Member Info for Vascular

Thanks for replies All.

I hope the old adage of buy the story and sell on news does not apply in this case , as not a lot of buying evident in sp movement presently, hopefully will show on some good news. Gl vas

It’s interesting that the CAB example below rejected the second offer stating

“ The Independent Board notes that the Possible Offer still fails to reflect the Group's trading update on 15 January 2026 which announced an expected Total Income of £119 million for 2025; 12% growth year on year and 30% growth half on half.”

Basically rejecting the offer on forward looking trading projections….which in CC case should look better than ever before.

Hi Tony,

Have a glance at a company called Cab Payments ( CABP).

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CABP/?page=2

Go back over their RNS feed from 2nd Feb 26 (initial offer was made 28th jan 26l when CAB made their statement of possible offer and later the same day they made another RNS with their response to offer. If you read all subsequent RNSs related to the offer made by Helios Consortium you will notice that the BOD have rejected at least three offers outright and that the offers continued and increase in size…and so it continues…..until I price that suits both party’s and then a firm offer can be made

Why didn’t CC go about it the same way , a safer way so to ensure either the predator company pay a sensible offer or the offer is permanently rejected , or walks away….rather than accept a low ball offer and associated risk of a sale.

gL vas

It’s not so much the lack of movement in the sp movements on a day to day basis here, as prefer this than a highly volatile sp - but what does surprise me at this particular period in Scancells journey , with a very news rich period approaching plus funding and possible partnerships etc is that we have for example just seven trades today….its like the company is asleep but we know the opposite is true. Why the lack of interest here?

You do not need to look far to find many examples of company’s expecting positive news along with the corresponding increase on investor interests and trades…..

Why do the same investors ( regardless of their motivation, traders etc) who haunt other similar company’s in “ good news likely soon” mode ,choose to ignore scancell?

Can anyone identify a share with possible similar prospects this year that also suffers from a lack of interest / low trades.

I’m invested here so no negativity intended just pointing out what we all see most days, GL vas

There has been at least two new Framework Agreements launched recently

The most recent , yesterday.

https://www.digitalhealth.net/2026/03/nhs-sbs-launches-250m-communication-framework/

In October 2025, NHS SBS launched a £150m framework agreement for digital dictation, speech recognition and outsourced transcription services.

Neither of these Frameworks include Bleepa or cover what Bleepa provides, but demonstrates that stuff is going on behind the scenes ….so either another Framework will be launched covering the likes of Bleepa, or Bleepa will be the Framework .

If Bleepa is the only product offering full services, is interoperable and wrapped up as a medical device then why would you need a framework.

Https://joshthompson.co.uk/investing/feedback-plc-h1-2025-results-bleepa-nhs-national-scale/#:~:text=Core%20NHS%20integrations%20completed%20%E2%80%93%20eRS,laying%20the%20rails%20for%20scale.

Morning Bill.

The high of approx. £1.80 was on 7th March 23 - 3 years ago this Saturday.

I think ( hope) what is different this time is Tom did state that FDBK have a plan A and a plan B, as far as sales are concerned and both would include sales to the NHS, so either option leaves the company in a far better place than we are now sitting at , at 13.5p and even if it’s a gradual regional rollout the sp as you have said should respond very strongly.

Also keep in mind Tom’s comment on Bleepa having a backlog of customers ( paraphrasing) wanting to purchase our solutions and this dam should burst once funding becomes available. So imo the risk of absolute failure is low although the unknown is ever present on AIM. Gl vas

Dibs,

I just put the following question to AI

“ wha is the difference between NHS Medium-Term Planning Framework and the 2026 spending review and received the following

“ The Medium-Term Planning Framework (MTPF) 2026/27–2028/29 and the 2026 Spending Review (SR25) are two distinct but closely linked components of the UK government's long-term strategy for the NHS.

The fundamental difference is that the Spending Review sets the budget (money), while the Planning Framework sets the operational requirements (actions) to be delivered within that budget. ”.

If correct we are now expecting the allocation of the monies ….but within this FDBK did say recently that they have also Applied for a “business case” on the back of the spending review with several possible ways Bleepa could be purchased…

A) a possibly Mandatory National rollout. ( license)

B) and also of the peg, solution sold into individual ICBs.

C) maybe others

The fact that they were given opportunity to present a business case of options for BLEEPA bodes well and possibly confirms that Bleepa is required in one way or the other, spending review just need to decide on how they wish / can afford to purchase this software .

Yes, I think e both a little unclear about this issue.

I thonk we are clear about the funding review , which was discussed recent Q&A but Tom did not say, FDBK was now clear for general funding via the Medium-Term Planning Framework, in fact this medium framework was not nmentioned. Or did I miss it!

