OP
Ollie Carter
Registered
Therein is the difference... (this is not about medical insurance, but LIABILITY insurance)
1) The peanut allergy audience is HUGE.
2) such a drug would be a new (novel) solution to a medical malady
This equals money. Easy to pay for the liability insurance.
What the OP has is a modification/change of an existing delivery system. Then, mashing it with what is already classed as a high risk device: regulators.
Ski bindings have been mounted and adjusted by trained monkeys for years.
You bring up an interesting parallel. Many older bindings can not be touched by a ski tech lest their shop lose liability coverage due to manufacturers prohibiting them from touching older gear.
(I have 5 mono skis with ancient Solomon 757 Demo bindings. They still seem to be fine)
Its an interesting point, the peanut allergy audience is big, but as ive stated 12% of the 60 million in the uk are registered with a prescribed version of asthma. The drug is not new, will be using existing canisters of salbutamol, so no need to search for insurances with drug associated insurance/quality testing. The mashing with the regulator was an idea, and right now i couldnt comment on whether it is possible or not. I get the high risk issue though. Its all a high risk situation, so is hard to avoid that hurdle anyway.
I appreciate a can-do attitude. Insurance companies really don’t shiv a git.