual chemoresponse testing as a service to patients and physicians since the mid-1980s. It was co-founded by Drs. Robert Nagourney and Larry Weisenthal. They each left the company in the early 1990s, over disagreements with the controlling investors (4 venture capital companies) over the management and directions of the company. Dr. Weisenthal remained supportive of the company, over the years, and played an important role in securing and, later, retaining reimbursement by Medicare for their services. Drs. Nagourney and Weisenthal each started their own small private laboratories to offer related cell culture testing services. Oncotech continued operations as a privately-held, venture-capital controlled company until February of 2008, when it was acquired by a Danish biotechnology company called Exiqon, Inc. for $45 million (US) in Exiqon securities. Exiqon replaced the Oncotech CEO and installed its own management team, continuing to operate Oncotech as a wholly-owned subsidiary, with a business model centered around providing chemoresponse assays on a (US) national basis — importantly to Medicare patients. In the case of Weisenthal Cancer Group, they opted out of Medicare, effective July 1, 2008, because the reimbursements received from Medicare did not cover our costs of providing our services (although they are still required to file a Medicare claim on your behalf). Exiqon Oncotech, however, depended on Medicare reimbursement to support its business model. In the USA, Medicare coverage decisions for many types of medical services are made at the regional level (Local Coverage Decision or LCD), by the private insurance companies with which Medicare contracts to administer services to Medicare beneficiaries. Previous Medicare contractors for California made the determination that chemoresponse assays qualified as a Medicare covered service. These included the TransAmerica and National Heritage Insurance (NHIC) companies. Most recently, an insurance company called Palmetto was awarded the contract to administer Medicare services for California. Palmetto made the decision to discontinue Medicare payment for chemoresponse assays in California. Last week, Exiqon Oncotech announced that it was discontinuing operations, because of the withdrawal of Medicare reimbursement for its services. This was an entirely understandable, if regrettable, decision. What was in no way understandable — or defendable, for that matter — was the way that they ceased operations. Exiqon Oncotech sent out notifications to its client physicians that it was ceasing operations, virtually immediately. On a single day this past week, they received two dozen specimens from human tumor biopsies via FedEx and other couriers. All of these specimens were simply sent back to the hospitals and clinics which sent the specimens. Physicians were told that there were no other laboratories who could perform the tests requested. While it is true that no other American laboratories have chosen to utilize Exiqon Oncotech’s non-proprietary technology for chemoresponse assays, it was well known to Exiqon Oncotech that there are a number of highly experienced, well qualified, well-published American laboratories which provide this service, utilizing different, but at least comparably valid, technologies (cell-death as opposed to cell-growth endpoints). There have been only two previous, investor-backed, clinical laboratory companies which provided chemoresponse assays as a service to patients, only to make the decision that their business models were no longer viable. These companies were Analytical Biosystems and NuOncology Laboratories. When these latter companies ceased operations they did so in an orderly fashion, giving their clients adequate advance warning and winding down operations at a pace which enabled them to provide testing for those patients and physicians who had already planned and depended upon receiving these services, and these companies were open and helpful in providing their former client physicians with contact information for other laboratories within the US which continued to provide chemoresponse assay services. In the case of Exiqon Oncotech’s two dozen tumor specimens simply marked “return to sender,” It can scarcely be imagined anything more irresponsible. In many of those cases, doubtless the physicians and/or surgeons discussed in advance with their patients the importance of sending their biopsies for cell culture analysis. In some cases, the surgical procedure may have been performed primarily for the purpose of this analysis. In other cases, the patients were doubtless comforted by knowing that this testing was to be performed. Business is business, but, at a certain point, business is also about people, and cancer business is, or should be, about cancer patients. Many are saddened by the shuttering of Oncotech’s doors, 25 years after its founding, and are ashamed at the way in which those doors were apparently shutterd. It should be noted that the Medicare contractor for the state of Pennsylvania continues to provide coverage for chemoresponse assays and that there is an experienced laboratory in Pennsylvania (Precision Therapeutics) which both provides the assays and accepts Medicare reimbursement as payment in full. California laboratories continuing to provide chemoresponse assays with functional profiling (without Medicare reimbursement, possibly requiring patient payment for services) include Rational Therapeutics, Anticancer, Inc., and Weisenthal Cancer Group.
Some members of Oncotech's BOD wanted out since the company could not deliver on its ROI and growth projections. The company was overvalued when it was sold and the new company didn't know how its reimbursement model functioned and was bleeding money trying to fix it. The let go of all senior management and brought in some highly educated and seasoned professionals to turn it around, but it didn't work.
