How To Kill A Unicorn: The cautionary tale of Theranos

A unicorn in startup jargon is an early stage tech company with a $1 billion+ valuation. Theranos is (was?) a Silicon Valley startup and a unicorn, focused on disrupting the enormous market of diagnostic blood testing.

Valuations are funny things. They are critically important to startup CEOs and investors but ultimately, they are subjective shared opinions based on complex models of present and future events. Startup CEOs and venture capital investors try very hard to keep their company’s’ valuations ever-increasing. Negative news or events can start a cascading cycle resulting in the dreaded “down round” of investment and even ejection from the unicorn club.

Theranos was a unicon, but no longer
Killing the unicorn, British Library

Background

CEO Elizabeth Holmes founded Theranos in 2004. As a 19-year old college student, Holmes pitched an idea to her Stanford professor and was advised to start a company. Through family and personal connections, venture capital money poured in, Holmes dropped out of Stanford and Theranos began its mission to change health care.

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes
Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes – Inc. cover photo Oct. 2015

“…it doesn’t work…”

Alas, “mistakes were made” and the company and its executive team found itself in hot water with the FDA and the subject of a number of unflattering stories in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. The Theranos head of R&D committed suicide and left a note saying “it [the technology] doesn’t work.” Also, the company president recently resigned and CEO Holmes is banned from owning or operating a lab for two years. In addition, Theranos’s commercial partners, Safeway and Walgreen’s, terminated their agreements with the company.

That’s about as bleak a series of events as you can imagine, right? Well as the infomercial goes, wait, there’s more…

Negative reactions continued over the year since the WSJ story broke. In May 2016, Theranos announced that it had voided two years of results from its Edison device. Patients filed a class action lawsuit alleging they were adversely affected by Theranos’s business practices (specifically, faulty blood tests). Recently, the company announced layoffs of 40% of its labor force and closure of testing labs around the country. In October, 2016 Holmes announced that Theranos would shift its strategy toward development and manufacture of small, robotic diagnostic test equipment – a very crowded market.

In June, 2016, Forbes assessed the valuation of Theranos as $800 million and revised the estimated net worth of CEO Holmes from $4.5 billion at the company’s peak valuation (she has a 50% stake in Theranos but it’s all common stock) to zero.

Theranos valuation history
Theranos valuation history (based on public estimates)

What killed the unicorn? There are a number of bad decisions made by Theranos management and its Board of Directors. Here are 10 of the worst that I identified.

Bad Decisions

  1. Stack the Board of Directors with old, politically connected white guys (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Frist, Sam Nunn) with little or no startup, technology, or diagnostics savvy.
  2. Create a cult of personality around the CEO. Make sure she appears on popular magazine covers and is interviewed frequently on TV shows.
  3. Create a not-so-subtle emphasis on the similarities between your attractive, young CEO and Steve Jobs: both are college dropouts, both wear a uniform of black turtlenecks, both are “visionary” leaders, both are/were young billionaires (only on paper in the case of Elizabeth Holmes)..
  4. Keep the founder as CEO, no matter if she has zero prior business or medical industry experience. Do not bring in a strong executive team with relevant industry experience to complement the CEO’s energy, vision, and talent.
  5. Hype your technology but shroud its technical details in secrecy. Worse, secretly use competitor’s technology for the vast majority of the tests performed.
  6. Do not conduct randomized clinical studies to demonstrate efficacy vs. industry “gold standard” technologies. Definitely  do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.
  7. Sign agreements with major commercial partners (Walgreens, Safeway) and conduct major PR campaigns announcing the deals before the technology is mature and proven.
  8. Pay no attention to FDA, CLIA, and GLP requirements. Refuse to learn from what happened to other startups that defied or ignored the FDA (see 23andme).
  9. Aggressively promote your muddled, multi-pronged, “disruptive” business model.
  10. Deny and deflect all bad news. Accuse The Wall Street Journal of conducting a witch hunt.

Takeaways

  1. The medical device/diagnostics industry is not the technology industry. Patients’ health and lives are affected by poor management, decisions, and/or business practices. Consequently, medical technology companies are heavily regulated and conservative regarding innovation. 
  2. If you must have an inexperienced person at the helm of the startup, compensate with a seasoned, accomplished Board of Directors with relevant experience and networks.
  3. Aim to solve one problem at a time. Prioritize. Theranos touted its “Nanotainer” finger stick technology, Edison diagnostic technology, and plans to disrupt healthcare by bringing diagnostic testing directly to patients through grocery and drug stores. That’s a lot of moving parts.
  4. Expect swift and deadly reactions from entrenched competitors (including complaints to the FDA and leaks to the media). Your disruptive business model is their existential threat.
  5. As the saying goes, sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. The first step to success in the medical technology industry is a strong intellectual property portfolio and properly maintained trade secrets that create solutions to real healthcare problems. But that strategy must coexist with a culture of regulatory compliance, stringent adherence to quality standards, and sponsorship/disclosure of peer reviewed randomized clinical studies. It’s a business model that has worked for many successful companies in the industry.

Will Theranos pull out of its nose dive, emerge as a disruptive company in the ultra-competitive medical diagnostics market, and regain its unicorn status? Maybe, but given its track record and penchant for acting more like a Silicon Valley tech startup than a medical technology company, I would not bet on it.

Postscript 12.15.16 The shareholder lawsuits have begun.

References

  1. From $4.5 Billion To Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth Of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes [Forbes]
  2. The wildly hyped $9 billion blood test company that no one really understands [The Washington Post]
  3. An Open Letter From Elizabeth Holmes [Theranos company website]
  4. Theranos Attacks Wall Street Journal (Again) in a Rebuttal You’ll Need a Medical Degree to Understand [recode]
  5. Expecting Data From Theranos, Lab Experts Get New Product [Bloomberg]
  6. At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags [The Wall Street Journal]
  7. Why the Next Steve Jobs Will Be a Woman [Inc.]
  8. Theranos throws in the towel on clinical labs, officially pivots to devices [Ars Technica]
  9. How Playing the Long Game Made Elizabeth Holmes a Billionaire [Inc.]
  10. Theranos’ Scandal Exposes the Problem With Tech’s Hype Cycle [Wired]
  11. Will Shareholder Lawsuit Trigger Theranos To Return Capital To Shareholders? [Forbes]

  12. Theranos Just Got Slammed With Another Lawsuit [Fortune]

Eko Core, A Digital Upgrade For The Centuries-Old Stethoscope | TechCrunch

Eko Core Digital Stethoscope - product picture
Eko Core Digital Stethoscope

The Eko Core digital stethoscope is a “why didn’t I think of that?” invention.

In a few months, the stethoscope will celebrate its 200th birthday. A medical breakthrough in 1816, it’s still a part of nearly every doctor’s visit today and a symbol of medicine itself.…

Digital Stethoscope

Stripped to its essentials, the Eko Core digital stethoscope is a highly engineered Bluetooth microphone designed to fit medical stethoscopes. The device wirelessly transmits patients’ heart sounds (not EKG) to a smart phone or tablet app.

The Eko Core was invented and commercialized by a team of UC Berkeley engineering graduates (claimed to be the youngest team to secure FDA clearance for a Class II medical device).

What Eko Core did well

In developing and executing its strategy, the Eko Core team did a number of things right:

  • Targeted a huge existing market. Most doctors and many nurses carry and use stethoscopes every day.
  • Recognized and addressed a  nagging clinical problem: It can take years (even decades) to become adept at using a stethoscope to recognize heart sounds.
  • Improved the functionality of the stethoscope by enabling visualization and amplification. Benefit to the user is improved confidence in identification of heart sounds.
  • Made their device a simple, affordable ($199) add-on to the user’s existing stethoscope.
  • Employed a Bluetooth wireless connection to the user’s smart phone or tablet . Data  from the stethoscope is displayed in a custom app.
  • Enabled data sharing via “the cloud” so that users can share typical and atypical heart sounds and learn from each other.
  • Partnered with major EHR suppliers to enable the digital stethoscope data to be entered into the patient’s electronic medical record.
  • Identified the potential for use of the Eko Core to lower healthcare costs by reducing costly referrals to cardiologists for unusual heart sounds.

What Eko Core hasn’t done yet

  • Showed they can be financially successful over time. Medical device sales and marketing is expensive. Manufacturing under FDA, GMP, ISO, etc. regulations can increase costs. Maintaining healthy profit margins on low-priced medical devices can be a challenge.
  • Exhibited a competitive advantage over similar products, Thinklabs for example.
  • Fully protected their intellectual property, although the company did recently file a patent application.
  • Leveraged their technology beyond one-hit wonder status.

Takeaways

The number of medical stethoscope users in the developed world is on the order of several million. Growth rates are slow, with new graduates replacing retirees, etc.  That puts the potential market at around $500-600 million.

Not bad, but once you “pick the low-hanging fruit” and sell to the early adopters and early majority customers, selling more units gets progressively tougher and more costly. And given competition, it’s a race for market share to capture and keep customers.

I think this will be a fun and profitable business for a while. Longer term, I hope Eko Core has a big medical device company lined up as a distribution partner and has an encore product that leverages the same technology and customer base.

Source: The Eko Core Is A Digital Upgrade For The Centuries-Old Stethoscope | TechCrunch

Eko Devices website

Free Medical Device Launch Checklist – Protect Your Investment

free Medical Device Launch Checklist

So you (or your company) has developed a new medical device. You have invested millions of dollars and substantial time in engineering, obtained regulatory clearances, and set up manufacturing. It’s time to go to market, right? Turn it over to Marketing and Sales and wait for the orders to pour in. Are you sure that all relevant launch activities are being planned and accounted for? Perhaps you should protect your investment in your medical device product with this simple, easy to use, free Medical Device Launch Checklist.

