The message is predicated on a clear understanding of what the act does and doesn't do.
Doctors must prescribe the therapy in order to be reimbursed. In our case, the hospital/clinic/health system needs to be convinced to buy RecoveryRx and stock it in the in house pharmacy. When a medicare/medicaid patient presents with pain issues, or post surgical needs, the doctor then prescribes the therapy, and the hospital can provide it and be reimbursed.
The whole point of the act is to give the health system admins/doctors a reason to prescribe "in house" therapies. As it is they don't get reimbursed for the cost of the prescribed therapy separate from the surgery, and the surgery is reimbursed at a set rate. Since outside pharmacies can provide the pharmaceuticals, the health system doesn't bear the cost of stocking and supplying that medication. That's why they prescribe them so readily, no cost to the hospital. The act simply allows the hospital to charge separately for the post-surgery therapy, but they only benefit if they also provide the therapy.
So, what therapies stand to benefit the most from the NOPAIN act? Those that can be provided by the hospital/clinic/health system etc. The biggest beneficiary will be in house physical therapy departments. Anything that the doctor or hospital can provide and bill for will benefit.
RecoveryRx is not actually an accepted therapy within the medical community (ask your doctor, they have heard of "central sensitization theory" and other related processes). The clinical studies we have are indeed promising, but they are sadly not of high enough quality to convince the medical/insurance community. That is why it failed in the UK, and why no insurance company in America currently covers the therapy.
The NOPAIN act may help in the big picture remediation of over reliance on opioids, or it may be window dressing for politicians. Either way Bioelectronics corporation does not currently stand to be a significant beneficiary of the act.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
