Search This Blog

Thursday, October 13, 2022

Walgreens Boosted by Higher Retail Sales, Nascent Consumer Health Business

 Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc reported a better-than-expected quarterly profit on Thursday, as higher UK retail sales and strength in its newly launched consumer health business helped offset waning COVID vaccination demand.

Shares of Walgreens, one of the largest U.S. pharmacies, rose nearly 7% in premarket trading after the company also forecast a higher full-year profit.

While overall pharmacy sales declined in the fourth quarter due to waning COVID vaccination demand and lower prescription volumes, retail sales in the United Kingdom jumped 15.2% on the back of demand for over-the-counter health and wellness products.

Analysts had raised concerns about Walgreens' near-term performance and lowered their expectations, especially after rival Rite Aid cut its full-year forecast in September and flagged concerns of sustained pressure on consumer spending and supply chain challenges.

Evercore ISI analyst Elizabeth Anderson said though the results were mixed, the full-year forecast was "much better than feared".

The company also benefited from its Walgreens Health segment, which was launched last year as part of Walgreens' efforts to diversify its business.

The unit provides pharmacy and primary care services in stores, at home or a doctor's office and via mobile app. It brought in sales of $622 million in the fourth quarter.

For 2023, Walgreens said its expects strong growth in its core business to offset waning demand for COVID related products and services.

"Fiscal 2023 will be a year of accelerating core growth and rapidly scaling our U.S. Healthcare business," Chief Executive Officer Rosalind Brewer said in a statement.

The company expects full-year profit in the range of $4.45 to $4.65 per share, the top end of which came above analysts' expectations of $4.53.

Excluding items, the company earned $0.80 per share in the quarter, compared with Refinitiv IBES estimates of $0.77.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-10-13/walgreens-reports-quarterly-loss-on-impairment-charge

T2 Plans to Commercialize Diagnostic Test for Early Lyme Disease

 T2 Biosystems, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTOO) a leader in the rapid detection of sepsis-causing pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes, announced today plans to complete development of, and commercialize, a diagnostic test for the detection of early Lyme disease, with the goal of initiating marketing and sales in the United States as a Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) in 2023.

“We believe there is a significant market opportunity for a sensitive diagnostic test to detect early Lyme disease, and initial performance data on the T2Lyme Panel is very encouraging. Our decision to advance toward commercialization in 2023 follows two recent achievements: the receipt of a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the receipt of FDA Breakthrough Device Designation, both covering the T2Lyme Panel,” stated John Sperzel, Chairman and CEO of T2Biosystems. “While we plan to commence marketing and sales as an LDT in 2023, we intend to subsequently initiate a U.S clinical trial for the purpose of pursuing FDA clearance of the T2Lyme Panel. We believe the T2Lyme Panel will potentially allow clinicians to ensure patients receive appropriate therapy faster, and prevent the negative impact of a delay in delivery of appropriate therapy and the overuse of antibiotics.”

The T2Lyme™ Panel is a direct-from-blood molecular diagnostic test designed to run on the FDA-cleared T2Dx® Instrument and to detect Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. The T2Lyme Panel is intended to test individuals with signs and symptoms of Lyme disease and aid in the diagnosis of early Lyme disease.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t2-biosystems-announces-plan-commercialize-130000550.html

VectiveBio: Positive interim Phase 2 data in intestinal failure trial

  Treatment with apraglutide resulted in an average 50% reduction in Parenteral Support (PS) volume at six months

•  80% of patients were clinical responders (defined as a reduction in volume of PS of at least 20%) and achieved at least one day off PS at six months

•  First study to prospectively show evidence of clinical benefit in SBS-IF Patients with Colon-in-Continuity after treatment with a GLP-2 Agonist

•  CIC patients represent largest unmet need in SBS-IF

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vectivbio-reports-positive-interim-clinical-110000727.html

Congress should step in and regulate the CDC

 Efforts by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to control the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely criticized, with veteran public health experts describing its “failings” as “notable.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration has prevented some meaningful reform of the CDC’s guidance practices, overturning a Trump administration regulation that would have required the CDC to comply with certain good guidance practices. Real progress, then, will require congressional action.

Throughout the pandemic, the CDC knowingly released flawed diagnostic tests, neglected its own best practices in risk communications, and issued recommendations for temperature screening methods that “do not work.” It provided guidance for schools so flawed it drew a public rebuke from the very scientists it cited. The CDC’s recommendations for preemptive coordinated school closures likely contributed to the large and discouraging decline in students’ academic performance since 2020, including a growing gap in test scores between low and high poverty elementary schools, as well as adverse effects on kids’ mental health and parents’ jobs and wages. 

The CDC’s failings stem in large part from the autocratic ways it issues recommendations or guidance. It does not solicit or systematically allow public comment on its guidance, either before or after they are issued. It does not provide a comprehensive searchable database of all current guidance, complicating efforts to keep track of closely related ones. And it often issues guidance without a scientific or technical rationale explaining the agency’s thinking.

