Forum Topics NEU NEU RFK Jnr effect

Pinned straw:

Added 4 weeks ago

Neuren seems to have been caught up in the biotech sell off following the appointment of RFK Jnr as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in the US.

What are everyone's thoughts on this appointment? Seems like the market is looking quite short term towards news that may not actually eventuate to much.

Drugmaker stocks slide as Trump taps vaccine skeptic RFK Jr for US health job | Reuters

Disc: Held IRL and on Strawman.


Slideup
Added 4 weeks ago

@BoredSaint I don't think rare diseases will really be in the firing line from Kennedy. I think @Bear77 has the right summary he's more a well meaning conspiracy theorist.

I think the bigger risk and one that I am having trouble assessing accurately is whether Trump tries/ is able to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he wanted to do it last time around and didn't have the numbers, but not sure if its a priority or not. I'm also not sure how many of Acadia's patients are able to afford Daybue due to subsidies from Obamacare, but I am thinking a fair proportion might fall under this category and a repeal could push the cost of Daybue out of reach. This is the risk I'm watching for but I'm definitely not preempting this risk by selling.

It will also be interesting to see at what price NEU considers there shares undervalued and starts to tap the buyback scheme

17
Bear77
Added 4 weeks ago

Based on what I've read and watched @BoredSaint my view is that RFK Jr is a well-meaning conspiracy theorist who sees this as his answer-to-prayer opportunity to make major changes to the US health and pharmaceutical sectors / industries to improve the overall health of the country's citizens and make medicines more affordable.

Positives:

  • He wants to break the Big Pharma influence (control) of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and make the body that controls all medicines in the USA more neutral and balanced, and less biased towards the interests of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the USA at the expense of smaller US pharma and biotech companies and also at the expense of international companies trying to sell into the US - in other words, he wants to make the FDA much fairer to all.
  • Bobby wants to shine the spotlight on obesity and chronic deseases across America, and that is positive, IF it can be done without redirecting resources away from areas where they are still needed.
  • Bobby wants to make medicines more affordable by legislating to prevent companies from selling drugs / medicines in the USA for more than they sell for in Europe and other countries, however it is not clear what effects this would have in terms of incentivising Big Pharma. The idea of making medicine more afforadable is great, it's the way that is implemented and the side-effects of it that are not well understood yet.

Negatives:

  • One of the ways Bobby wants to break the Big Pharma control over the FDA is to stop the process by which Big Pharma partially fund the FDA. The reason the funding arrangements were set up that way was to ensure that the FDA had sufficient staff and resources to approve drugs for use in the USA within a reasonable timeframe, which clearly benefits Big Pharma. It also benefits US citizens and every other company that needs the FDA to approve their products. The downside of removing that funding arrangement is that if the US Government doesn't tip in at least the same amount of money that the FDA would lose from Big Pharma, and that seems unlikely with the DOGE focus on drastically reducing government expenditure, then the FDA may be underfunded and be even less efficient and processes will slow down considerably due to lack of people and resources.
  • Bobby is a vaccine sceptic, and has spoken of links between vaccines and autism - which have been debunked - but he still peddles those rumours as fact - and he wants to halt all research on vaccines for 8 years to redirect that research effort into cures for what he calls the chronic desease epidemic in the US, which he says includes obesity but also clearly also involves cancer, diabetes etc. One example of where that halting of research into vaccines could backfire in a major way is that the USA currently has outbreaks of bird flu in 15 states (see here - from yesterday - 20-Nov-2024) - and there is no vaccine or cure for avian influenza (bird flu) in humans (the four strains of bird flu that humans can currently be infected by); the current protocol is treatment with antiviral medications such as Oseltamivir (Tamiflu®), Peramivir (Rapivab®) or Zanamivir (Relenza®). If research dollars aren't spent on developing an effective vaccine for avian influenza as well as more effective cures, that could easily be the next pandemic within that 8 year period during which RFK Jnr wants to halt all research into vaccines.
  • Bobby has said he won't stop people from getting access to vaccines however he has stated that he will make information on the negative aspects of vaccines available to everybody and allow choice. That in itself is dangerous if the information he wants to "get out there" is misinformation that has already been debunked, and parents who are trying to do the right thing by their kids become worried about the safety of vaccines and stop giving their children vaccines because of those concerns. Vaccines for Measles and Tuberculosis and so forth have virtually eradicated those deseases and at the very least have prevented major epidemics or pandemics from spreading across large swathes of the population, and that's only because the vaccines have achieved "herd immunity" in the USA and elsewhere; if a good percentage of kids in the next 4 years do NOT get those vaccines, this progress could start to reverse.
  • Many of Bobby's plans would also require control of the department of Agriculture as well as Health, so he doesn't seem to understand the limitations of the portfolio that he has been chosen by Trump to lead. This article from just before the election outlines some of his agricultural policies and concerns, and while he didn't know then what he would be chosen to run, and was angling for Agriculture, he has repeated those plans since being nominated to head the USA Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). He has some big plans, but won't have the power to implement them all, despite Trump telling him to "Go Nuts!"
  • Despite his ambitious plans to tackle the causes and treatments for chronic desease, Bobby has stated that he will slash staff at research and regulatory agencies, so it's hard to see how that's going to work. There are concerns that overall there will be less people to do more work, and that much of the work that is currently being done will cease because there will be nobody there to do it, because those people will either be made redundant or will be redeployed.

