Latest news with #HealthcareSystem
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Diasorin SpA (DSRLF) (H1 2025) Earnings Call Highlights: Strong Growth Amidst Market Challenges
Revenue: 919 million, up 5% compared to the same period last year. Core Business Growth (Excluding COVID): 8% growth in the first six months of 2025 at constant exchange rate. Gross Profit: 406 million, representing 60% of total revenues. Gross Margin: Stable at 66% of revenues in Q2 2025. Adjusted Operating Expenses: 232 million, representing a 1% increase year over year. EBITDA: 240 million, exceeding prior year by 8% at current exchange rate. EBITDA Margin: 35% at constant exchange rate, better than 34% recorded in 2024. Net Debt: 683 million, an increase of 66 million compared to 2024 year-end. Cash Flow: Almost 85 million generated in H1 2025. Immuno Diagnostic Growth: 8% in Q2 2025. Molecular Diagnostic Growth (Excluding COVID): 8% in Q2 2025. License Technology Growth: 10% in H1 2025, 7% in Q2 2025. Adjusted Tax Rate: Increased from 23% to 25%. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with DSRLF. Release Date: July 31, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Positive Points Diasorin SpA (DSRLF) reported a solid quarter with top-line growth and a margin of 36%, in line with expectations. The immuno diagnostics segment grew by 8% in Q2, driven by strong performance in North America and Europe. The company signed a significant million-dollar contract in the US, marking a strategic win in the healthcare system. Molecular diagnostics, excluding COVID, showed an 8% growth in Q2, with a strong performance in the multiplex syndromic business. The company is on track to meet its target of adding 75 new customers by the end of the year, with 40 active customers already secured. Negative Points China remains a challenging market with a double-digit decrease in revenues due to the impact of VBP, although it represents less than 5% of total revenue. The company faces foreign exchange headwinds, impacting revenues by approximately 11 million in the quarter. Gross margin remained stable at 66%, but tariffs and the full operation of the Chinese manufacturing plant added pressure. The company anticipates higher operating expenses in the second half of the year due to salary cycles and discretionary costs. The discontinuation of the Aries platform resulted in a revenue loss of 5.5 million in H1 2024, with no sales in 2025. Q & A Highlights Q: Hi, good afternoon. My first question is on China. Your competitor mentioned a DRG or debundling dynamic impacting panel-based testing in immuno assays. Are your products affected by this debundling plan? A: Yes, we are aware of the DRG dynamic. It is part of China's strategy to cut costs, affecting both local and international companies. China will become a less profitable market due to reduced consumption and price pressures. Our strategy is to focus on specialty products that offer clinical value and are less impacted by these changes. Q: Could you explain why the gross margin was flat year-on-year, but the EBITDA margin increased by 100 basis points to 35%? A: The gross margin remained stable despite tariffs and costs from our manufacturing plant in China. The EBITDA margin improvement is mainly due to reduced operating expenses, which decreased from 39% to 37% of revenues. Q: On the million-dollar contract you mentioned, does this represent commitments, and how long will it last? A: The contract covers a healthcare system with core facilities and clinics, marking our first full system sale. This indicates significant business potential, as we previously only had wins in individual hospitals. Q: On the discontinuation of the Aries business, can you share the revenue loss associated with this and the phasing for the 15 million one-off cost? A: The Aries platform, a molecular platform from Luminex, contributed 5.5 million in H1 2024. We expect no revenue loss as we transition production to Italy. The one-off costs are phased with 8 million booked now, 2-3 million expected in the second half of the year, and the remainder in 2026. Q: Could you speak about the drivers behind the 11% growth in your molecular business? Was it driven by blood panels or stockpiling for the flu season? A: The growth is due to closing accounts and setting up systems, not stockpiling. Customers typically stock up in Q3 for the flu season. Q: On licensed technologies, you mentioned expecting a softening in H2. Are you projecting a decline in revenue? A: While we expect a softening, we need to wait and see how the situation evolves. Mathematically, if we project 2-3% growth, H2 should be lower than H1. Q: Regarding tariffs, are you better positioned than other diagnostic companies, and could this support your margins? A: The impact of tariffs is relatively small. If the industry decides to pursue price increases to cover tariffs, we will follow. However, we are not overly concerned due to our specialization and the small impact. Q: On North America Immuno, is the growth due to new customer wins or existing customers consuming more of the menu? A: The growth is due to a combination of expanding our hospital install base and increasing product sales to existing customers. We have a strong relationship with major labs in the US, contributing to consistent growth. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
National Post
31-07-2025
- Health
- National Post
Chris Selley: Canadians discover (again) the sometimes deadly calculations of medicare
The case of 10-year-old Charleigh Pollock, the only person in British Columbia currently suffering from Batten disease — an incurable illness that attacks the nervous system — offers a very useful window into how Canada's health-care systems really work. Whether we want to look through that window is another matter. Article content The treatment Charleigh was receiving costs roughly $850,000 per year. It might extend her life expectancy past 12, which is the normal upper limit for children suffering from the disease. But B.C.'s Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases Committee, which decides which such drugs should be funded and which should not (every province has an equivalent panel) had determined that the treatment was no longer effective, and cut her off. Article content This did not go over well. Opposition politicians, pundits and random social media users alike were practically incandescent. British Columbians 'were horrified by a system that chose cold, heartless logic over showing mercy to a dying girl in the short time she has left,' one provincial columnist, Rob Shaw, fumed at online news site Business Intelligence for B.C. Article content Article content B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad weighed in: 'What is the point of B.C.'s Canadian healthcare system, if it's not there for families when they need it?' Article content Nevertheless, for ages, Premier David Eby and Health Minister Josie Osborne publicly deferred to the committee's expertise. But when the political pressure became too much, they folded, apologizing profusely to the Pollock family. And they didn't just overrule the committee's decision; they basically threw the committee under the bus. 