Easy to use, downloadable PDF file: free Medical Device Launch Checklist

The Medical Device Launch Checklist from sanko::strategic consulting is free and easy to use. It contains 64 checkable launch items. Launch items include traditional marketing activities like pricing as well as easy to overlook issues such as expiration dating and localization. The Checklist gives you a brief description of the purpose of each item. It also shows you the department/corporate function with primary responsibility for the item. The file can be saved to monitor launch progress.

Anyone can use the Medical Device Launch Checklist. It is primarily intended for small and medium-size companies that may not have institutional systems and processes to control launch activities. It can also be used by anyone (Product Manager, Marketing Manager, Project Manager, startup CEO, et al) who wants to assure that nothing has been omitted from their launch plan.

You can use the Checklist to guide the development of a launch or marketing plan. The Checklist can also be used as a gateway document to assure that all activities are accounted for and either completed or in progress before authorizing product launch.

To obtain your personal copy of the free Medical Device Launch Checklist, click here and select the link for the free Medical Device Launch Checklist.

Think of it as cheap insurance to protect your multi-million dollar baby.

Image courtesy of arztsamui / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Smaller, faster, lighter, cheaper medical devices

http://3278as3udzze1hdk0f2th5nf18c1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/drop-theranos.jpg
image via singularityhub.com

Is it just me or does it seem that most interesting medical device innovations are coming from startups and not from established companies? Here are a few medical devices being developed that are smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper than established technologies and products.

The point of care diagnostic system being developed by startup Theranos relies heavily on microfluidic and automation technologies. The technology, while impressive, is not revolutionary. Theranos is using readily accessible technology to develop a point-of-care diagnostic test device that can be operated by virtually anyone. The test uses a pinprick to collect a drop of blood to perform all of its tests. No need for a nurse or technician. The test is completely automated so there is no need for a diagnostic technician.

Time is saved because the sample is processed onsite instead of being transported to a central lab and there is negligible wait time compared with large diagnostic equipment. One of the biggest drawbacks to present diagnostic testing is the wait: patients are anxious and physicians often can’t administer medicine or therapy until and unless an initial diagnosis is confirmed.

Tribogenics is developing the next generation of x-ray imaging technology. From the company website:

Tribogenics technology enables portable, compact X-ray solutions for applications in industrial testing, medical diagnosis, security screening and other industries. By miniaturizing X-ray sources and eliminating the need for high voltage, we can create products and solutions unattainable using existing X-ray technology.

While I’m not sure how big the opportunity is for pocket-sized x-ray machines in medicine, there are plenty of industrial and commercial uses. Plus, the potential for portability, low cost, and simplicity may make the Tribogenics device well-suited for deployment in developing countries with little or no medical infrastructure.

The third technology I’m writing about isn’t a product but a concept. The Smartphone Physical is being termed “the physician’s bag of the 21st century.” In a recent TED Talk, Shiv Gaglani showed that a complete physical exam could be conducted with a smartphone and what are essentially smart attachments. For example, companies have developed or are developing ECG leads, a stethoscope, otoscope, ultrasound wand, and even a spiromoter. Gaglani and his colleagues are creating a database of connected devices and apps and hope to start a company to commercialize the Smartphone Physical.

One concern about the Smartphone Physical is a condition that is described by a new word, cyberchondria. Yes, it means hypochondria that is facilitated (or exacerbated) by the ready availability of digital and connected devices and apps. Don’t think it could happen? Ask any doctor about how many patients self-diagnose on the Internet before their office visit. Cyberchondria is real.

Takeaways: If you can take an existing medical device or technology and improve it by making it smaller, faster, lighter, and/or cheaper, you have the makings of a company. Your new device doesn’t have to be better than what it replaces but it would make it easier to sell if it had the same quality, accuracy, etc.

There are plenty of examples of medical devices that are big, bulky, slow and costly. Give customers two or more benefits based on eliminating or minimizing these undesirable features and you will create a market niche for your products.

Read more:

Small, Fast and Cheap, Theranos Is the Poster Child of Med Tech — and It’s in Walgreen’s | Singularity Hub.

http://www.theranos.com/

California Startup, Tribogenics, Develops Smart Phone Sized Portable X-ray Machines | Singularity Hub.

http://tribogenics.com/

Smartphone Physicals Are Taking Off With Explosion of Apps, Attachments | Singularity Hub.

http://www.smartphonephysical.com/

 

The Clever Bottle vs. the Smart Pill

http://www.clevercap.org/images/about_image.png
image via clevercaprx.com

Patients are terrible at taking prescription medications. A couple of startups have developed devices that aim to solve the problem, but with wildly different solutions: The Clever Bottle vs. the Smart Pill.

A recent study by WHO estimated that 50% of patients with chronic illnesses don’t take their drugs as prescribed. This behavior increases deaths and complications. Further, it costs about $100 billion per year in avoidable healthcare costs.

 

 

Medication compliance is a problem that has been around for thousands of years. In fact, a paper in The Mayo Clinic Proceedings included a quote from Hippocrates who lived and practiced medicine more than two thousand years ago:

Keep a watch…on the faults of the patients, which often make them lie about the taking of things prescribed. For through not taking disagreeable drinks, purgative or other, they sometimes die.

Hippocrates, Decorum

Ensuring that patients take their medications seems to be an unglamorous approach to a big and costly healthcare problem. It’s also a potentially lucrative market. While neither of the solutions would be considered simple or low tech by most people, they are direct in how they address the issue.

The Clever Cap pill bottle is something most of us might say, “hey, I thought of that!” The people at Compliance Meds Technologies in south Florida took the next step and developed their idea. The Clever Cap fits on standard pill bottles, dispenses only the prescribed amount of medication, keeps track of medications dispensed, and communicates wirelessly with mobile devices or with a special hub. The hub is a device made by Qualcomm in their attempt to cash in on the vast potential in mobile and digital health data.

CleverCap can also be reprogrammed and reused. The device is reported to work even without a wireless connection. It’s not clear what happens if the batteries die. What the CleverCap can’t do is know if the patient really swallowed the pills.

The Smart Pill, branded as the Ingestion Event Marker or IEM by its developer, Proteus Digital Health of Redwood City, California, aims to embed a microchip in each pill. The chip is activated and powered by stomach acid and apparently passes harmlessly through the digestive system and is eliminated. The chip communicates time and date ingested as well as physiological and behavioral patient data to a wrist patch worn by the patient.

Very high tech. Indeed, the company has partnerships with Novartis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and Oracle among others. The company has raised a lot of money including $62.5 million in “the second closing of its F round.” Proteus has received FDA marketing clearance, a de novo 510(k) for its technology. It remains to be seen if drug manufacturers will need additional FDA clearance to use the technology with their pharmaceuticals.

The Smart Pill definitely knows if the patient swallowed the pills. The big question is whether patients want this much technology in their bodies vs. the less intrusive CleverCap. My guess is that there is probably room for both solutions in this potentially large emerging market.

Takeaways: There are unsolved problems and unmet needs everywhere in healthcare. We’ve all daydreamed about things like smart pills and clever caps. Keep an open mind and perhaps you will recognize a new opportunity.

Both of these technologies are potentially disruptive and they both make use of the latest information technology including cloud analytics and reporting. The CleverCap seems to have the quickest path to market but the Smart Pill has all sorts of other potential capabilities and that’s probably why the company is well-funded and flush with partners. Both strategies seem viable and there’s plenty of room in the market for their innovations and more.

Read more:

CleverCap Pill Bottle Connects to Wifi, Dispenses Only as Directed, Uploads To The Cloud | Singularity Hub.

The Pills Have Eyes: Microchipped Medicine Is Coming | Singularity Hub.

Medication Adherence: WHO Cares?.

High tech medical device maker focuses on…China?

http://axialexchange.com/images/articles/Hypertension-Nutrition-Counseling.jpg
image via axialexchange.com

High blood pressure is a significant societal health problem all over the world. Kona Medical is trying to address the huge hypertension population with a noninvasive ultrasound device that might eliminate the need to take daily blood pressure medication. In a somewhat unorthodox move, the company is focusing initially on China.

 

Last year, Medtronic acquired Ardian, another startup that is focused on the same clinical condition. Ardian, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, was purchased for $800 million.

From axialexchange.com:

The statistics for hypertension are stunning. 30% of US adults have hypertension (high blood pressure). Another 30% of Americans are pre-hypertensive. Less than half of those people with hypertension have their condition under control.  A fifth don’t know they have it. The annual price tag for direct medical expenses related to high blood pressure is $131 billion. This is driven in part by the 55 million doctor visits that are prompted by high blood pressure. High blood pressure is present in most first heart attacks (69%), first strokes (77%), and in people with congestive heart failure (74%). High blood pressure was listed as a primary or contributing cause of death for about 348,000 Americans in 2008.

Recent medical research has shown that ablation (destruction) of the nerves around the renal arteries can reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension. A number of medical device companies are racing to commercialize products based on their proprietary technologies in order to take a lead in this evolving market.

Ardian uses radio frequency ablation delivered via catheter to the area of the renal arteries. Kona is using focused external ultrasound to deliver the therapeutic energy – they are calling it “surround sound.” In a superficial assessment, it appears that Kona has the edge since their technology is completely noninvasive while the Ardian technology could at best be described as minimally invasive.

Of course, what should really matter is which technology works best with the fewest side effect, not how the therapy is delivered. The “best” technology doesn’t always prevail in the medical device industry, however. Sometimes first to market gets and keeps the largest share while in other situations the best marketing prevails.

Kona has previously raised $40 million in venture capital earlier this year and in 2012.

