Research report
A research report is the sourced material a domain
dossier is synthesized from — generated on a plan and a cadence, one topic per file.
A report carries no confidence tags. Its bracketed markers say who might have
an incentive to shade a line; none of them says anyone checked it. To reach a score, a line has
to be drafted onto a candidate as unverified and pass the Verifier or the
Corroborator, like everything else.
Section unit-economics · Version 2026-09-13 · Cadence quarterly · Evidence class 2 published · Sources 3 · Supersedes none
Domain: cross-cutting · Scope: Public primary sources reachable by this repo's connectors, WebSearch and WebFetch. No
Sourcing: Two peer-reviewed cost studies of human single-use/disposable NPWT (negative-pressure wound therapy) (a
No public, citable source prices this candidate's bill of materials, contract-manufacturer cost of goods, or a veterinary distributor's margin schedule for a canister-free NPWT SKU — REQ-0018's question, taken literally, is unanswerable from any source this repo can reach or cite. Published NPWT cost literature prices a completed device's procurement cost or a payer's claims payment per treatment episode, never a manufacturer's component cost or a distributor's markup. Relevant distributor and manufacturer financial disclosures were located this pass but cannot be cited under this fleet's identifier rules; they are named, with figures, in section 5 rather than folded into the body as findings.
_Baseline (v1). No prior version; this establishes the starting point for future diffs._
A peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis of single-use NPWT in prepectoral breast reconstruction reports: "The unit cost of the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)™ NPWT system (£147.06) was obtained from NHS (National Health Service) Supply Chain, with averaging of the unit cost across the various sizes available" [1] [single-source]. PICO is the human-labeled canister-free single-use device this candidate's own domain dossier positions it against. This is a UK NHS bulk-procurement price for a completed device (pump/battery plus dressing/drape), not a manufacturer's bill of materials, not a distributor markup, and not a US price [1] [single-source].
A retrospective analysis of 2012-2014 national Medicare claims (disposable NPWT n=3,522 episodes, mean age 67.6 years) reports mean Medicare payment of $1,532 (±$1,767) per disposable NPWT episode, versus $4,650 (±$2,782) per traditional durable-canister NPWT episode (n=2,938, P<.0001); at 2016 rates the paper restates these as $1,564 and $3,501 [2]. This is a US payer payment per completed treatment episode, not a manufacturer's unit cost, and not veterinary [2] [single-source].
A cost-minimization decision-tree model comparing two durable, canister-based NPWT technologies (Cardinal Health™ PRO, V.A.C. ULTA™), built from a single-site trial, reports total expected per-patient costs of $41,206 (SD $8,194) and $44,439 (SD $8,963) [3] [single-source]. Even this dedicated NPWT cost study prices a full hospital episode, not a device's bill of materials or a distributor's margin — consistent with [1] and [2] in showing published NPWT cost literature stops at the procurement- or episode-cost line.
[1] Cost-effectiveness of single-use negative-pressure therapy compared with standard care for prevention of reconstruction failure in prepectoral breast reconstruction — BJS Open (published 2021-04-11; accessed 2026-09-13). PMID (PubMed identifier): 33839751 — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8038262/ [peer-reviewed]
[2] A Retrospective, Cost-minimization Analysis of Disposable and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Medicare Paid Claims — Ostomy/Wound Management (published 2018-01; accessed 2026-09-13). PMID: 29406300 — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29406300/ [peer-reviewed]
[3] Cost-minimization analysis of negative pressure wound therapy technologies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe foot infections — Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (published 2020-10; accessed 2026-09-13). PMID: 33034531 — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33034531/ [peer-reviewed]
Well established: None. Each of [1], [2] and [3] is a single study on a single population, marked [single-source].
Thin: All three lines — a single foreign bulk-procurement price [1], and two single-dataset episode-cost studies [2][3], none pricing a device unit or a distributor margin.
Rescoped from class 3: None. The manifest's question is class-2 shaped (a document reporting a measured cost or margin), not class-3 (what a person would do); nothing needed rescoping.
Out of scope: distributor and manufacturer margin material was located this pass via WebFetch of primary SEC filings but is excluded from citation because an SEC accession number carries no resolvable identifier in this fleet's closed vocabulary. Named so the hole is visible: Covetrus, Inc.'s FY2020 earnings release (SEC Form 8-K Ex. 99.1, filed 2021-03-01) states GAAP gross profit of $798 million on $4,339 million net sales — 18.4% consolidated gross margin, across its whole distribution/software/prescription-management mix. Patterson Companies, Inc.'s FY2023 earnings release (SEC Form 8-K Ex. 99.1, filed 2023-06-21) states gross profit of $1,372,945 thousand on $6,471,471 thousand net sales — 21.2% consolidated gross margin, blended across Dental and Animal Health with no segment split disclosed. Insulet Corporation's 2007 IPO prospectus (SEC Form 424B4, filed 2007-11-07) — describing OmniPod, the closest public comparable in component mix (disposable, battery-powered, adhesive-interface) found in this search — states "the sale price of the OmniPod System is not sufficient to cover our direct manufacturing costs," no dollar figure given. Each was read from a directly fetched filing, not a secondary summary, but is excluded strictly on the identifier rule. None names Covetrus's or Patterson Veterinary's markup on a disposable veterinary SKU specifically — REQ-0018's actual question — which remains unanswered by anything reached in this pass.
Not searched vs. not found: searched and not found — an itemized BOM (bill of materials)/COGS estimate for any single-use battery-powered disposable-dressing NPWT device (human or veterinary), and a Covetrus- or Patterson-Veterinary-specific margin figure for disposable consumables as a category. Not searched — subscription/paywalled veterinary-distribution market research, and current- generation per-unit cost disclosures for other disposable patch devices (e.g. CGM sensors); an initial pass found no disclosed number and was dropped once the Insulet prospectus gave a dated comparable in the same device class.
[inference] [1]'s ~£147 procurement price for an already mass-produced human single-use NPWT device sits near this candidate's proposed $180-$320 price — a weak plausibility signal on positioning, not a margin calculation. The Insulet finding above shows negative/thin gross margin at low volume is a documented risk for this device class generally, not a prediction for this candidate. Neither inference, nor the distributor figures above, establishes whether dressing COGS (cost of goods sold) plus the distributor's margin stack leaves positive gross margin at $180-$320 for this specific device.
| Proposition | Evidence class | Resolvable identifier | Dossier section |
|---|---|---|---|
| The NHS Supply Chain unit cost of the PICO single-use NPWT system was £147.06, averaged across dressing sizes | 2 published | PMID 33839751 | reference-products |
| Mean US Medicare payment per disposable NPWT treatment episode was $1,532 (n=3,522, 2012-2014 claims), versus $4,650 per traditional/durable NPWT episode (n=2,938) | 2 published | PMID 29406300 | reimbursement |
| A decision-tree cost-minimization model found total expected per-patient costs of $41,206 for Cardinal Health PRO versus $44,439 for V.A.C. ULTA durable NPWT technologies | 2 published | PMID 33034531 | reference-products |
_shared/plain-language.md