Forum Topics BOT BOT Platform value

Pinned straw:

Last edited 2 months ago

Wow out old left field- I am just digesting how this news could impact Botanix’s value.

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-leads-senators-in-demanding-answers-from-pfizer-eli-lilly-on-new-telehealth-platforms-amid-concerns-of-inappropriate-prescribing

There will be a senate inquiry into Pfizer and Eli Lilly’s online telehealth platform. Is there room for abuse and over prescribing or a breach of possible kickback laws for drug companies.

I need to do more reading but I wanted to highlight this and kickstart some conversations around this topic.

Botanix uses a telehealth set up and access to a doctor who can prescribe a medication for AHH. It then uses independent rx provider Upscript to dispense this medication. Does this provide Botanix with an arms length protection? Does this protect the overprescribing of said drug and Medicare / Medicaid rebates that the government is worried about in the US. Or does this threaten all online telehealth platforms. A must watch piece of the puzzle for Botanix holders.

This could potentially add a lot of value or place uptake pace in danger if this distribution plan is vetoed by senate.

My gut feeling is that Big pharma running telehealth and distribution networks themselves may be vetoed.

Let me know your thoughts.

mikebrisy
Added 2 months ago

@Nnyck777 once again, you do pick up things early! The link to the Senator's website isn't working, so I couldn't read the entire article. But I've had a wider online search. It is something to monitor. I have been reading a few articles in the WSJ recently about concerns in Washington over prescribing behaviours of the weight-loss drugs, but I never joined the dots to telehealth and $BOT.

When I think about the $BOT model: 1) it requires a dermatologist to issue a script, 2) and the online pharmacy dispensing is a separate entity, as you say. Presumably, however, that is the same model that Pfizer and Eli Lilly follow, because as I understand it, pharma companies cannot dispense prescription drugs direct to consumer, even with a script.

In the US market, regulations for presciption medications allow advertising and direct marketing to the public, so as you know it is a very different world to what we have in Australia. I guess the issue is whether a website link that transports a patient directly into a telehealth channel is a step too far?

The history in the US is interesting. Prescription drugs have always been advertised in the US, and in the 1980's companies were essentially allowed to do direct to consumer (DTC) advertising by placing ads in newspapers and magazines. And in 1997, the FDA set the rules allowing DTC advertising via electronic channels. With the technology that exists now, and that $BOT is using, this enables quite precise targeting of individual consumers based on their online behaviour. (E.g., if I am browsing in an online store for plus-size clothing, I'm going to see ads in my browser for weight loss drugs, with a clickthrough to the drug's website.)

Sadly, even when things go wrong in the US, the political machinery is slow to act. Look how slow and ineffective reigning in the actors profiting off Oxycontin was. The Big Pharma lobby is one of the most well-funded in the nation, and even if this moves into a full Senate Inquiry, the politics around it is so fractured it is hard to imagine legislative change would be easy to achieve. You don't get much bigger than Eli Lilly and Pfizer, so no doubt they will go into bat on this.

Telehealth has become a big part of the US health system. Ramped up during the pandemic, even though its use has come off it's peak, a report by the CDC estimated 37% of Americans had used telehealth in 2021, falling to 30% in 2022, as the system re-opened fully. So, my sense is that there is no putting this genie back in the bottle. Perhaps there will be regulatory changes that inhibit companies from putting patients into a one-way, vertically integrated channel for their product. However, I expect change will occur slowly, industry will be consulted, and $BOT will have the chance to tweak their model to remain in compliance if and when the changes become clear.

Even if there are changes, SOFDRA is operating in a market with few competitors. QBREXA has been around for a while and hasn't amounted to much. So, I imagine that regulatory changes might require a patient or prescribing physican to have to go through a portal and see alternative treatments? Not a problem for $BOT.

Finally, the "boots on the ground" traditional channel is also part of the $BOT strategy. So, even if the telehealth channel is disrupted (which I think unlikely) there is a second, conventional route to market, with a relatively concentrated channel that can be accessed, i.e., the dispensing dermatologists, which won't need a large salesforce to achieve 90% coverage.