Kona’s latest announcement, to use a new investment of $10 million to launch their product in China, is somewhat confusing. Yes, there are vast numbers of people in China and untold numbers with hypertension. Most, however, probably do not have the type of health insurance that would pay for a high tech solution. In its press release, the company said that their therapy has the promise of being delivered in an outpatient setting. Outpatient hypertension therapy clinics – now that’s a disruptive concept!

China is not a traditional launch market for new medical devices. The company says that the latest investment, from a fund with deep ties to China, will be used exclusively to address the many clinical, regulatory, and intellectual property issues unique to China as a medical device market for Kona’s new therapy.

It will be interesting to see if Kona can successfully launch their product into the Chinese market while simultaneously commercializing for the traditional U.S. or E.U. markets without losing focus or depleting key resources.

Takeaways: Most companies commercializing novel medical devices pick a launch market and stick with it. There are any number of reasons to launch in the U.S. first. Other companies pick the European Union countries and some look to large, less regulated countries in South America.

While many development and commercialization tasks are the same no matter which initial market is selected, there are important differences. It’s usually best to choose the first, second, and perhaps third initial markets so that the launch components are not uniquely different and the company can use scarce resources for other commercialization tasks.

 Read more: Kona Medical raises $10M to reduce high blood pressure for people in China – GeekWire.

Kona Medical

Medical Device Startup Fundraising: 5 keys for your pitch

Woman presentingIf you are leading a medical device startup, fundraising is your top priority. Here are five key points that you must address in every pitch that you make, no matter if it’s for a grant, seed investment from friends and family, angel investment, venture capital funding, or strategic partnerships with multinational medical device companies.

From the article:

  • Be clear on what your product is, right up front
  • Articulate the important problem you are solving
  • Define your customers
  • Spell out how you will create value with the $$ you are raising
  • Instill confidence in you and your team

Another way to look at the pitch is to think of it in terms of risk reduction. Most experienced investors talk about three main areas of risk in startup investing:

  • Technical Risk
  • Market Risk
  • Execution Risk

Investors will not move forward with an opportunity unless they believe that these key risks have been addressed and are below their personal threshold. Of course, you will never know that threshold so you must work to convince the investor that you have mitigated the three risks to the maximum extent possible.

Technical risk is all about the product or solution. Does your product solve the customer’s problem? Have you built a working prototype? Do you have an animal model? Have you performed animal testing? Are there important technical issues yet to be resolved? Do you have any intellectual property protection? Have you conducted a freedom to operate analysis? Does your product or solution depend on products or IP owned by other companies? Have you conducted beta testing? What’s your regulatory classification and plan? Are there more products in the pipeline?

Market risk is about the customer(s). Have you identified the problem? Is the problem a large one? Is the market opportunity big enough to justify the investment? Who are the customers? Why will they buy from you? What’s the competition (and don’t make the rookie mistake of saying that there is no competition)? Do you have evidence of demand? Do you have testimonials or at least interest from Key Opinion Leader customers? How do you plan to distribute and sell your product? How does your product or solution fit in today’s environment of managed care, healthcare reform, and evidence-based medicine? What’s your reimbursement strategy and plan?

Execution risk is about you and your team’s ability to convince investors that you can use their money to execute your plan. Does your team have the talent and experience to successfully commercialize your product? Do you have experienced and knowledgeable advisors, both business and clinical? Do you have a credible business model? What are your key milestones? What’s your exit strategy? Do you have a detailed pro forma income statement, especially for the period up to launch and for the two years after launch? Will you execute it exactly as conceived? Of course not, but you should be confident in your plan and your ability to execute. You should also have detailed contingency plans for the inevitable crisis when things go awry. 

Takeaways: Like many things, being successful at medical device fundraising requires being a great salesperson. Whether it’s a surgeon or an investor you’re selling to, put yourself in the place of that person. Be sure to address the five key points with details, evidence, and background information: product, problem, customer, milestones, team. Also keep in mind the risk tolerance of the investor. Your ability to communicate mitigation of technical risk, market risk, and execution risk will determine your success in fundraising.

Read more: Medical Device Startups: 5 essentials for your pitch deck | MassDevice.

Health care and health insurance reforms are happening…at Walmart!?

Walmart logoHere’s an refreshing departure from all of the federal government gloom and doom news. Four hospitals around the U.S. including Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle have negotiated deals with large retailers Walmart and Lowe’s to provide comprehensive surgical care for knee and hip replacements to 1.4 million of the companies’ employees.

The kicker? Zero out-of-pocket costs, co-payments, deductibles, etc. But wait, there’s more. The arrangement, completely voluntary for employees by the way, provides travel, lodging, and living expenses for the patient and a caregiver.

The announcement expands a deal struck by the hospitals with Walmart in 2012 for heart and spinal surgeries along with organ transplants. The world-renowned Cleveland Clinic has been conducting a similar program, offering fixed-price cardiac procedures for a number of major corporations including Boeing.

The programs are attractive to the hospitals and corporations for a number of reasons. The corporations are self-insured. Reducing variability and uncertainty in healthcare costs is vitally important to the businesses. The corporations are large enough to be able to offer large volumes of patients for the high volume procedures.

The hospitals, already leading in terms of low complications and readmission rates, can use the guaranteed volumes to standardize procedures and improve quality even further. In exchange, I’m sure the partners agreed on large discounts to standard prices for the expensive procedures. And the patients, although not required to participate, get the sweeteners of no out of pocket cost and free travel. Sounds like a win for everyone.

In a separate development, Walmart announced that it was converting 35,000 part-time employees back to full-time status. Although that is a tiny fraction of Walmart’s 1.4 million employees, the latest action will result in those workers qualifying for employee-provided healthcare. Late in 2012, Walmart moved many full-time employees to part-time status in an action that was criticized as offloading their healthcare expenses on to taxpayers. Critics complained the workers earned so little that they would qualify for Medicaid health insurance through the new provisions of Obamacare.

Takeaways: While hardly novel, the agreements between the corporations and the hospitals are important because they have the potential to rein in out of control and spiraling healthcare costs. The hospitals will also be able to show exactly how they achieved their cost controls and quality improvements, giving them a competitive advantage and setting a great example for the rest of the country.

If you are developing a new device or technology, this should be a wake-up call. A key to cost control will be standardization. These hospitals will be highly resistant to adopt new technologies or purchase new medical devices unless you can show proof of positive effects on procedure costs, outcomes, and quality.

If you are in the healthcare insurance business, this disintermediation may not be a significant threat in the short term but be assured that other large corporations are watching or perhaps even conducting their own negotiations with high quality, high volume providers. The trend may prove to be a disruptive innovation in the long term.

Read more:

Walmart, Lowe’s strike deal with Virginia Mason on hip, knee surgeries | Local News | The Seattle Times.

Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? – Forbes.

Digital health: what’s the business model?

image via svtechtalk.com

Connecting patients with each other, with clinicians and other providers, with insurers, and with healthcare companies via mobile apps on tablets and smartphones and on the web seems like a great idea. The unanswered question is can you make money doing it?

Articles have been written about how the Internet has enabled patients with chronic diseases and their families to connect with others with the same condition. The patients share stories about symptoms, treatment successes and failures, and try to support each other in what can be emotionally draining circumstances. That ability to connect with a vast community all over the country, perhaps even the world, was virtually impossible before the advent of the World Wide Web.

Other companies are trying to connect healthcare providers with their patients. Some are offering to connect patients with providers for online visits for a fee, effectively commoditizing the doctor-patient relationship.

Google famously shut its attempt at a personal health record site, Google Health, last year. Google Health required a lot of effort to use as it didn’t automatically connect with consumers’ Electronic Medical Records. That shortcoming left a small market of people who were OK with manually entering all of their health data. And that wasn’t a big enough user base for Google.

Healthcare companies, especially those with a B2C business model, are desperate to maintain relationships with consumers.

Providing apps and cloud storage can be costly. It’s not clear who will pay for the digital services.

Doctors and other providers have been incentivized into adopting EMR technology. It’s unlikely that they will invest in additional information technology for their patients.

It seems that consumers and patients love the free stuff. A few may be willing to pay for some services but many have grown to expect that someone else will foot the bill. And most non-healthcare smartphone and tablet apps are either free or at most a few dollars. That sets a low ceiling for any new health-related apps. It’s a tough way to grow a sizable healthcare or medical device company.

People have grown accustomed to paying almost nothing for their healthcare. Sure, there are co-pays and deductibles that have increased significantly in recent years but those are a small fraction of the cost of care. It will be a challenge to change this expectation for health-related apps and services.

In-app ads are probably not the way to go. If the ads are for healthcare-related items like prescription drugs, the patients will lose trust in the service. If the ads are specifically targeted to the patient’s medical condition, the service will be accused of spying on the patient.

Perhaps healthcare companies will regard the cost of developing and providing apps as a marketing expense.

It’s an interesting dilemma. Free apps and services will draw large numbers of users. But monetizing the app via ads turns off many people. Charging for the services drastically reduces the potential market. Absorbing the expense internally places the app/service on the list of things to be cut when the company’s overall business stagnates or declines.

Takeaways: There is enormous interest in apps and services for mobile health. If you are developing products or services in this space, be sure you know how you are going to make money. It’s not a market if you can’t monetize it.

The traditional medical device business model doesn’t seem to apply here. If you procure funding, develop a product, then show economic or health benefits, who do you sell to?

Perhaps partnering with noncompeting companies interested in the same population is a creative way around the problem. If you can deliver large numbers of consumers/patients via a sponsored app to a partner like a big pharmaceutical company, you may be able to avoid some of the pitfalls and objections.

It’s prudent to put a lot of effort now into developing a viable business model. After all, when you start pitching to investors, one of the first questions asked will be, “how do you plan to make money?”

Read more:

Will Any Health App Ever Really Succeed? | MIT Technology Review

Patients share tips online for managing diseases | SFGate.