'There's no question in terms of the Charleigh case that the public was not served by the current structure that we have,' Eby said Monday. 'The current structure of a committee that doesn't speak to the media, doesn't speak to the public, makes decisions behind closed doors, only speaks to the treating physician, and even then only through the Ministry of Health, resulted in a scenario where it appeared as though what was happening was the exact opposite of what anybody wants.' Article content Article content At last report, 10 members of the committee had resigned, apparently in protest at having their expertise undermined. Hard to blame them. It's not as though it's a fun job they signed up for, denying treatment to people on grounds of cost. Article content Article content Transparency is always a good thing. If our health-care systems are denying coverage for very expensive drugs for very rare diseases, we deserve to know why. But it's very easy to figure why the members of this committee are typically anonymous, and why they don't talk to the media: As Charleigh's case shows, these decisions make people very angry at the decision-makers, however medically defensible they might be. The committee's job is precisely to make hard-hearted decisions. And in every single case of someone being denied coverage, all the media would want to know is how the committee could possibly be so heartless and cruel, and when will it change its mind? Article content The central problem is that no politician will ever dare speak the truth: the 'universal' in universal health care refers to every person, not every single remedy for every single disease that's out there. If we said 'yes' to everything based on emotions, Canadian health care would be even less solvent and sustainable than it is now. Article content If that sounds heartless, that's because it is. Public health-care systems around the world rely on this sort of background heartless logic. Private health insurance in the United States doesn't cover every single expensive treatment for every single rare disease; why would public health insurance in Canada? Article content To her credit, one ex-member of the committee came out publicly, guns blazing. The government 'systematically undercut the principle of evidence-based medicine,' Dr. Sandra Sirrs told the Victoria Times-Colonist. She bristled at the notion the committee lacks compassion. 'You have no idea the amount of consideration and thoughtful discussion (that went into the decision),' she said. 'We want Charleigh not to have that disease, and if we couldn't have that, what we want is a drug that reverses the changes she suffered from Batten disease. Article content 'And if we can't have that, we at least would want a drug that, once started, prevents her from getting worse with Batten disease — and we have none of those.' Article content Is some marginal benefit, a few extra months or years of life, worth $850,000 a year to the Canadian taxpayer? It feels horrible even asking the question, which is why no one wants to talk about it. But it's a question that needs to be asked. These newly resigned committee members could do a lot of good by explaining publicly, without spin, why these bodies exist in the first place. Article content
Arab News
31-07-2025
- Health
- Arab News
The Guardian releases documentary on plight of Palestinian doctors in Israel amid Gaza war
LONDON: The Guardian has released a new documentary exploring the complex reality faced by Palestinian doctors working in Israel, as they navigate systemic discrimination, deepening identity struggles, and mounting hostility amid the ongoing Gaza war. Titled 'The Oath: To Be a Palestinian Doctor in Israel's Healthcare System,' the 22-minute documentary follows Dr. Lina Qasem-Hassan, a Palestinian doctor living and working in Israel, as she upholds her medical oath to treat both Israelis and Palestinians amid the Gaza war. She highlighted that while Arab citizens comprise nearly a quarter of Israeli doctors, many face unequal treatment in access and opportunity. The physician said she is determined to use her oath to fight injustice. 'Since 7 October, Palestinian staff in the Israeli healthcare system have faced persecution, slander and paralysis. Anti-Palestinian sentiment is surging, even among patients and colleagues,' Qasem-Hassan wrote in her op-ed in The Guardian. She noted that Israeli policies in the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, forced displacement, and restriction of movement systematically restrict access to care, undermining the right to health for Palestinians both in Israel and the occupied territories. This impact has been further exacerbated by the war on Gaza, where at least 1,581 health workers have been killed since Oct. 7. Only 18 of Gaza's 36 hospitals remain partially functional amid the widespread destruction of the healthcare system, according to UN figures, leaving patients without access to treatment amid severe shortages of medical supplies and staff. The documentary recounts the death of Qasem-Hassan's relative Marwan, a paramedic who was killed in an airstrike while transporting the wounded to hospital just hours after the war began. Weeks later, another strike on a refugee camp claimed the lives of 10 more members of her family. 'All this takes place under deafening silence from the Israeli healthcare establishment and many of my fellow physicians, who too often choose silence over basic ethics and morality,' said Qasem-Hassan. As the chairwoman of Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, Qasem-Hassan detailed how her advocacy puts her at risk of suspension or persecution. Earlier this year, patients submitted complaints against her for alleged pro‑Palestinian views. Yet, she refused to stay silent. 'Any expression of sympathy for victims — women, children, innocent civilians — is seen as support for terror,' she wrote. 'And still, I continue to fight. Because as long as we remain silent, our oath is hollowed out, and the right to health becomes a fantasy too far to reach.' Torn between the decision to stay or leave Israel, Qasem-Hassan reflected: 'But I go back to the question: if I leave, who will stay behind?' For now, she remains committed to providing essential medical care to Palestinians and detainees in the West Bank and Gaza through Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, while also speaking out against the Gaza war both within Israel and on international platforms, as documented in the film.