Reading back what I have written, I realise I am coming across as complacent or even dismissive. That is not my intent. This is a risk and if it pans out, it would be unwelcome.

Good pick up. Worth doing some more research on, but I'm not at all worried at this stage.

27
Arizona
Added 2 months ago

@Nnyck777 At first glance this seems very pertinent to BOT.

Just shooting from the hip here.....

BOT has Sofdra (FDA approved) and four other products in the pipeline for FDA approval.

To get to the bottom of this do we need to be ascribing a value to Sofdra, the other four products and the Telehealth sales platform individually?

How much of the current valuation of BOT is based around Sofdra and how critical is the Telehealth platform to Sofdra sales?

A bit of reading to do....

Held...I just bought more yesterday

18

NewbieHK
Added 2 months ago

Great(!) pick up @Nnyck777and good questions @Arizona. Thanks @mikebrisy as a holder I am more inclined to sit with your thinking however, this is the great value in @Strawman.

Doing some quick research online I was able to find that ‘more than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020’ (STAT News analysis).

Now call me a cynic and maybe this Democratic senator is significantly invested in making things fair that they want to ensure any issues in this process are addressed but, I can’t see a significant bill being presented to deal with any issues (senate is presently controlled just by the Democrats - tie breaker vote held by Kamala).

Even if it is it will possibly be tied in with multiple other issues that nothing comes of it. However, an adjustment to the process - possible(?) assuming all parties get what they want.

However, @Nnyck777 you raise an important issue which, highlights that legislation can come up that, may curb a companies growth or growth rate no matter the industry.

In terms of an assigned value to BOT based on the sum of parts I am not sure any value has been assigned to the platform. I wonder how many holders (retail) actually even know about BOTs platform? At its present value BOTs price factors in such little earnings one would think the product doesn’t work.

For example even a very low number of 15,000 potential customers at $500USD let’s say $700AUD a month x 12 you get revenue of 126m. If we assign an NPAT of 25% you get 31.5m. Now divide this by a SOI OF 1.9B and you end up with 1.66c. If we assign a PE of 15/20/25 you end up with 24.9,33.2,41.4c.

To me the present issue of BOTs valuation is the only prescription comparison - QBREXIA (an inferior product with a different mechanism of action) brings in much lower revenue than many of the hypothetical mathematical calculations being done on SOFDRAs potential revenue. Add to this we don’t know yet if it will fill the void for the hyperhidrosis sufferers.

Furthermore, if you do try to do any revenue modelling the numbers become scary very quickly. So it’s possible current and potential investors are in a holding pattern, waiting to get some early signs.

So how much is the present value associated to SOFDRA, the platform or other potential drugs? It seems at this stage very little to any of the components based on the possible potential.

Not long now (Nov 4?) and we will start to get information on the patient experience.

22

mikebrisy
Added 2 months ago

@NewbieHK Spot on.

While at a personal/social justice level, I don't like the way Big Pharma has Capitol Hill in its pocket, it is one hell of a moat for the business models. The Biden administration in 4 years has made relatively little progress on price controls, and their only poster child is insulin.

I also agree with your view on value. The vast majority of the value of $BOT is ascribed to $SOFDRA, but the valuation assumes a very low level of uptake. I don't really understand this, and can only assume that the conservatism reflects the relatively low uptake of QBREXA. But it is at odds with the Japanese experience for ECCLOCK (aka SOFDRA).

There are a few cents ascribed to the rest of the development portfolio and none, as fas as I am aware, to the platform. However, the platform is inextricably linked to SOFDRA, so it's hard to disaggregate.

26

Arizona
Added 2 months ago

@NewbieHK I think your right. The SP is based around Sofsra at this stage. I don't believe the other products or the Telehealth platform are being factored in much. If others have a differing opinion Id be keen to hear it.

While sales can get started in the short term without the platform and potentially look very impressive, coming off a low base, I view the platform as a 2nd booster to take sales to (hopefully) impressive levels. I'm trying to avoid hyperbolic rocket analogies here, just to say that the platform seems like it has potential in its own right, however right now it's not the main game.

I imagine there won't be much news out of the AGM (Nov4) The day before the US election. Interesting times.

21