Improving Patient Engagement Equal Parts Technology, Empathy | Computerworld

Patients Eager To Access Data Including Medical Imaging Through Online Portals (infographic) | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

A Cautionary Tale: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | The Seattle Times

Atossa Genetics is an early stage biotechnology company in Seattle developing breast cancer diagnostic tests and medical devices using molecular diagnostic technology. The publicly traded company ran afoul of FDA regulations earlier this year and last week announced a voluntary recall of its products, causing its stock to tank.

The company bills itself as “the breast health company (TM).” Atossa is small, with only ten full-time employees (at least five of whom are senior management executives) according to Yahoo Finance.

Here’s a timeline of company events:

  • November 8, 2012 Atossa Genetics, Inc. Announces Initial Public Offering (NASDAQ exchange, IPO value $4 million). That’s not a typo. It really was $4 million, 800,000 shares at $5 per share.
  • February 21, 2013 Atossa Genetics, Inc. received a Warning Letter from the FDA regarding its Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) System and MASCT System Collection Test. From the company’s press release:

“The FDA alleges in the Letter that following 510(k) clearance the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 510(k) notification to the FDA.”

  • March – September 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. continues marketing its products, announcing numerous distribution and partnering agreements as well as supporting women’s health events.
  • September 18, 2013 The company’s stock closes up almost 21% in one day at $6.00 on volume of more than 8.4 million shares traded when it announces a distribution agreement with medical distributor McKesson.
  • October 4, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. initiated a voluntary recall to remove the ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and the Mammary Aspiration Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) device from the market. This voluntary recall includes the MASCT System Kit and Patient Sample Kit.
  • October 7, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. stock opens at $5.32 and quickly drops to $2.66 (down 50%) on the news of the voluntary recall. The stock closed today at $2.45, an all-time low.
  • October 7-8, 2013 At least six law firms have announced initiation of shareholder lawsuits in the aftermath of the recall.

Apparently, the company and the FDA disagreed on whether a new 510(k) was required after the company changed the Instructions for Use (IFU) on its product. The company seems to have decided to continue marketing without submitting a new 510(k). What happened next is unclear but the “voluntary” recall ensued.

The company told The Seattle Times that it currently has “sufficient cash for the next 8-12 months of operations without raising additional capital,” though it cautioned that the cost of the recall and other associated expenses is not yet known. Sales revenues were about half a million dollars for the first half of 2013. Atossa reported a $2.2 million loss for the same period.

According to The Seattle Times, Atossa is continuing to develop other diagnostic tests but “will be reassessing the regulatory status of these products … in light of our recent experience,” said CEO Quay. Seems like a prudent action given their recent history…

Takeaways: Do not disregard the FDA. They have the power to shut down your company. If you have a fundamental disagreement with FDA, hire a regulatory consultant and attorney and take their advice.

Make sure you have people with experience in commercializing medical devices, especially regulatory affairs, on your executive team and board of directors.

Think carefully before deciding that an IPO is your best financing option. There are very large fees to be paid and the reporting requirements (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) are much more revealing – and onerous – than anything required if you remain private and use VCs or angel investors as your sources of capital.

As the article points out, there are plenty of attorneys waiting to represent disgruntled shareholders. Perhaps you can prevail against all of this adversity but think of the opportunity costs in lost time and cash spent on lawyers and regulatory revisions instead of product development or marketing.

Read more: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times.

Robotic surgery and Intuitive Surgical – justifiable targets or targets of envy?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/image/index/pKISbwVuPwu-CpydsHPB-_ZzUeF8YNn3pSP_hdYcB-jmbFsMemtmA2YRxe7mpv9Ysm4SPHQUfdFCOkPclMKfZ9CUybeuQ86QqPvbWMC5B-eh3lqkPqkgukhgoIa-eGsGCD4Qr_KDqIxEgIvT52jCFi-wMjcy7J1OELQFhliwvoYa7eu81HQi3QHgaQ**Media attention on Intuitive Surgical is increasing. The Sunnyvale, California company is attracting much attention for its aggressive marketing and sales tactics. It’s also being scrutinized for what some critics say is an increased incidence of patient injuries during surgical use of the da Vinci System.

I’ve written about Intuitive Surgical in a previous blog post. Their products are very good and their marketing is stellar, perhaps too good if that’s possible. The ongoing controversies are whether the healthcare market needs as much robotic surgery as it is getting right now and whether inexperienced users and inappropriate use of the technology are responsible for increasing patient injuries or even death.

Intuitive has played the market situation perfectly as noted in the Bloomberg article. Their sales reps use da Vinci Systems to instill greed in hospital administrators by asserting that the hospital can increase market share by offering robotic surgery. Worse, they create fear by saying that other hospitals will increase their market share at the expense of the robot-deficient medical center.

Intuitive even heightens competition among surgeons in an effort to justify demand for additional installations. The surgeons are powerless to stop the marketing machine. One surgeon admitted that if he does not offer robotic surgery, his colleagues will, and he will lose patients to them.

One interesting, even frightening, item from the Bloomberg article is that many consumers, i.e. prospective patients, believe that the system is controlled by robots. In their minds, that’s what gives da Vinci a competitive advantage. So…low information consumers are heavily influencing  a market situation that affects everyone.

The MassDevice article highlights an ongoing dispute between Intuitive Surgical and analysts at hedge fund Citron Research. Citron alleges that adverse surgical events associated with the da Vinci System and reported through the FDA adverse event reporting system indicate a growing problem with injuries caused by the da Vinci System. Intuitive counters with its own analysis, saying that FDA reporting is unreliable and not suitable for time-based analysis. It further states that surgeons should rely on peer-based reviews before making decisions about the technology. From the article:

“”In the 1st 8 months of 2013, 2332 Adverse Event records were posted – compare to 4603 records posted in the entire 12 year period since the 1st Adverse Event tracking for da Vinci  appeared in MAUDE in 2000,” Citron wrote. “It is the opinion of Citron that the only reason there is not a national outcry is because the da Vinci robot has yet to kill or injure ‘the right person’ – like the next of kin of a congress member or a celebrity.”

Intuitive stock closed at $389.16 today, off 33.5% from its 52 week high.

Takeaways: If you plan to be a disruptive or hyper-aggressive medical device company, you need to have thick skin. There will always be plenty of critics and competitors taking potshots at you.

The extra risk with healthcare companies, of course, is that patients can get hurt and die as a result of action or inaction by the company.

You need to decide just how aggressive to be, and whether to define an ethical line over which the company and its employees will not cross. Of course shareholders and Board members may react negatively at any effort to put a damper on the money-making machine. Being responsible for installing that damper could cost a CEO, marketing, or sales executive his/her job.

As we move further into the era of outcomes-based decision-making, opportunities like robotic surgery for anything other than clinically justified reasons will diminish. Robotic surgery could be one of the few remaining “land grab” chances to make a lot of money with little competition. Let’s hope that patients and the rest of the healthcare system aren’t stuck with the bill.

Read more:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/robot-surgery-damaging-patients-rises-with-marketing.html

Citron puts Intuitive Surgical on blast over adverse events | MassDevice.

For Med Students, Love From the Drug Rep | NYTimes.com

No drug reps signDrug companies and medical device companies focus sales efforts on residents for one reason: because it works. The career-long profit from an eventual loyal physician could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medical device company. It’s also a “bottom-up” way to capture and defend market share.

Often done under the guide of education, healthcare companies’ marketing efforts are creative and relentless.  As the article indicates, many successful sales reps position themselves more as friends than as company representatives.

Inevitably, there have been abuses to the practice. In reaction, many hospitals have severely restricted or even banned contacts with medical students and residents. Some hospitals and medical practices no longer allow sales reps free access to facilities and staff. Some prohibit employees from accepting anything free from industry representatives.

A number of influential and outspoken physicians have written and spoken publicly about the issue, stating that they do not accept any freebies from industry, not even a pen. Their position is that any relationship with industry creates an uncomfortable conflict of interest, actual or perceived.

Of course, attempts to influence physicians and others under the guise of educational programs have been ongoing for many years. There are seminars, dinner meetings and conferences where doctors can earn continuing education credits. I know several physicians who significantly supplemented their professional practice income by speaking about specific drugs at dinner meetings.

Takeaways: Billions of dollars are spent annually on efforts to influence medical professionals. That’s a reasonable (but not necessarily ethical) business decision because many billions more are at stake in drug and medical device revenues and profits. If you are a pharma or medical device sales rep or marketing executive, your job and career are always on the line. Banning these practices just seems to drive them underground.

Perhaps a more rational approach would be to require full disclosure of any transactions (including lunchtime pizzas and the like) with a draconian penalty for concealment.

Read more: For Med Students, Love From the Drug Rep – NYTimes.com.

Disruptive Innovation Opportunities Created By Obamacare

Rather than debate endlessly about whether the Affordable Care Act is good or bad, staff at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation has analyzed Obamacare for entrepreneurial opportunities created by disruptive innovations in the law.

Clayton Christensen is a Harvard Business School Professor and author of The Innovator’s Dilemma (and a few more books about innovation since that business best-seller).

According to the authors, these new provisions of Obamacare are disruptive innovations:

  • Individual Mandate – adds tens of millions of new individuals to the primary care healthcare system.
  • Employer Mandate – will drive demand for new, less costly models of health insurance.
  • Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) – provides incentives to providers to keep patients healthy rather than just paying for treatment of illnesses.
  • Wellness Programs – requires health plans to offer new preventive and self-directed care options.
  • CMS Innovation Center – an entity created outside of Medicare and Medicaid with responsibility for developing novel payment and healthcare delivery models.

