Do you have evidence that the submission was solely based on the...

Do you have evidence that the submission was solely based on the Atcor device tricky? While they obviously supported the RPA submission, my limited knowledge is that CPT codes don't specify devices, but are used to create common language for types of medical devices and procedures. Uscom are confirming that their device also meets the criteria right now for that CPT code.

Honestly, I think ACG had the massive spike a few weeks ago simply because management had hyped up the decision so much in their quarterlies, half yearly and investor presentations that it made it seem like the decision would only impact their device and completely open up the US market only to them. I believe that if Uscom had done something similar then the same outcome would have happened yesterday.

The bigger question for me is if this announcement is indeed market sensitive why did it take Uscom three weeks to announce it. It does seem a little "me too"ish, but there is nothing wrong with that. The decision will affect the BP+ the same way it affects the Atcor device. Both companies and both devices look like they will have the same opportunites to benefit from the new CPT code.

In the end, I think Atcor's management did a good job of making a relatively small announcement seem like a game changer while Uscom's management didn't. Make of that what you will I suppose. I took a small position yesterday and have emailed the company to try and find an answer about why the announcement was three weeks later than Atcor and to confirm my understanding that they stand to benefit from the announcement to the same extent Atcor will. If I get a good answer I will almost certainly top up.