If FDBK had been included in this Framework it wouk have deserved an RNS. So I find that bit is confusing.

My gut is telling me the funding issues all going to be revealed with the funding review , soon. Gl vas

I may be wrong but we know FDBK have submitted a business case for Bleepa after the Medium term Framework was published last year. The result of this business case will reviewed by the Spending Review and if successful Bleepa will be able to become part of the NATIONAL rollout, as mandatory software , but if not successful can still be purchased by each NHS region independently , possibly part of the Medium Term planning Network but will need to compete / share for general.Budgets. I could be wrong on this but that’s my understanding , I think!

Afternoon Dibs61.

Here’s my interpretation.

The Medium-Term Planning Framework), which your AI search references too was published on October 24,2025.

We are now waiting for the decision from the NHS “Spending Review” which is due anytime in March about how much, and how they will hopefully fund. bLEEPA in the NHS over next few years.

https://www.walbrookpr.com/docs/librariesprovider48/default-document-library/investors/Feedback-plc-company-summary-feb-2026.pdf

https://nhsproviders.org/resources/on-the-day-briefing-medium-term-planning-framework-2026-2029

I keep looking unsuccessfully for references to this Spending Review outcomes, dates etc - so can only think it will be kept totally confidential until day of publication . What we do know from presentation is that start date for implementation period of services in this review is 1at April 26……so the publication could be as early as this week!

If anyone can find any references to the expected digital spending review please post it . Cheers.

GL vas

Thanks Barnacle.

I thought the live presentation was positive but actually reading the text , it reads even better!

My favourite quote would be this one, form the answer to Q1.

"For the last 18 months we've been having lots of conversations at both regional and national level. There's been a huge amount of interest in the work that we've done including national coverage, the programme in QVH was mentioned in official Department of Health briefings and press releases. So at every level of the system, there is an awareness of what we're doing and also the impact that this, could really drive. The difficulty has been that because of the consolidation of the ICBs and because of the difficult financial position that the NHS has been without this new spending review money coming online, we haven't been able to turn those, that interest into decisions and therefore decisions into contracts. So essentially we have been bottling up this repressed demand for Bleepa, and I'm hoping that will all get Uncorked in April as that new money and stability comes back into the system. So we're confident "

Thanks Barnacle and Bill for more information around the meaning of MESH.

This looks very encouraging as its a solution that has to be supplied in some form or other - and we are repeatedly told FDBK is the only provider with the full solution, and on the NHS provider list.

I really confident FDBK will be allocated a contract( budget) - just don't know if it will be to supply BLEEPA nationally, across NHS England or a more bespoke, off the shelf contract - where each region purchases independently.

Either will be excellent for the SP IMO, but i think i know which one we all hope for.

I cant remember its been so long since we had good news, but is FDBK a leaky ship or will the next update come out of the blue.

GL Vas

Thanks Bill.

The paragraph below from Tom sounds ultra confident to me.

“ We have the relationships and systems in place to scale up rapidly once the NHS 10-year plan and Spending Review are complete.”

Just need that spending review to be published. Could be any time now.

Just in case not posted , here is the latest from Walbrook dated Feb 26.

“ New money coming online from April with a focus on digital and productivity

transformation - £10Bn for tech between 2026-2029 - Should drive ICB sales”

https://www.walbrookpr.com/docs/librariesprovider48/default-document-library/investors/Feedback-plc-company-summary-feb-2026.pdf

Explanation of MESH…medical, economic, statistical and ?, no idea.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh?Db=mesh&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=%22Medical+Records%22%5BMeSH+Terms%5D

This NHS England web site lists the five company , one of which is Optum that will / do supply the new NHS GP connect framework.

They state “ GP Connect capabilities will be available for commission from GP system suppliers across England subject to successful development, assurance, testing and First of Type (FoT) deployment.“

If you scroll down you will see the consumer supplier progress list

They state “ Consumer supplier progress

These suppliers provide GP Connect integration to primary and secondary care services throughout the NHS. These are the products that allow NHS 111, extended access centres and more to view detailed patient records and book GP appointments remotely. “

You can now see FDBK listed stating “ Feedback Connect - MESH“

Also Optum, again listed whom not only supply the GP connect framework itself, but are also a supplier.

It states. “ Optum Clinical system GP connect Viewer”

So I read this as FDBKs offering is the only solution listed as a medical device, no competition on this list.

Any of the five GP Framework Providers can select FGBK offering, and FDBKs relationship with Optum is importantly to trial and testing its technology so I guess other Framework providers may well be also partnering with other service providers to trial and testing its technology solutions, ready for hopefully the green light.

