Ann: 1H FY23 Results Presentation, page-56

This seems like very simplistic analysis. This product isn’t the kind of product you can just decide to use less of on a patient - you can’t decide to cover half a wound. Dropping revenue per customer means it’s being used differently.

Ultimately I see this as a positive, it’s becoming more ubiquitous and being used more widely on more routine, smaller wounds. Perhaps by the people who already use it. if revenue wasn’t rising in tandem I’d be concerned.

Or as an alternative, this could also be a consequence of expanding into hospitals of a smaller size, which are less likely to care for patients with the most horrific wounds, and would be transferred to larger and better equipped facilities (I.e. greater BTM use per pat).

Does the increase in patients coincide with increase in hospitals we sell to? Perhaps surgeons are choosing to test its use in smaller quantities or less grievous wounds before relying on it for the more serious surgeries.

There’s a flip side to every coin! I don’t know the answer but I think there’s more plausible explanations than that surgeons are deciding not to use it for the larger jobs.