(Total Views: 522)
Posted On: 12/11/2019 10:49:27 AM
Post# of 153984
Not that anyone cares but here is what I’m thinking:
NP can sign the deal today. The Bod interests are aligned with ours and they are accountable if NP makes these statements while untruthfull.
So, why did he change his mind? What happened? What’s the relation between the HIV deal and cancer trial progress?
The answer is clear. Cancer treatments have very different price tags than HIV treatments. The difference between being able to charge $ 120.000 or $ 30.000. While it might be technically possible to package/ label/name the same Leronlimab differently for different purposes I do not feel having different price tags would be accepted by insurers/the public/government.
Thus I think there can only be one price tag.
When negotiations started maybe they were thinking of a HIV sales price of $ 36.000.
Then it was probably okay to let the partner take 50% of that.
Meanwhile things have changed, it might have become more likely that in future L. can be sold for higher prices.
This would request for a higher HIV price tag (to avoid price differences).
Let’s say $ 60.000.
If our partner still would get 50% he would receive $ 30.000 instead of $ 18.000 for the same job while it’s caused by something they had nothing to do with.
So, yes, cancer (or any other) trial progress is very much related to our HIV agreement imo.
The pause makes sense, if cancer trials are succesful we deserve an even better deal OR we’ve been approached by BP that has changed the scenario.
NP can sign the deal today. The Bod interests are aligned with ours and they are accountable if NP makes these statements while untruthfull.
So, why did he change his mind? What happened? What’s the relation between the HIV deal and cancer trial progress?
The answer is clear. Cancer treatments have very different price tags than HIV treatments. The difference between being able to charge $ 120.000 or $ 30.000. While it might be technically possible to package/ label/name the same Leronlimab differently for different purposes I do not feel having different price tags would be accepted by insurers/the public/government.
Thus I think there can only be one price tag.
When negotiations started maybe they were thinking of a HIV sales price of $ 36.000.
Then it was probably okay to let the partner take 50% of that.
Meanwhile things have changed, it might have become more likely that in future L. can be sold for higher prices.
This would request for a higher HIV price tag (to avoid price differences).
Let’s say $ 60.000.
If our partner still would get 50% he would receive $ 30.000 instead of $ 18.000 for the same job while it’s caused by something they had nothing to do with.
So, yes, cancer (or any other) trial progress is very much related to our HIV agreement imo.
The pause makes sense, if cancer trials are succesful we deserve an even better deal OR we’ve been approached by BP that has changed the scenario.
(6)
(0)
