It was a five-year, $59.9 million contract and no
Post# of 30070
Posted On: 10/06/2015 7:56:01 PM
[Edit] It was a five-year, $59.9 million contract and not the 47m I was doing from memory. Here's the story from a week ago:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/09/20150930b.html
They didn't give them $250M. It's potentially $250M. I think I read in another article the other day it was $47M.
This was mentioned in the conference call update and I view as good news. It opens up another market opportunity. AMBS also presented to the panel in May with more to come.
Oddly enough, these are the same numbers mentioned over two years ago below. Did the contract get pulled and reinstated? Not the last study they did and showed top line numbers were for deep partial-thickness burns. Not full thickness burns.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2013073...hRb71RViko
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/09/20150930b.html
Quote:
Oh great in true AMBS fashion the government just gave the competitor 250 million
They didn't give them $250M. It's potentially $250M. I think I read in another article the other day it was $47M.
This was mentioned in the conference call update and I view as good news. It opens up another market opportunity. AMBS also presented to the panel in May with more to come.
Quote:
- Potential for continued support. $130M awarded by US Gov. for wound care very recently.
- ESS was presented to a special panel in May. Some of this data will available in Q4. Currently completing a review.
Read More: investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3236673#ixzz3npnmiDC0
Oddly enough, these are the same numbers mentioned over two years ago below. Did the contract get pulled and reinstated? Not the last study they did and showed top line numbers were for deep partial-thickness burns. Not full thickness burns.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2013073...hRb71RViko
(0)
(0)