Forbes
22-07-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Greater Price Transparency Will Improve Affordability
Price Transparency Inefficiencies plague our current healthcare system. Politicians are quick to blame these problems on the market and subsequently advocate for ever greater government control. But government programs, which are already major players in the healthcare market, provide lousy insurance for patients and undermine the viability of doctors and hospitals. Expanding the government's role will only worsen these problems. Rather than expand the government's role, reforms need to address the price opacity problem that is obstructing the ability of healthcare professionals to deliver higher quality care to patients at lower costs. The price transparency problem afflicting hospitals exemplifies the problem. As the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) documents, hospitals account for nearly one-third of the nation's total healthcare expenditures. While attention is often placed on pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers, hospital systems, especially nonprofit institutions, are the primary driver of healthcare cost inflation and systemic inefficiency. To substantiate this claim, CMPI documents that hospital prices have increased by more than 250% over the last 25 years, which was double the rate of overall medical care inflation. Clearly, if hospital costs are one-third of spending and those costs are rising faster than the overall healthcare sector, then hospital costs are driving healthcare inflation. But it gets even worse. Hospital costs are also growing twice as fast as the median household's income. Consequently, hospital services are becoming increasingly less affordable for the average family. And while insurers and government payers are supposed to cover these costs, a larger share is being shifted to payments through large deductibles and coinsurance obligations. Addressing the problem of price opacity will help control the growth in expenditures at hospitals because 'a significant portion of this spending arises from redundant services, excessive administrative overhead, and inefficiencies embedded in payment models.' Establishing a competitive market with clear and transparent prices would impose discipline on hospital prices, make it difficult to inflate overhead costs, and rein in expenditure growth. It is important to recognize that it matters how transparency reforms are implemented. Previous efforts to mandate transparency have fallen short due to lack of follow-through. In its Seventh Semi-Annual Hospital Transparency Report, estimated 'that only 21.1% of the 2,000 hospitals are in compliance with all of the price transparency rule requirements.' Consequently, patients and insurers still cannot easily compare prices and the ability of competition to improve quality and reduce costs is still hampered. The Trump Administration should address this problem by enforcing the existing regulations and ensuring that patients and payers have access to clear and upfront pricing data. Greater price transparency would also help mitigate the cost pressures created by the rampant abuse of the 340B program by many hospitals. The 340B program was created to subsidize hospitals and clinics serving low-income populations to help these institutions provide more care for vulnerable populations at lower cost. To achieve this goal, 340B allows qualified hospitals to buy steeply discounted drugs and then resell these medicines to Medicare or privately insured patients at full price and pocket the difference. While the program offers hospitals large profit opportunities, the costs have become a burden that inflates costs for other patients and insurers. As a New York Times investigation noted, prescription drug spending for state employees [in North Carolina] jumped almost 50 percent from 2018 to 2022. A report in May from the state treasurer's office found that 340B was partly to blame: Hospitals that participated in the program billed the state health plan far more than hospitals that did not — almost 85 percent more for certain cancer drugs. In one example, hospitals bought a drug commonly used to treat melanoma for an average of $8,000 but billed the state $21,512. Due to the extreme profitability of the program, the program has experienced rapid growth. In 2009, the discounted value of 340B purchases was $4 billion. By 2023, these purchases grew to $66 billion – a sixteen fold increase! Yet, as I document in JAMA Network, abuse of this well intentioned program has turned it into a profit center for large health systems that do not pass the savings on to patients and tend to provide less charity care than the average hospital. Worsening the impact from the program, it has grown so large that the prices for other patients are increasing to help cover 340B's costs. With over one-half of nonprofit hospitals participating in the program, not to mention major pharmacy chains, the program's adverse impacts are materially harming the broader healthcare system. Coupling price transparency reforms with policies that address the abuses by contract pharmacies and ensure that 340B hospitals serve their intended purpose can rein in the 340B program materially improve drug affordability. Markets only work when transparent prices reflect the desires of consumers and the costs of producers. While the third-party payer system creates complications, this principle holds for healthcare markets. Regulatory reforms that promote widespread price transparency offers Congress and the Trump Administration an opportunity to meaningfully bend the healthcare cost curve and improve the quality-of-care patients receive.