Fortunately, Congress can find the blueprint for reform by looking at the experience of another Health and Human Services (HHS) agency: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For two decades the FDA has issued wide-ranging guidance following its own good guidance practice regulation. The FDA issued 163 guidance documents under this regulation in 2020 alone — including during the stressful and confusing start of the pandemic.

The FDA’s practices keep the agency from issuing willy-nilly recommendations about what regulated entities “should” or “ought to” do. The FDA’s good guidance practices explicitly allow regulated entities to not follow FDA recommendations, provided that they comply with existing statutory and regulatory requirements as stated in relevant statutes and regulations. Importantly, the FDA practices require it to solicit public comment, but allow it to do so after, rather than prior to, issuing guidance, if it determines that getting public comments first is not necessary or appropriate.

Congress should require the CDC to change its process for issuing public health guidance to make it less autocratic; more responsive to public concerns; more transparent; and more explicitly science-based. In particular, the CDC needs to adopt good guidance practices, similar to the ones that the FDA follows. Additionally, it must provide a reasoned scientific basis for its policy recommendations, including a systematic review of relevant studies, an effort to distinguish between associations and causal relationships, and an assessment of how specific recommendations would lead to greater public health benefits and the associated risks.

The FDA’s experience demonstrates that it is feasible and worthwhile for the CDC to adopt a similar regulation. Given recent threats of new communicable diseases, including monkeypox and poliovirus, such reform is increasingly important. It is up to Congress to act.

Randall Lutter, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where his research focuses on pharmaceutical markets and policy, medical innovation and regulation. He was a senior science and regulatory adviser in the Office of the Commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2017 to 2020.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3680265-why-congress-should-step-in-and-regulate-the-cdc/

Biden’s pot pardon introduces presidential nullification of federal law

 President Biden’s proclamation of pardon for those convicted of certain marijuana offenses encroaches on Congress’s constitutional lawmaking authority and fundamentally alters the balance of power between the coordinate branches of government. A bipartisan consensus would likely concur that people should not languish in a broken prison system for drug possession. But why is it that Congress has abdicated its law-making authority and opened the door for the president to legislate by pardon? The ramifications of this pardon extend far beyond the propriety of marijuana laws and now may lead to the routine de facto presidential nullification of federal laws. 

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is vested with the sole authority to grant pardons for offenses against the United States. Drawing on English precedent, the framers granted this power to the president under the theory that the power of mercy and grace in the national interest must be vested in the sovereign.

Alexander Hamilton articulated a practical purpose for the pardon power in Federalist 74, wherein he reasoned that “In seasons of insurrection and rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.” Consistent with Hamilton’s principle, George Washington issued an order of amnesty in 1795 against those who engaged in the Whisky Rebellion. 

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln offered a pardon for certain confederates who renounced rebellion against the union. Similarly, Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon was intended to spare the nation from the spectacle of criminal proceedings against a former president. In 1977, Jimmy Carter pardoned thousands of draft dodgers in order to heal the nation’s trauma over the Vietnam War.

In United States v. Wilson, the Supreme Court classified the pardon power as “An act of grace emanating from the power entrusted with the execution of laws.” The pardon power was designed to complement the faithful execution of the laws by serving as a safety valve when the enforcement of a particular law resulted in injustice. Few can forget the powerful moment when Alice Johnson praised God and America after her life sentence in prison for a non-violent drug offense was commuted by Donald Trump in 2018

The Biden pardon of those convicted of the Controlled Substances Act is not consistent with the principles of quelling rebellion, healing the nation, or displaying mercy in the face of a miscarriage of justice. Rather, it is the substitution of his own policy belief that a law duly enacted by Congress is now disagreeable. 

Congress can do little in response to this brazen expansion of presidential power. Pardons, even if corruptly or improperly granted, are not reviewable by the judiciary. For those pardoned, the Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Garland that consequence is absolute and the pardon blots out the existence of guilt and makes offender as if he had never committed the offense. 

Various proposals at the Constitutional Convention to provide a check on the pardon power were rejected leaving impeachment as the sole remedy against the misuse of the pardon power. Last minute pardons by outgoing administrations certainly may necessitate reforms. But the misuse of the pardon power as a usurpation of law-making authority only exacerbates the problem. 

The door is now open for a future administration to issue a pardon to all who have ever been convicted of tax fraud. The foreseeable escalation of this practice will only serve to undermine the separation of powers and the rule of law. 

The only constitutional remedy to eliminate a particular statute is for Congress to repeal it. There are very strong arguments that federal marijuana laws should be reformed. But Congress’ abdication of its law-making authority to the regulatory state cannot be used as a pretense to establish a new precedent of presidential nullification of laws through pardons. 

George G. Demos is a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement attorney and an adjunct professor at U.C. Davis School of Law where he teaches corporate and white-collar crime.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3686189-bidens-pot-pardon-introduces-presidential-nullification-of-federal-law/

Ocugen gets safety green light on gene therapy candidate

 Ocugen Inc 

 shares traded marginally higher by 1.22% at $1.66 during Wednesday's after-hours session. The company announced during after-hours trading that the Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for the OCU400 Phase 1/2 clinical trial completed a review of safety data for subjects enrolled in Cohort 2 and recommends proceeding to enroll subjects in Cohort 3.