 The ACA is not perfect by any means. It is also not perfect in the estimation of the Christensen Institute. Here are a few provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are likely to inhibit disruptive innovation:

  • Essential Health Benefits – mandated levels of coverage that may exceed user needs and will make it difficult to introduce low-end disruptive plans.
  • Insurance Exchanges – online marketplaces that will enable comparison shopping, but only among qualified plans, excluding some new and potentially innovative options.
  • Cost-Sharing – government subsidies will drive consumers into Silver-level plans, limiting demand once again for Bronze-level or even lower (and less costly) plans.
  • Medical Loss Ratio – requiring insurers to justify all rate increases and to spend a minimum of 80% of premiums on healthcare creates barriers to entry for new and disruptive market entrants with low or no subscriber populations.
  • Medicaid Expansion – enrolling patients with minimal or zero previous healthcare coverage into Bronze or even Silver-level plans eliminates a market that could be served by disruptive new entrants with innovative healthcare models. Instead, these patients will be driven to traditional insurers.

As noted by many people, including President Obama, the ACA does not have the ability to transform healthcare on its own. Rather, it is intended to provide incentives and opportunities for innovation in order to make healthcare more efficient, more affordable, and more accessible. In the words of the President, “We want to bend the cost curve.” The opportunities to help in and profit from the bending are present for existing players and for new market entrants.

In the framework established by Prof. Christensen, it is the new entrant that is usually disruptive because the established competitors have little incentive to innovate or to change their business models. It is also impossible for the new entrants to gain market share using the existing business models so they are forced to develop and deploy disruptive innovations.

I don’t expect the full effects of Obamacare to be evident for years, although we should see small improvements (and to be sure, some startup problems) almost immediately. There will no doubt be modifications and delays to the regulations and to implementation. It is to be hoped that some of those changes will be favorable to more, rather than less, disruptive innovation.

Takeaways: With change comes opportunity. The ACA may not be hugely popular (especially among medical device companies paying the 2.3% excise tax). Obamacare is, however, somewhat disruptive and creates new opportunities for healthcare companies.

Read more: Seize the ACA:The Innovator’s Guide to the Affordable Care Act | Christensen Institute.

Fundraising advice for medical device startups – 7 tips for angel funding, 3 more for VC funding

Not that this advice is any guarantee of success in fundraising but it’s fun to read what an angel investor and a VC fund manager have to say about how startups approach them, position themselves, and make their pitches.

Both articles are from MedCity News and were written at AdvaMed 2013. The angel investor article is a brief interview with Allan May, the founder and chairman of Life Science Angels who spoke at the Angel Investment Forum. The VC advice comes from Paul Grand, managing director at Research Corporation Technologies Ventures, a life sciences firm focused primarily on medical devices.

For startups fundraising from angel investors,

  • Your intellectual property (IP) may be the most important indicator of valuation and whether you will be successful in your funding quest. Investors need to plan an exit before they invest. Because the most likely exit is via acquisition by a larger medical device company, and medical device companies hoard patents like misers, it’s in everyone’s interest to have the strongest possible IP portfolio.
  • Unless you have a successful startup track record, a stellar team, and potential for a very large exit in 3-5 years, avoid VCs and focus on angel investors. They are willing to invest in smaller, less perfect deals than VCs.
  • Whether you want it or not and whether you like it or not, expect your investors to take a personal interest in your startup and the way you run it. That means lots of phone and face time giving updates and answering questions…and listening to advice.
  • Because angel investor consolidation has become the norm in raising Series A and beyond, investors will know each other. They won’t invest with others they don’t like, trust, or respect. Same holds for your board members – choose them carefully as they are a direct reflection on you.
  • Mr. May also said “This isn’t about picking technologies, it’s about picking people.” My experience suggests that for most early stage entrepreneurs, your technology qualifies you for consideration while your reputation, track record, and interpersonal skills can usually disqualify you.
  • As for how much money you should raise, “The amount of money you should raise is the smallest amount of money that can have the biggest impact on your valuation in the shortest period of time.” That’s a cute way of saying it’s easier to raise the next round at an increased valuation…because you executed your plan and achieved your goals.
  • This last bit of advice is my favorite and probably the most practical in the interview:  Get someone who knows the angel investor to take the business plan to them. . . “Getting into the pile [of business plans] is not a success.”

From the VC fundraising perspective,

  • Be sure to research the VC firm and the partner before the pitch and adjust appropriately. Every VC is different. Do your homework online and through your network. If you are at the level of pitching to VCs, there should be no surprises.
  • Make sure your startup team has the right experience and is correctly sized. These days, you can run a virtual or lean company a long way toward commercialization without expensive full-time executives. There are plenty of freelancers, contractors, and consultants ready and eager to help…”at the beginning, you just need the founder and the engineers…”
  • If all you have is an idea and technical/clinical skill you should wait a bit before approaching VCs. You are unlikely to get a signed nondisclosure agreement, much less early stage financing from VCs if you make your pitch too early. There are incubators and seed investors who can help you become ready for VC investment. As discussed above, consider angel investment as an alternative to VC funding.

Takeaways: Medical device fundraising is hard but there are steps you can take to improve your chances of success. Make sure you know the expectations and criteria of the people and firms to whom you are pitching. Make sure your startup is a good fit with your prospective investors. Just like Goldilocks and the three bears, you must position the opportunity you’re presenting as not too small, not too big…not too early, not too late. 

Read more:

Need angel funding for your early-stage healthcare startup? 7 smart tips from investor Allan May – MedCity News.

Three big mistakes medical device companies make when pitching VCs – MedCity News.

3 things that will help hardware entrepreneurs build their startups | MedCity News

I’ve  suspected for some time that hardware, i.e., real life products, are tougher to successfully commercialize than software products.

hardware

For one thing, the cost of hardware product development is much higher. Assume that the hardware design cost is roughly equivalent to the development cost of a software product. For hardware, you then need prototype tooling, pilot tooling, and production tooling – all expensive. Real world testing and validation is time-consuming and also expensive. Animal and human clinical testing is complicated and risky. Then there are the costs of inventory and physical distribution as well as warranty and repair. Lastly, the profit margins are much lower than software!

“Starting a venture is hard — actually, if people knew how hard, they wouldn’t do it — but starting a hardware venture is three times as hard,” said angel investor and Txtr CEO Christophe Maire

The premise of this article is that there are a few things one can do to mitigate the risks inherent in hardware commercialization (these mitigations are not limited to medical technology):

  1. Launch the product online
  2. Simplify, simplify, simplify
  3. Combine hardware with a service

Starting with online sales and distribution limits your financial exposure by not having to stock a distribution channel/pipeline (assuming you can find distribution partners as a startup). You can also defer the substantial investment needed for a sales force. The upside is that you still have a global footprint. As demand and revenues grow, you can either bootstrap growth using early revenues or use the growth as evidence of demand to obtain angel or venture funding.

The big challenge with online distribution and sales is creating awareness and demand. Your online marketing skills will be put to the test. Of course, you could hire a freelancer or consultant for a short term project to “prime the pump” and get the product launched.

Creating online stores for physical products has never been easier or less costly. You can set up a store at Amazon.com for example. Amazon will take care of everything related to online sales, for a hefty percentage of the action, of course. You can even drop ship from your warehouse as the orders roll in. Companies like UPS and FedEx will physically store your inventory in strategic locations to minimize shipping time and customs delays to overseas markets.

Simplification is important, especially for a first product. You should select your most likely customer and develop a minimum viable product for that customer type. Extra features can be added later.

The prime objective is to get to market and scale up as quickly as possible. Since seed and angel funding is very difficult to obtain for early stage hardware startups, you will probably be doing a lot of bootstrapping and trying to save money everywhere possible.

Simplification can also be a competitive advantage. For every early customer you acquire, that’s one less customer for your competitors (unless you screw up the relationship with poor quality or unrealistic promises). Once you have established that early relationship, customers are more patient and more likely to wait for the enhancements you showed them on your product roadmap.

Finally, combining hardware with a service puts your startup into a different class altogether. You can create a recurring, high margin revenue stream in addition to ordinary product revenue.

There are obvious services like training, extra warranties, service and maintenance contracts, leases, short-term loaners/rentals and hardware upgrade/refresh cycles. There are new services being created every day like cloud-based storage of the data generated by your hardware. Many companies are developing mobile and desktop apps for remote viewing, control, or manipulation of their products and the data they generate. You may be able to offer data analysis or even offer access to anonymized, pooled data from all of your customers. That could be a strategic advantage for your customers!

Takeaways: Hardware commercialization is hard. Because we still live in a physical world, there will always be a need for tangible products. Because hardware development is expensive and risky, always try to limit your risk and exposure. Startups look a lot bigger online – use that to your advantage. Keep your first product simple. Ruthlessly eliminate any features or functions that are not necessary to get a sale. Lastly, look for alternate ways to generate revenue, especially recurring revenues through value-added services.

Read more: 3 things that will help hardware entrepreneurs build their startups | MedCity News.

Hips and knees: Consumers Union calls for no-cost revision warranties | MassDevice

Adding patient warranties to hip and knee implants would be a disruptive move if it’s ever offered…or mandated.

guaranteed

Implants are Big Business. The article states that there were 1.2 million hip and knee surgeries in the U.S. in 2011. That number is expected to increase to 4 million by 2030 as the last of the Baby Boomers ages into their golden years. Half of those surgeries, however, will be in patients under 65.

Of course, a major challenge in orthopedic implants is making them and implanting them so they last the life of the patient. With many people living well into their 80s and 90s today, an implant may be expected to last 25-30 years.  Revision surgery is messy and expensive. Patients are not happy about having to undergo implant surgery for a second time just because they outlived the first implant. And the risks of implant surgery increase as patients age.

