4 ms·

Way too long before testing any sort of product market fit, but I'm surprised the author didn't think to pitch to insurance companies.

nerdawson 5y ago
I wonder if the founder has contemplated reviving and repositioning it?
nijave 5y ago
Or drug companies
- IMTDb 5y ago
  Yes, a good business model would have been to : - Invest (a lot of) capital to develop the product, make data more readable, refine the UX etc - Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to doctors, offering it for free to them, with the angle of improving their patient outcome - Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to patient, offering it for free to them, with the angle of letting them check what their doctors are doing Once everyone is using it and it becomes the de-facto source : - Market that to drug companies, asking for (a metric ton of) capital to "better manage your product reputation". Magically, the "better managed drugs" suddenly are shown under a better light than the others. Profitable ? Yes. Basically extorsion ? Also yes.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    "Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to doctors, offering it for free to them, with the angle of improving their patient outcome" At this point the strategy fails. Patient outcome is not the metrics to be focusing on with this group.
poulpy123 5y ago
or hospitals
dskrepps 5y ago
What about the right congressman? Find whichever one's constituents are most likely to vote based on health related legislation, and try to suggest they get it adopted by a government agency. Through political ads people can see they immediately support the idea, visit the platform as-is, and that will influence their vote. Even if legislation doesn't ultimately get through that's still a lot of attention. Goes for any elected position whether it be federal, state, or even some smaller board of some kind. Pitching voter influence is a much stronger drive than simply suggesting people pay for something.
glitchc 5y ago
Mismatch of incentives I think. Insurance companies and drug companies may not be interested in evidence-based selection. I suspect they would prefer biased results i.e. insurance would want the cheapest and deug companies would want the most revenue generating. Neither may be the optimal choice for the patient.
- pandemicsoul 5y ago
  Yeah, but if his tool showed – hypothetically – that in 75% of cases the generic (or just the cheaper medication) was just as good or better, that seems like it would have been a slam dunk?

nerdawson 5y ago

I wonder if the founder has contemplated reviving and repositioning it?

nijave 5y ago

Or drug companies

IMTDb 5y ago
Yes, a good business model would have been to : - Invest (a lot of) capital to develop the product, make data more readable, refine the UX etc - Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to doctors, offering it for free to them, with the angle of improving their patient outcome - Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to patient, offering it for free to them, with the angle of letting them check what their doctors are doing Once everyone is using it and it becomes the de-facto source : - Market that to drug companies, asking for (a metric ton of) capital to "better manage your product reputation". Magically, the "better managed drugs" suddenly are shown under a better light than the others. Profitable ? Yes. Basically extorsion ? Also yes.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  "Invest (a lot of) capital to market the service to doctors, offering it for free to them, with the angle of improving their patient outcome" At this point the strategy fails. Patient outcome is not the metrics to be focusing on with this group.

poulpy123 5y ago

or hospitals

dskrepps 5y ago

What about the right congressman? Find whichever one's constituents are most likely to vote based on health related legislation, and try to suggest they get it adopted by a government agency. Through political ads people can see they immediately support the idea, visit the platform as-is, and that will influence their vote. Even if legislation doesn't ultimately get through that's still a lot of attention. Goes for any elected position whether it be federal, state, or even some smaller board of some kind. Pitching voter influence is a much stronger drive than simply suggesting people pay for something.

glitchc 5y ago

Mismatch of incentives I think. Insurance companies and drug companies may not be interested in evidence-based selection. I suspect they would prefer biased results i.e. insurance would want the cheapest and deug companies would want the most revenue generating. Neither may be the optimal choice for the patient.

pandemicsoul 5y ago
Yeah, but if his tool showed – hypothetically – that in 75% of cases the generic (or just the cheaper medication) was just as good or better, that seems like it would have been a slam dunk?