Ocugen says the company expects to complete Cohort 3 enrollment in fourth-quarter 2022 as planned. 

"I'm very pleased with the progress of the clinical trial," said David Birch, director of the Retina Foundation of the Southwest and primary investigator of the study. "Currently, patients with inherited retinal degeneration have nothing to address their condition in the long term. It is imperative to keep working toward a solution for these patients who currently have no hope."

Ocugen says OCU400 clinical trial is a Phase 1/2 Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of OCU400 for Retinitis Pigmentosa Associated with NR2E3 (Nuclear Receptor Subfamily 2 Group E Member 3) and RHO (Rhodopsin) Mutations.

OCU400 is part of Ocugen's Modifier Gene Therapy Platform—targeting inherited retinal disease and dry age-related macular degeneration.

https://www.benzinga.com/markets/penny-stocks/22/10/29245575/what-happened-with-ocugen-shares-during-wednesdays-after-hours-session

‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Is Still A Credit-Score Blind Spot

 U.S. shoppers signed up for billions of {dollars} of “buy now, pay later” plans final 12 months. Almost none are mirrored of their credit score scores.

Buy now, pay later firms and credit-reporting companies are fearful that the accounts might unintentionally decrease shoppers’ credit score scores, even when they pay on time and in full, in line with individuals aware of the matter. 

Many so-called pay-in-four plans are paid biweekly over six weeks, which means they’re opened and closed extra steadily than money owed similar to mortgages and auto loans that folks could make funds on for years. That can decrease a borrower’s credit score rating, some credit-reporting and scoring firms have discovered, even when she has paid on time and in full.  

One credit-reporting agency ran a take a look at of greater than 130 million purchase now, pay later loans and short-term cost plans that discovered some 57% of shoppers who’ve these accounts on their credit score reviews would expertise a “material” credit-score lower that might persist for over a 12 months, regardless of paying the accounts on time, in line with individuals aware of the matter. 

The holdup exposes a shortcoming within the decades-old credit-reporting and scoring system. Credit scores similar to FICO are calculated utilizing the data on shoppers’ credit score reviews. The system was designed across the sorts of client debt that had been frequent on the time—mortgages, automotive loans and bank cards that require month-to-month funds that may final for years. Debts with compensation phrases of a few weeks had been unusual till purchase now, pay later plans grew to become standard.

A bunch of outlets have added such cost choices at checkout lately. Large purchase now, pay later firms within the U.S. originated $24 billion of pay-in-four plans final 12 months, greater than 12 instances the quantity from 2019, in line with a report final month from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

The CFPB has been pushing each the purchase now, pay later firms and the credit-reporting companies to incorporate the plans on shoppers’ information. 

The company has stated it desires credit-reporting companies to develop a uniform method of reporting purchase now, pay later accounts and expects rating suppliers and lenders to “build and calibrate models” that issue within the plans’ distinctive traits. 

“We welcome credit reporting that is ‘fit for purpose’ by addressing short-term payment products that do not allow consumers to revolve into debt,” an Afterpay spokeswoman stated.

Klarna believes “reporting agencies should develop a model that works for different forms of credit,” a spokeswoman stated.

An Affirm spokesman stated: “We have been actively engaged across the industry and with credit-reporting agencies to optimize reporting standards for buy now, pay later transactions, enable consumers to build their credit histories, and have on-time payments accurately and positively reflected on their scores.” The firm does report a few of its longer-term installment loans.

The CFPB has stated lack of reporting might “have downstream effects on consumers,” together with those that pay on time and are attempting to construct their credit score histories.

Buy now, pay later “has the potential [to] help drive broader financial inclusion, and we are working rapidly to incorporate this into VantageScore models in a way that is beneficial for all stakeholders,” stated

Silvio Tavares,

chief government of VantageScore Solutions LLC, a credit-score supplier that’s owned by credit-reporting companies.

The lack of reporting has made it tough for lenders to know the whole greenback quantity of money owed and different obligations that persons are carrying earlier than figuring out whether or not to approve them for brand new credit score. Someone would possibly seem to have few money owed when really owing a number of hundred {dollars} a month on purchase now, pay later plans. 

Executives within the credit-reporting and scoring business stated scoring fashions and algorithms want time to regulate to materially completely different knowledge. The first step, they stated, is getting the purchase now, pay later firms to share extra of their knowledge. 

That “will allow the whole industry to move forward together with a clear understanding of how these loans impact consumers’ credit scores and overall credit risk,” stated Ethan Dornhelm, vp of scores at FICO.

It will possible be at the least a 12 months earlier than these plans are mirrored in FICO scores, in line with individuals aware of the matter.


https://ilmhunt.com/buy-now-pay-later-is-still-a-credit-score-blind-spot-more-news/