Since implants are a fraction of the cost of joint surgery (a substantial fraction, but a fraction nonetheless), offering a warranty on the entire revision surgery would be a huge financial liability for the medical device manufacturers and unlikely to happen unless compelled by law. Of course, there are other big players involved, namely Medicare. Since most of the implant failures occur in older patients, Medicare foots almost all of the bill.

As we get deeper into healthcare reform and start to have fact-based discussions about costs vs.outcomes (one can hope, right?), issues like this should surface for policymakers to address. Why should a medical device company benefit from an inferior design by being paid for a second implant? What about surgeons and hospitals – if the implant is installed incorrectly, shouldn’t the surgeon and hospital bear some of the cost of fixing it, even if it’s ten or fifteen years later?

In my opinion, perfecting the design of hip and knee implants is a high stakes strategy. The first company to succeed in deploying a “lifetime” implant will start to gain market share at the expense of its competitors. Perhaps it will evolve a business case that enables it to offer the revision warranty. In that event, the market share gains will accelerate and weaker companies will disappear or be absorbed by the stronger.

I would bet that there are many biomedical engineers and researchers feverishly working on this challenge right now.

Takeaways: While in many ways we are in the golden age of medical devices, major changes are on the horizon. Things like lifetime costs and outcomes-based decision making are getting more attention every day. Advocacy groups like AARP and Consumers Union are becoming more vocal and more active. Government agencies are more involved than ever and there’s no end in sight. You should be prepared as the old ways are ending. Not for much longer can you count on selling a device by persuading a physician to demand it and then being able to bank on that revenue stream for years. Data – lots of it, and exhaustively analyzed – will be the most persuasive way to sell and to affect policy.

Read more: Hips and knees: Consumers Union calls for no-cost revision warranties | MassDevice.

Digital health needs more physician entrepreneurs | mobihealthnews

Are you aware of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs (SOPE)? I was not. The CEO of SOPE, Dr. Arlen D. Meyers, a practicing ENT surgeon, says that doctors are not trained in business while in medical school or residency. That has certainly been my experience.

While many physicians have an entrepreneurial mindset, only a few I’ve met and worked with have business skills that would enable them to start and/or run a company. Some are just natural entrepreneurs although I think there are far more who believe they have business acumen but don’t have any or don’t have much business savvy. Those doctors are the toughest to work with as a medical device commercialization executive.

To address part of the problem, Dr. Meyers has created a certificate program in bioinnovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado. The program is intended for postdoctoral students not interested in a career in academia.

Dr. Meyers also said, “most innovation in healthcare and medicine leaves out doctors and patients, particularly in the lucrative fields of drug and medical device development.” I’m not sure exactly what he’s driving at here. Most device companies, startups included, are happy to work with innovators or key opinion leader physicians to help create, develop, refine, and commercialize new products. They are well-compensated for commercial successes, much less so for market flops, of course. And patients are a necessary part of the process.

Medical device commercialization is not for amateurs and it’s not a part-time gig. Most physicians are incredibly busy people. It seems to me their natural role in a startup or on a new product development project in a larger company is to serve as a clinical/healthcare system resource, product endorser, and source of referrals. Of course, they are free to try their hand at business and create their own startups.

Dr. Meyers also points out that the burgeoning digital health segment is underrepresented by physicians. That may be because the technology, networking, and systems interoperability dimensions of digital health solutions and products tend to be far outside most physicians’ areas of expertise. However, there are multiple opportunities for doctors to innovate. For example, their detailed knowledge of the healthcare delivery system may have given them specific ideas about how to improve patient care delivery with apps. He also believes that non-face to face care using telehealth or digital health products and apps is going to be a substantial opportunity for entrepreneurs, whether physician or layman. Any of those ideas could be the basis of a digital health startup.

Takeaways: Medical device and digital health startups, even with their high failure rates, are attractive to at least some physicians – those with entrepreneurial mindsets. Startup founders and CEOs should identify and recruit like-minded doctors for their executive teams, boards of directors and advisory boards. If you are a digital health startup CEO with a tech/IT background, you can minimize the risk of making bad or just uninformed product decisions and enhance your commercial products by finding and engaging with an entrepreneurial physician.

Read more: Digital health needs more physician entrepreneurs | mobihealthnews.

Presence of sales reps influences coronary stent selection, price | MassDevice

As the saying goes, “that’s why they get paid the big bucks.” All kidding aside, a recent study published in the American Heart Journal confirms and quantifies what most industry insiders know intuitively: there is no substitute for a live salesperson at the point of use.

sales repMany cardiac catheterization (“cath”) labs either stock or make available more than one brand and more than one type of coronary stent. Since there are many different indications and technical features among the various offerings, it’s difficult for hospitals to standardize on just one brand. So instead of “converting” a physician or a hospital to permanent purchase of the company’s products, the sales rep gets to convert each case she or he attends.

Hospitals and physicians are aware of the influence a rep can have over the selection process. Many limit rep visit frequency in an attempt to be “fair.” Another factor is that some reps are technically and clinically more competent than others. They perform a genuinely valuable service for the physician by reviewing diagnostic information and making informed recommendations about the ideal product for the clinical situation.

On a darker note, some reps (and some companies reinforce these behaviors) have personal relationships with physicians, complicating the goal of unbiased product selection.

Some hospitals have even banned certain sales reps or even instituted blanket bans of every sales person from point of use contacts.

The study reported that the presence of a sales rep increased the per-case price of stenting by up to $230. One investigator also said that the company’s market share was increased by the rep’s presence, meaning that the physician used that rep’s company’s products over the equivalent competitive product. This choice occurred apparently because the rep was present and able to inform and/or persuade the cardiologist to use the rep’s products.

Some cocktail napkin math: say a typical rep makes $150k per year in cash compensation. That’s about $3,000 per week or $600 per day.  It doesn’t take many cases per day selling high margin stents to pay the rep’s salary and make a tidy profit for the company. And that’s why successful reps will do everything they can to spend the day in scrubs instead of a business suit.

Takeaways: While good sales reps are costly and rare, and a direct sales force is insanely expensive, you get what you pay for. Of course there are other options such as manufacturers’ reps, distributors, telesales, and partnering/sales force sharing. In all of those alternative approaches, you give up control and access compared with the direct sales rep model.

The key in marketing and selling high value, high price, high margin products is to recruit, hire, and maintain the highest quality sales force possible and to design an incentive compensation program that encourages desired behavior while dissuading undesirable behavior. Easier said than done, and probably merits the hiring of an experienced sales executive to create and manage the sale team.

Keep in mind that sales reps pay for themselves more directly than any other employee. Budget appropriately if you decide that a direct sales force is right for your venture. Plan for longer sales cycles and reduced market share if you decide that direct sales is a luxury your company or startup cannot afford.

Read more: Study: Presence of sales reps influences coronary stent selection, price | MassDevice.

Robotic Surgery: Too Much, Too Soon? | medscape.com

With a market capitalization of more than $15 billion, Intuitive Surgical is a major player in the medical device industry. It is also the only source in the world for robotic-assisted surgery products. An evolving controversy is whether the patient benefit from a robot-assisted procedure is equal or greater than the additional cost to the healthcare system.

Robot

In recent articles, the editors at Medscape (a physician-oriented professional website owned by WebMD) have raised the issue of whether robotic-assisted surgery is being adopted too fast and being promoted too aggressively.

 

Some facts:

  • The number of procedures performed worldwide with Intuitive Surgical’s da Vinci Surgical System increased 25% from 2011 to 2012, to 450,000. 
  • The da Vinci Surgical System has been installed at more than 2,000 hospitals around the world at a cost per installation of $1.5-2.2 million plus annual service fees of about $160,000.
  • Intuitive Surgical has about 2,400 employees and had 2012 revenues of $2.18 billion, $908k per employee. That’s getting close to the almost mythical $1 million per employee revenue level and in the same neighborhood as Google ($931k).
  • The price for proprietary disposable instruments for the da Vinci System is $600-1,000. Each procedure uses 3-8 instruments.
  • A recent analysis reported that da Vinci surgeries add costs of 20% per procedure on average. The incremental costs are currently absorbed by hospitals because reimbursement rates are set by procedure, not surgical technique or technology. It is not yet clear if the extra costs will eventually be reimbursed by insurers.
  • Earlier this year, the president of the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), issued a statement recommending against using robotic devices in routine gynecologic procedures – perhaps motivated by a 2013 JAMA study reporting that the percentage of robotically assisted hysterectomies increased from 0.5% in 2007 to 9.5% in 2010. Studies have shown that use of robotics has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopy (the gold standard). Additionally, costs for robotically assisted hysterectomy were reported in the JAMA study to be $2189 more per case than for laparoscopic hysterectomy.
  • Some hospitals appear to be hyping and/or aggressively marketing their robotic capabilities. Investigators reported In a 2011 study that 41% of hospital websites promoted their robotic surgery capabilities and that clinical superiority was claimed on 86% of these sites, while none mentioned risks.
  • Just as with any new technology, there is a learning curve when adopting robotic-assisted surgery technology. During the learning curve, risks are higher.

Some opinions:

  • Intuitive Surgical has done a brilliant job in developing and marketing its da Vinci System, perhaps too good. The company shipped its first commercial system in 2000 and has averaged 25% annual growth ever since. The low-hanging fruit may be gone.
  • Whether deliberate or accidental, Intuitive has created the perception among the public that robotic-assisted surgery is “better” than alternative approaches. This creates demand for the procedures and indirectly, demand for Intuitive’s products.
  • There are few, if any, randomized clinical studies demonstrating a significant clinical benefit of robotic-assisted surgery over the gold standard technique, either open surgery or laparoscopic surgery. There are a few studies indicating limited advantages in outcomes in very specialized indications and a few others that show perioperative benefits such as reduced need for transfusion.
  • Some hospitals have irresponsibly hyped the benefits of robotic-assisted surgery to patients. Perhaps this is in response to competition and perhaps partly to attract patients in order to justify the large investments in robotic equipment and training.
  • Some surgeons are aggressively adopting the new technology even where there is no clinical advantage or indication. Perhaps they fear losing the revenue stream from patients or the patient stream from referring physicians.
  • The winds of change (healthcare reform in Obamacare, negative publicity about complications and costs) are starting to blow. Intuitive’s share price is down more than 34% from its peak value reached in February 2013.