As FDBK recently announced in Feb26

They have achieved “ Secure, real time document sharing with GPs through GP Connect - replacing slower or less secure channels and improving continuity of care.“

The important point here I think is that FDBK is listed as a supplier on NHS England “ GP connect supplier progress “ site, recently announced its success using GP connect , improving its offering and we are told the FDBK offering offering is a unique offering , on this list- no competition.

GP Connect is crucial in reducing the Elective Care list as GP surgeries are heavily involved in efforts to reduce the NHS elective care waiting list , primarily by acting as a "front door" to manage referrals and, where possible, divert patients away from hospital waiting lists.

https://digital.nhs.uk/services/gp-connect/supplier-progress

After reading this article, published today entitled

"The 2026/27 GP Contract and the Architecture It Cannot See: "....."Digital Infrastructure, Data Governance, and the Ten Year Plan"

Its critical that the reforms so far do not mention how digitally these issues will be achieved., or resolved.

it states

"These ( objectives in ten year plan are) framed as reforms of funding, access, and workforce. They are not framed as digital requirements. Yet every one of them depends on data infrastructure that the contract does not describe, does not fund, and in most cases does not acknowledge. The contract is, in substance, an operational reform resting on uncommissioned digital transformation."

It does make you wonder if FDBK and Optum could be the missing link here .

According to this article the two major pieces of digital architecture identified as presently missing seem to be ...

Populated Health management

and

Digital interoperable "Where systems can share patient-level data across organisational boundaries in a structured, coded, and timely manner"

I notice that FDBK and Optum are described as a NHS providers by PPL e.g. "It has been a pleasure to work with NHS Providers, Optum and Feedback Medical"

If you take the recent Neighbourhood Simulations managed by PPL , where the two main private providers involved are firstly

Optum who describe their business solutions as

"Population health management.....Optum combines linked data, analytics and advisory services to help you make health and care systems work better for your communities."

and

Feedback Medical: "With our integration and interoperability capabilities and the unparalleled flexibility of our cloud architecture, we can provide healthcare organisations with a comprehensive digital health and diagnostics record, which can support neighbourhood health working or patient pathways across care settings".

We knew FDBK could solve the digital glue problem - but it seems Optum may well provide the Population Health Management

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/202627-gp-contract-architecture-cannot-see-digital-tito-mlbne

more here

https://www.optum.co.uk/population-health.html

Takes all types, I guess, some investors play safe. I think the SP was due a break regardless on expectations as only mid Dec 24, the sp was 8p, with a recent high of over 14p, so some may have taken a 30% - 50% Profit ….

Holding tight for news in March, hopefully.

Morning Wildforce,

not sure if related to be honest but seems so to me

...

Regarding your Moderna Puts Up $120M to Start Cancer Drug R&D Alliance With Immatics 2023 post.

Found this from Immatics Announces First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update. May 25

"Combination of IMA203 PRAME cell therapy and Moderna’s PRAME adaptive immune modulating therapy: FDA granted IND clearance for a Phase 1 trial"

"Combination of IMA203 PRAME Cell Therapy and PRAME Adaptive Immune Modulating Therapy

In February 2025, the FDA granted IND clearance for a Phase 1 trial evaluating Immatics’ IMA203 PRAME cell therapy in combination with Moderna’s PRAME adaptive immune modulating therapy. The first-in-human, Phase 1a/1b trial is a multicenter, open-label, dose escalation/de-escalation (adaptive design) trial evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the combination therapy in an estimated 15 patients with advanced or recurrent cutaneous melanoma and synovial sarcoma. Immatics is responsible for conducting the Phase 1 trial. Each party retains full ownership of its investigational PRAME compound, and the parties will fund the clinical study on a cost sharing basis. In November 2024, Immatics presented preclinical proof-of-concept data at SITC supporting this combination."

https://investors.immatics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/immatics-announces-first-quarter-2025-financial-results-and-0

Hi Jigger,

As far as I remember there are two funds, one with £10 m new money / funding called digital fund and another with called Better Care Fund , which is not new money but existing budgets / money being moved around .

I think your post refers to the second , the Better Care Fund.

Here is AI interpretation below

“ Here are the key details regarding funding for integration and transformation in the plan:

£10bn for Digital/Technology Transformation: The government committed up to £10 billion over three years (up to 2028–29) to digitise the NHS, creating a single patient record and turning the NHS App into a "digital front door". This is designed to support the shift from an "analogue" to a "digital" service.

£10bn Better Care Fund (BCF) Reform: While not a "new" £10bn fund, the existing Better Care Fund (which supports health and social care integration) is being reformed. The BCF national total is around £9.2bn–£10bn, and plans are in place to reform it from 2026–27 to better align with "neighbourhood health" planning.

Total Funding Package: This is part of a broader £29 billion increase in day-to-day spending for the NHS to fund reforms, service improvements, and new technology. ”

GL vas