John Butler
Analyst · H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open
Yeah. No, it's a great question. Thank you. So right now, the expectation in dialysis, remember where Auryxia is used is to treat hyperphosphatemia in dialysis patients. Right now, CMS is expecting to add phosphate binders, all oral products that aren't part of the bundle already to the bundle as of January 1, 2025. And what they've said in their last rule is that they're going to have a TDAPA period for these oral products, because right now they don't have the data to know what to add to the bundled payment. So if you use the calcimimetic as an example, the Amgen product, they went through their TDAPA period a few years ago and they -- you go from being a Part D drug to a Part B drug, CMS collects all of the data on utilization of the product, and then at the end of the TDAPA period, they make a determination for the dollars per dialysis session that they'll be adding to that bundled payment. And so that's what we expect them to do, looking at the different binders, the utilization of each. So for -- when you think about this from a dialysis providers' perspective, there's great incentive to, a, treat patients very effectively. So really focus on the treatment of hyperphosphatemia, and frankly, focus on the use of branded products within that in order to maximize the value of that payment that's added. Because once that's added, it doesn't change. CMS doesn't feel they have the ability to go back and look at that payment again. So, for those two years and that's TDAPA period that's been defined by CMS at this point in time, so 2025 and 2026, there's a real motivation for them to utilize products like Auryxia and utilize the branded products. So, we'll have to contract directly with the dialysis providers and work with them on their protocols, et cetera, so that they're utilizing the product. So, it's unlike a situation where you simply lose exclusivity and generics come in to dominate the market, we think that there's more opportunity there. Now, even if we get to a situation where we didn't have TDAPA, given the nature of these phosphate binders, if you look at sevelamer, Renagel/Renvela as an example, even though they lost their patents, the dynamics -- the generic dynamics of the amount of product that has to be delivered to a patient is such that there wasn't really significant interest from generic manufacturers to bring the product to market. So they had a very, very long tail on sevelamer. And if we see something like that either through TDAPA or through kind of the normal course, there is very significant revenue still. It will be a declining revenue stream to be clear, but one that will need very little sales and marketing investments, so significant opportunity for positive cash flow for the company.