Takeaways: There is a fine line between aggressive promotion and hype. In this case, the urgency and greed triggered by the “robotic gold rush” may have caused the hype line to be crossed by more than one party. Few healthcare companies conduct randomized clinical trials unless required by regulatory bodies or customers. Given the changes occurring in healthcare today, it is prudent to include outcomes and clinical studies in your commercialization plans. If your technology or product is radically different from the gold standard, you must seriously consider learning curve effects as part of market adoption. Basic training, advanced training, certification, proctoring, and partnering with professional organizations are all options when introducing new technologies.

Read more: Robotic Surgery: Too Much, Too Soon?.

A Twenty-Year Snapshot of the Health of the American People | JAMA

Fascinating glimpse into the state of our health in the U.S. and how it changed over a period of twenty years from 1990-2010.

This is a “glass half-full/glass half-empty” story. If you are in the healthcare industry, it seems that there is going to be a limitless supply of patients with chronic medical conditions for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, if you are a typical American or if you have some responsibility for public health, there is much to be concerned about. We’re spending more than ever and more than everyone else on healthcare. Although the overall health of our nation’s citizens is improving, it’s not improving as much as other wealthy countries (which are spending far, far less on healthcare).

A few examples from the abstract:

  • Ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and road injury were the most prevalent lethal conditions in terms of sheer numbers and were responsible for the most years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality.
  • Alzheimer’s disease, drug use disorders, chronic kidney disease, kidney cancer, and falls are increasing in incidence rates most rapidly on an age-adjusted basis.
  • Low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, and anxiety disorders represented the conditions with the largest number of years lived with disability (YLD) in 2010.
  • While we are living longer, we’re living with disabilities. As the US population has aged, years lived with disability are growing faster than years of life lost overall.
  • Our lifestyle choices are disabling and killing us. Poor diet, tobacco smoking, high body mass index, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose (pre-diabetes), physical inactivity, and alcohol use were the leading risk factors in disability and premature death combined.
  • Chronic disease and chronic disability now account for close to half of the US health burden.
  • We’re losing ground to our peer countries:

Among 34 OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries between 1990 and 2010, the US rank for the age-standardized death rate changed from 18th to 27th, for the age-standardized YLL rate from 23rd to 28th, for the age-standardized YLD rate from 5th to 6th, for life expectancy at birth from 20th to 27th, and for [healthy life expectancy] HALE from 14th to 26th.

No matter what you may think of Obamacare, single payer healthcare, or market-based solutions, these facts clearly show that we as a nation are not getting any “bang for our healthcare buck.” I don’t think that anyone believes we can spend our way out of this dilemma.

Takeaways: There is more data available than ever before to analyze health trends. There is an enormous interest in new technologies and methodologies that can improve a patient’s health without increasing costs. There are any number of clinical conditions upon which a startup could focus and have a significant effect on our healthcare system. Disease prevention and lifestyle modification look to be areas of focus and rapid growth. As you develop your latest medical device or as you plan your medtech startup, keep the big picture in mind. Show that your device or technology will not only work better than alternatives but that it will demonstrably improve patient health and save money.

Read more: JAMA Network | JAMA | The State of US Health, 1990-2010:  Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors.

Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

Access to the healthcare market is changing for medical device companies, particularly for startups with new technologies and no track record. It’s not clear to me if Obamacare is really the driver or if it’s the larger initiative of “healthcare reform” that’s causing providers and payers to make changes in the way they do business.

In any event, providers such as hospitals have become more demanding of new products and new companies. They want to see evidence of clinical efficacy as well as evidence of economic efficacy (outcomes) before they agree to purchase or in some cases, trial the products. Importantly, payers – private insurers and Medicare – are slowing, reducing, or even denying reimbursement for new products and procedures. The outcomes data is being called comparative effectiveness research. Most current data supplied by industry has been deemed insufficient. Evidence of the increased demand for data is the current emphasis on and support of healthcare IT applications by government entities as well as payers.

The authors of this article argue that responsibility for market access must be broadened to become an integral part of the commercialization process like regulatory clearance and that it should be applied to a broad cross-section of the organization and also throughout the product life cycle. This is a major change in the way that most companies conduct product development and commercialization. It will require executive management involvement and changes to strategic goals and plans to implement and sustain such a change.

For example, it is in the best interests of the organization to create and provide “strong evidence of clinical differentiation.” Not only will the evidence make it easier to get agreement from providers and payers, it also provides a degree of protection against premature commoditization. It’s equally important to lobby government officials, either directly or through a trade group. Finally the organization must be sure to protect itself by retroactively addressing products already in the market, as a demand for data could come at any time and cause significant disruptions to manufacturing, sales, materials management, etc.

Takeaways: Startup CEOs and medical device product managers, project managers, and program managers must incorporate comparative effectiveness research for both clinical efficacy and economic effectiveness into their strategic plans, product development plans, and go-to-market plans. Without outcomes data to demonstrate economic and clinical value (ECV), the risk of a failure at product launch because there are no willing buyers for your product is very high. This can kill a company or a career.

Read more: Obamacare is Changing Market Access | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

How a cotton candy machine gave this NSF-funded, Indiana-based wound-healing startup its first big idea | MedCity News

If you’re interested in startups, here is a story about how one current medical device startup formed. There’s probably not a typical path for startups to follow but many do form to address one issue and ultimately become something very different.

The trendy term for this in Silicon Valley these days is “pivoting.” That’s when you fail at one thing and then figure out something else to do using your existing assets. It also goes by the phrase, “fail fast, fail cheap, and fail often.” Of course, if all you do is fail, you will never get anywhere! The methodology requires that you learn from each mistake and apply what was learned to the next project. You do need to show traction and progress before your investors and stakeholders run out of patience.

The startup in the article, Medtric, envisioned a fibrous wound dressing spun on site in a process similar to how cotton candy is formed. They failed, perhaps because they focused on a process instead of the problem. They learned from their mistake, however, and developed a nanotechnology-based dressing in their second attempt. That product along with a third seem to have tangible clinical benefits. It also helps that the products are simple and relatively inexpensive. Those attributes help attract investors. The company has received extensive grant funding and angel funding and is planning to commercialize its products in the next year.

Takeaways: Ideas for new products can come from anywhere, even cotton candy machines. What’s more important is to have a deep understanding of the problem you want to solve and the benefits your solution provides. Simplicity in explanation of your concept, plan, product, and technology makes it easier for investors and stakeholders to understand and buy into your story. Pivoting is an expected part of the innovation and commercialization process. It is always good to have a backup plan just in case your primary strategy fails.

Read more: How a cotton candy machine gave this NSF-funded, Indiana-based wound-healing startup its first big idea | MedCity News.

Crowdfunding for Medical Devices

The notion of crowdfunding early stage medical device development is spreading. By now everyone is familiar with Kickstarter and the many examples of companies that have successfully raised funds by appealing to large numbers of “average Joe/Jill” supporters. There are more than a few copycats now that Kickstarter has been successful. Most, however, do not encourage or permit crowdfunding of medical devices.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/85broads/files/2012/03/crowdfunding-photo.jpg
Image from Forbes.com

There is obviously a funding gap for many early stage medical device companies. Venture capitalists have abandoned the early market except for blue chip prospects. Angel investors have become extremely risk-averse in my opinion and have functionally replaced VCs (although not the big VC investments of 10-15 years ago). Between federal budget sequestration and increased competition, grants from NIH, CDC, NSF, and DoD have dried up and take too long to be a reliable source of funds for most startups.

As usual, savvy entrepreneurs to the rescue! Here are a few specialized sites that are crowdfunding medical device startups:

  • Medstartr “Patients, Doctors, and Companies Funding Healthcare Innovation.”
  • Poliwogg “Put Your Money Where Your Passion Is”
  • indiegogo “The world’s funding platform. Fund what matters to you.
  • b-a-medfounder “A uniquely positioned crowdfunding platform dedicated to medical device invention and innovation projects.”
  • healthfundr “Accelerate health innovation. Invest in the companies shaping the future of health.
  • microryza “FOLLOW & FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Many of these sites and organizations are new and do not have a track record. Most are focused on investors who want to put in a small amount of capital. Perhaps they are angel investment neophytes who are just starting out or maybe they prefer to make lots of small investments. Who knows? Others seem to focus on “donors” who are essentially giving a gift to the company, again, for very personal reasons. In any event, all of the crowdfunding sites seem like resources to investigate for early stage startups looking for that first $100k or so of seed funding.

It will be interesting to see how these services develop. As many of you know, early stage investors can get diluted down to almost nothing in terms of equity very quickly. And although medical devices cost only a fraction of what a biotech drug might cost to develop, it still requires a minimum of a few million dollars in capital to get a Class II device to market. If that funding is stretched out over a few rounds, the early stage investors almost certainly won’t get much, if any, return on their investments.

It remains to be seen if a relatively obscure and small niche like medical device development can attract sufficiently large numbers of investors. It’s also a big unknown if the proliferation of crowdfunding sites prevents any of them from reaching a critical mass of investors.

There are caveats in using these services, of course. Just as investors perform due diligence on you and your startup, so must you conduct your own diligence on the crowdfunders. Keep in mind also that these are for-profit businesses, not charities. They will take a percentage of the funds you raise. One popular crowdfunding model takes a percentage if you raise your target amount and a larger percentage if you fail to achieve your fundraising goal. I suppose that’s intended to be an incentive for you to work hard to promote your offer.

