4 ms·

This board seems heavily geared to do deals for defense-related applications. That's fine; getting deals with the Armed Forces and VA is feasible and quite rewa

This board seems heavily geared to do deals for defense-related applications. That's fine; getting deals with the Armed Forces and VA is feasible and quite rewarding. What they overtly lack is connections to the healthcare world. I'm surprised they aren't publicly roped into Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic or Kaiser, as they to support novel technologies in this space. I suppose you can argue that the business model is fundamentally incompatible, but I've seen Mayo and Kaiser go in anyway; they can acquire these labs and roll them into operations pretty easily.

mr_luc 13y ago
Serious question: what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this? If it's a finger prick, there's less to mark up. From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up. To the VA, inefficiency is a problem. In the healthcare world in general, it doesn't seem to bother anyone.
- spartango 13y ago
  It's all about speed and costs. The finger-prick is a distraction; phlebotomy is not a huge deal. Instead, the important things are the turn-around-time and billed cost. If Theranos can offer 4 hour turnaround and a clinic/hospital cannot (or even get close), they will pay for it because it is good for doctor productivity and patient outcomes. If Theranos can maintain a half-medicare cost structure, that's also good for the provider because they can expand their margins. Additionally, Theranos might do deals with insurance companies such that they reduce their reimbursements/push providers to use Theranos, which reduces the insurer's costs. The outcomes-case is even more pressing for an insurer these days. Now, none of these directly translate to lower insurance premiums, but that doesn't mean that there aren't economic reasons to adopt the service. > From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up. This is generally untrue, as much as it is a public perception. The system lacks simplicity and thus comes across as opaque; this is its failing. Its complexity is not malicious, though.
- mjn 13y ago
  Kaiser is one example where incentives align, because they're an integrated HMO, running both the insurance and the care side of things. It's kind of like an opt-in single-payer organization. Their model is that they charge you X/month for care, and then everything is billed internally, with Kaiser clinics treating Kaiser plan members. So if they can bring costs down, that helps them; since nobody external is reimbursing for services, there is no advantage to billing expensive tests.
- pbreit 13y ago
  That's a rather cynical view. You don't think hospitals have any incentive to improve care, implement new products or cut costs?
  - batgaijin 13y ago
    Ever seen 'Puncture'? It's free on Netflix last time I checked.
- pdonis 13y ago
  what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this? Not much, which is why this service should not be offered through the standard healthcare system. I can see two other ways to do it: (1) I walk into a drugstore, sit down at the testing machine, select the tests I want, swipe my credit card, and the machine takes a drop of blood from my finger, runs the test, and gives me a printout of the results. (2) Home testing kits for every common lab test, not just blood sugar.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    And it looks like the drugstore option is being pursued, according to a WSJ article on Theranos: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055003869574012.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412300457905...
  - spartango 13y ago
    Note that Quest Diagnostics has a drugstore partnership with CVS[1], directly competing with Theranos+Wallgreens. Labcorp has similar offerings, although some are whitelabeled. [1] http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=323137&highlight= http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-...
    - pdonis 13y ago
      But these tests still require large blood samples, and they have to go back to the lab to be tested, right? So you can't just walk into the drugstore, get tested, and walk out with the results.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mr_luc 13y ago

Serious question: what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this? If it's a finger prick, there's less to mark up. From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up. To the VA, inefficiency is a problem. In the healthcare world in general, it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

spartango 13y ago
It's all about speed and costs. The finger-prick is a distraction; phlebotomy is not a huge deal. Instead, the important things are the turn-around-time and billed cost. If Theranos can offer 4 hour turnaround and a clinic/hospital cannot (or even get close), they will pay for it because it is good for doctor productivity and patient outcomes. If Theranos can maintain a half-medicare cost structure, that's also good for the provider because they can expand their margins. Additionally, Theranos might do deals with insurance companies such that they reduce their reimbursements/push providers to use Theranos, which reduces the insurer's costs. The outcomes-case is even more pressing for an insurer these days. Now, none of these directly translate to lower insurance premiums, but that doesn't mean that there aren't economic reasons to adopt the service. > From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up. This is generally untrue, as much as it is a public perception. The system lacks simplicity and thus comes across as opaque; this is its failing. Its complexity is not malicious, though.
mjn 13y ago
Kaiser is one example where incentives align, because they're an integrated HMO, running both the insurance and the care side of things. It's kind of like an opt-in single-payer organization. Their model is that they charge you X/month for care, and then everything is billed internally, with Kaiser clinics treating Kaiser plan members. So if they can bring costs down, that helps them; since nobody external is reimbursing for services, there is no advantage to billing expensive tests.
pbreit 13y ago
That's a rather cynical view. You don't think hospitals have any incentive to improve care, implement new products or cut costs?
- batgaijin 13y ago
  Ever seen 'Puncture'? It's free on Netflix last time I checked.
pdonis 13y ago
what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this? Not much, which is why this service should not be offered through the standard healthcare system. I can see two other ways to do it: (1) I walk into a drugstore, sit down at the testing machine, select the tests I want, swipe my credit card, and the machine takes a drop of blood from my finger, runs the test, and gives me a printout of the results. (2) Home testing kits for every common lab test, not just blood sugar.
- pdonis 13y ago
  And it looks like the drugstore option is being pursued, according to a WSJ article on Theranos: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055003869574012.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412300457905...
- spartango 13y ago
  Note that Quest Diagnostics has a drugstore partnership with CVS[1], directly competing with Theranos+Wallgreens. Labcorp has similar offerings, although some are whitelabeled. [1] http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=323137&highlight= http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-...
  - pdonis 13y ago
    But these tests still require large blood samples, and they have to go back to the lab to be tested, right? So you can't just walk into the drugstore, get tested, and walk out with the results.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]