(Total Views: 391)
Posted On: 04/03/2018 4:25:49 PM
Post# of 11803
Re: DirkEaston #4625
LifeScan’s performance has been weighed down in recent years due to pricing pressure stemming from competition
Sort of a lie. Lifescan's performance in recent years is a direct result of three factors:
1. a byzantine pricing mechanism worldwide for its products that allowed them to raise prices on retail store packaged products almost at will, until they couldn't.
2. The 2013 Medicare Competitive Bidding Regulations that eliminated 60% of Lifescan's U.S. market because they could no longer maintain packaging for Mail Order and DME customers who were also forced out of the business by Medicare.
3. A slew of market factors which has led to 60% of the entire diabetes testing market to lower testing rates (per day) for legacy products by 56%.
The unit has also faced challenges securing rights to newer technology
Another sort of untruth. Lifescan would be the almost unchallenged market leader had their 2010-2011 product, code named Ultima, been able to be brought to market. This was a Lifescan internally developed product that made use of OneTouch-type technology (something that Lifescan knew enough about to recreate and improve) and offered the market in 2011-2012 something that DECN is now about to offer. If DECN will be able to pick up 6% worldwide market share, then Lifescan would have been able to pick up 46% or 66%. Now it won't and the OneTouch product line is beginning to swirl. Ask Ross Perot about that swirling sound.
As far as buying product or technology that the quote says is the real problem. nonsense. Lifescan has two problems in that area,
1. a history of acquiring a product and then firing everyone originally associated with the development, and then attempting to ruin the lives of the inventors by reneging on contracts of acquisition and then suing the inventors.
2. and even if an inventor or group was dumb enough to agree to talk to Lifescan about technology transfer, Lifescan has about the worst "not invented here" problem in the industry.
Lifescan is lucky to get $2.1 billion but IMO that number will not hold up to post-Definitive Agreement Due Diligence.
Sort of a lie. Lifescan's performance in recent years is a direct result of three factors:
1. a byzantine pricing mechanism worldwide for its products that allowed them to raise prices on retail store packaged products almost at will, until they couldn't.
2. The 2013 Medicare Competitive Bidding Regulations that eliminated 60% of Lifescan's U.S. market because they could no longer maintain packaging for Mail Order and DME customers who were also forced out of the business by Medicare.
3. A slew of market factors which has led to 60% of the entire diabetes testing market to lower testing rates (per day) for legacy products by 56%.
The unit has also faced challenges securing rights to newer technology
Another sort of untruth. Lifescan would be the almost unchallenged market leader had their 2010-2011 product, code named Ultima, been able to be brought to market. This was a Lifescan internally developed product that made use of OneTouch-type technology (something that Lifescan knew enough about to recreate and improve) and offered the market in 2011-2012 something that DECN is now about to offer. If DECN will be able to pick up 6% worldwide market share, then Lifescan would have been able to pick up 46% or 66%. Now it won't and the OneTouch product line is beginning to swirl. Ask Ross Perot about that swirling sound.
As far as buying product or technology that the quote says is the real problem. nonsense. Lifescan has two problems in that area,
1. a history of acquiring a product and then firing everyone originally associated with the development, and then attempting to ruin the lives of the inventors by reneging on contracts of acquisition and then suing the inventors.
2. and even if an inventor or group was dumb enough to agree to talk to Lifescan about technology transfer, Lifescan has about the worst "not invented here" problem in the industry.
Lifescan is lucky to get $2.1 billion but IMO that number will not hold up to post-Definitive Agreement Due Diligence.
(3)
(0)
