You covered the main driving reasons that involve insurance. I think there are also factors inherent to medicine that make health tech “scammable”. There are f

You covered the main driving reasons that involve insurance. I think there are also factors inherent to medicine that make health tech “scammable”. There are few objective truths in medicine. Our understanding of human health is still fairly basic. On top of that, many of our best interventions, drugs, and procedures produce only middling results. When the state of the art is poor, it’s easy to sell a vision for improvement. Measuring the success of health tech is very difficult. What does product market fit look like for early cancer detection? From afar, it may seem as if success for a cancer screening company should be simple to measure: how many cancers can the technology/company detect? That’s not the case. In medicine there are always confounding factors. For example, in cancer detection, many cancers are low threat (not the same as benign). Identifying a cancer that is unlikely to threaten your life, or worse a false positive result, will end up making your health worse. You will undergo unnecessary biopsies and stress until the issue is resolved. You might think: OK, but that’s measuring the wrong thing, the real metric to measure is how much longer those patients live with or without the cancer screening tech. You’d be right, but accurately measuring that takes 5+ years. All this is to say, health tech is a difficult path, perhaps the most difficult path to production in all of tech. Along that road, there are many opportunities for unethical operators to cut corners.