Further Reading:

https://www.science.org/content/article/prospect-rfk-jr-head-hhs-panics-many-medical-science-community [15-Nov-2024]

https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/policy-value-based-care/news/55244429/public-health-group-criticizes-rfk-jr-hhs-choice [21-Nov-2024]

https://www.chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/concerns-mount-over-prospect-of-robert-f-kennedy-jr-leading-hhs [20-Nov-2024]

20

mikebrisy
Added 4 weeks ago

@BoredSaint @Slideup and @Bear77 US Pharma and Biotech has been rolling off its peaks over the last three months, so there does appear to be a "sector rotation" underway, beyond the election result and appointment of Kennedy. That said, the sector has run strongly over the last two years, and generally looks like an overall upward climbing, gentle rollercoaster.

It's important to remember that for decades now, various US administrations have tried to get pharmaceutical prices down. I remember when I was working in the industry in the early 1990's and Clinton had a go at it. Share prices took a hit for a short while, until it became clear that Federal action was limited. The big change then was to require greater rigour in applying healthcare economics in pricing decisions (something the Europeans also followed), And guess what? More often than not, that led to HIGHER prices being justified on a cost-benefit basis.

At its core, over 50% of the US drug demand is met by the private sector. And here, prices involve negotiations between pharma companies, PBMs, and insurers. Ultimately, a lot of work goes on between these actors to negotiate pricing - and a lot of justification is based on healthcare economics. For example, avoided costs of less efficacious treatment, deferring higher costs of treating a deteriorating condition, often measured in hospital-bed-days and extension of life (delaying terminal care). (This is why I think that GLP-1s have a long way to run, as more and more studies are showing they have a wide set of benefits.)

Arguments to try and control US drug pricing pegged to international pricing - while also tried in the past - failed. This is because the entire US healthcare system is so much more expensive than elsewhere. The US spends some 18% of GDP on healthcare, compared with more like 11% elsewhere in the OECD. The drugs are only a small component of the total cost of the system, albeit a visible one. So it is hardly surprising that EU drug prices are often only 70% of US prices.

Statements about price controls, while making easy headlines, just don't make it to first base when you start to do the pricing analysis.

Of course, there are examples of eggregious abuses of pricing power. Like insulin. This product was off patent for decades, but huge prices were being charged due to a lack of generic competition. But cases like this are the rare exception. Again, the headline writers can make us think they are part of a wider opportunity set.

Under Trump 1.0 there was a lot of talk about using Executive Orders to control drug pricing. Again, a lot was said, but very little was done.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, stronger price control mechanisms will be enacted from 2026 for Medicare and Medicaid, which cover about 40-50% of the US drug market. But even here, there will have to be a negotiation, as Government will struggle to mandate supply to the public sector if there isn't an agreed price. Price discounts to the public sector are well-established, and there is likely to be some hardening of these. However, the more likely effect will be to turn the screw on eligibility, coverage and increase the involvement of the private sectors and the states. This will come with a political cost.

I come back to the fact that several US Adminstrations over the years have tried to have a go at Big Pharma. But the impact has been limited, because the problem is that drug costs account for only about 10% of US Healthcare costs. And drug prices are usually predicated on a cost-benefit analysis on their impact on the wider system. If you stop better products coming to market, you end up harming the healthcare system and driving up total costs.

Tackling the costs of the US healthcare system is a much, much bigger problem than drug costs.

Bottom line,... I've seen it and heard it before,... I'm not worried.

And I'm definitely not worried about areas like orphan drugs, rare diseases and products recently approved.

Sector rotations come and go. And this is another one.

The only action I am taking is to have a look at my valuation of $NEU, to decide whether I should be buying more!

23
Tom73
Added 4 weeks ago

Thank you RFK

I now hold NEU, having not had the free funds a month ago and wanting to buy and less keen at $16 I welcome buying at $13.

Just a bite so far, would welcome more at lower prices.

17

SudMav
Added 4 weeks ago

Thanks @Bear77 @Slideup @mikebrisy @BoredSaint for your meaningful contribution to this topic and a better understanding of what RFK brings to the table.

I tend to agree with Mike that while they are talking big changes, its not likely to be as significant as what they are suggesting. While a lot of politicians talk about cost cutting pre-election, once they actually look under the hood and see what those staff actually do, they reduce the number of jobs that eventually go, and then in 1-2 years time after the new org structure is set up, they do a big hiring wave to bring back a large portion of the roles that were lost.

Surely Big Pharma will not take any decisions that significantly impact their bottom line lying down, and its not going to be the last we hear about this. I do have a bit of concern about the goalposts being shifted about qualifying for the medication, however its merely speculation at this stage. That and the fact that sales outside of the US should will be coming online in the coming years (and the new drug going to trial) should easily cover any loss in revenue some of the changes in US healthcare.

Held IRL 3% and looking to slightly add to my position by dollar cost averaging over the coming months after my property settlement goes through. Hopefully I can get in at a similar price to now.

17