There is also some uncertainty about how these sites screen for accredited investors and avoid the laws against general solicitation. I’m certainly not well-versed in these matters but I’ve been keeping up with recent new regulations issued by the SEC on a blog written by a Seattle attorney, William Carleton. Read it here: Counselor @ Law.

There is also an older, more established online funding presence at AngelList.

Takeaways: Crowdfunding is a relatively new funding option for medical device startup CEOs and CFOs to consider. Add this option to your fundraising toolbox. Keep in mind that these investors may be less financially sophisticated and less experienced than the typical angel investors you are accustomed to dealing with. Some of these investors may be making decisions based on emotion. I strongly recommend consulting an attorney before signing up with any of these services and at least getting a thorough review of the service’s terms and conditions.

Read more: Inventor launches crowdfunding hub for medical devices – FierceMedicalDevices.

Henry Ford, Innovation, and That “Faster Horse” Quote | Harvard Business Review

OK, so Henry Ford never actually said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” But he might have thought it, and he definitely managed that way.

http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/legacy-of-the-ford-model-t-100-years-after-thumb-1380_2.jpg

“Henry Ford’s genius lay not in inventing the assembly line, interchangeable parts, or the automobile (he didn’t invent any of them). Instead, his initial advantage came from his creation of a virtuous circle that underpinned his vision for the first durable mass-market automobile. He adapted the moving assembly line process for the manufacture of automobiles, which allowed him to manufacture, market and sell the Model T at a significantly lower price than his competition, enabling the creation of a new and rapidly growing market.

But in doing so, Henry Ford froze the design of the Model T. Freezing the design of the Model T catalyzed the speed of this virtuous circle, allowing him to better refine the moving assembly line process, which in turn allowed him to cut costs further, lower prices even further, and drive the growth of Ford Motor Company from 10,000 cars manufactured in 1908 to 472,350 cars in 1915 to 933,720 cars in 1920.”

Unfortunately for Ford, his company was out-disrupted by Alfred P. Sloan and General Motors, which introduced a dizzying array of innovations in the ensuing years, dooming Ford to decades of second place in the race for automotive market share.

I worked for a time in marketing at General Motors. We experienced the same frustration in focus groups. People are great at asking for incremental innovations and improvements, particularly if they are experiencing a problem and if they are asked, “what do you want?” But ask them what they want in personal transportation in ten years and you either get blank stares or Jetsons flying car suggestions.

It’s the same in medicine. Performing market research with actual healthcare professionals is necessary but not sufficient. They are immersed in the day-to-day drama of healing patients and dealing with monstrous bureaucracies. It doesn’t leave much time or energy for dreaming. You can find lots of small problems to solve by spending time with healthcare workers and asking lots of questions but you need a visionary founder or a visionary physician to imagine big innovations.

Medical device entrepreneurs have to walk a fine line. On one hand, they need to establish a solution for an unmet need and show that they can grow their market in a credible way. Unfortunately, that’s a bit too conservative an approach to satisfy most investors and stakeholders. On the other hand, they can “swing for the fences” and try to commercialize a disruptive idea. That strategy usually leads to feedback that they are taking too big a risk. Either way, funding is difficult and it may be tough to recruit employees and board members.

Sometimes it’s a matter of credibility. If this is your first startup or if you have a string of less-than-successful startups, maybe you can start by playing “small ball” – to use a baseball term. Get a few wins and show the world that you can plan and execute, then bring out your Big Idea. Of course, if you have a track record of success, you can probably successfully pitch investors and attract early employees without much difficulty.

For startup CEOs, it’s a good time to reflect on why you started the company. Was it to change the world or just to make a few bucks? Perhaps your strategy should reflect your passion.

Takeaways: Do perform market research, early and often as you work to establish your startup and idea. Don’t expect perfect market validation for your disruptive idea. Consider an incremental approach if you aren’t getting traction with customers, investors, or stakeholders. Establish relationships with the visionaries in your market segment.

Read more: Henry Ford, Innovation, and That “Faster Horse” Quote – Patrick Vlaskovits – Harvard Business Review.

Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology | MedCity News

So the crux of this problem is that hospitals/institutions/clinicians think they “own” patient data. If we in America ever want to achieve the significant potential savings that could be realized through application of various forms of information technology to the healthcare system, the mindset will have to change. The patient owns his/her patient data.

Big Data, the catchphrase to indicate that every click on the Internet is captured, aggregated, and analyzed, is already in wide use by all sorts of consumer companies, large and small. It works – to reduce costs, to fine tune marketing messages, and to enable highly specific targeting of a company’s best prospects. It works because – except for “walled gardens” like Facebook – the data generated by Internet users is freely available for anyone to use.

There is no reason to think that Big Data won’t work equally well in healthcare. The problem is that healthcare data resides in an enormous number of well-insulated silos. Very few of the silos share anything, even sometimes within an institution.

Consider a patient with several doctors – a primary care physician, a cardiologist, and an endocrinologist. It’s very possible that the three doctors cannot access their patient’s records from their colleagues without special requests and permissions. Sure, they may get test results and written summaries of procedures but the minutiae where much actionable data is hidden is kept locked up in proprietary systems.

Consider a healthcare IT startup that needs (anonymized) patient data to validate its offering and to demonstrate its claimed benefits. It must cut deals with a number of providers to access the data. This takes time and costs money, two things not in abundance at most startups. And yet investors and customers demand proof of beneficial economic outcomes before investing or buying. A classic catch-22 situation.

Yet another example is a medical software startup (now defunct) where I once worked. They developed a terrific 3D image viewer that could run on low-end PCs, tablets, and laptops. At the time, 3D image viewing and manipulation was limited to high end workstations costing tens of thousands of dollars. The company had to negotiate deals with every hospital’s PACS administrator and vendor (there were many) and then write specific software to access the PACS servers. This was not a sustainable business model and the company went broke.

The CEO of HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society) acknowledges the problem. He doesn’t have a ready solution, however but he admits that part of the problem is the way our system reimburses providers for tests and procedures and not for health improvements. He does hint that Medicare will be changing its reimbursement structure over time and that private insurers are sure to follow.

Takeaways: The two buzzwords in this segment are interoperability and portability. It seems to me that an industry standard could be written enabling two-way access to any appropriately anonymized data. In addition, electronic medical records need standards so that users wanting to switch to a different vendor are not held hostage by high switching costs caused by the need to remap data fields, etc. In the modern day Gold Rush of companies looking to make fortunes in healthcare IT, perhaps there is another Levi’s looking to profit by selling shovels and overalls to the miners.

Read more: Healthcare’s interoperability problem isn’t about technology: A Q&A with HIMSS CEO | MedCity News.

Verizon gets its first FDA clearance for remote monitoring tool for chronic conditions | MedCity News

It’s big news when one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies obtains a 510(k) marketing clearance for a mobile health application. Verizon is developing a cloud-based Converged Health Management software application. The device collects data from in-home monitoring devices such as blood pressure monitors, pulse oximeters, etc. and is perhaps planned to feed into a patient’s electronic medical record. The application seems to be primarily intended for clinicians to access and monitor patient data but patients can view their own data as well.

Verizon partnered with a small Canadian company, IDEAL Life, which will provide the remote devices. Apparently, Verizon will provide the wireless network, application(s), and cloud storage.

Other telecom companies have pursued this mobile health market, which is projected to be worth close to $300 million by 2019. AT&T, Qualcomm, and Sprint have invested in the space. AT&T is partnered with Intuitive Health for their market entry.

All of these companies see the low-hanging fruit: managing chronic medical conditions can reduce costs and improve health while providing a hefty return on investment to any company that can establish a significant market presence. The strategic benefits to the telecommunications companies include locking customers to their networks and garnering high margin data traffic just as the consumer mobile telecom market is starting to commoditize.

Takeaways: Partnering with a gigantic multinational can be terrifying but if you can tolerate the risk, leveraging their massive assets can scale up your technology or solution quickly and with minimal investment on your part. Perhaps you can even avoid angel or venture investment. If you are a startup CEO or product manager developing mobile health technology, make sure you contact every obvious and non-obvious (Intel, Qualcomm) target partner. The telecom companies need medical device expertise and technology. They have the infrastructure and cash to build an end-to-end solution.

Read more: Verizon gets its first FDA clearance for remote monitoring tool for chronic conditions | MedCity News.

Wireless Power For Medical Devices | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

A breakthrough in wireless power delivery invented by physicists at MIT and being commercialized by their startup, Witricity, has the potential to dramatically change the medical device and healthcare industries.

The new technology, called highly resonant wireless power transfer, is more powerful and more efficient than current methods of wireless power delivery such as inductive coupling, used in devices like electric toothbrushes. The new technology can operate over “tens of centimeters” compared to a millimeter or two for the old and fussy inductive technology.

What does this mean? Think of electrically powered devices like ventricular assist devices, pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear, and ophthalmic implants powered externally without wires or battery powered with easy and convenient recharging through the air. No need for skin contact or transdermal leads with high risk of infection (not to mention irritating to the patient and just not nice to look at).

As the article points out, implantable devices could be designed to be hermetically sealed with smooth surfaces, eliminating the potential for leaks in both directions. Cochlear implants could be powered via a wireless charger built into an eyeglass frame. And the ultimate modality for augmented reality (as well as dynamic vision correction), smart contact lenses or intraocular lenses, could be powered in the same manner. Take that, Google Glass!

The article goes on to identify other beneficial uses of wireless power delivery in the healthcare environment. Power surgical tools could lose their electrical cord as could carts of medical equipment, reducing clutter, trip hazard, and infection risk.

I’m sure the same technology will ultimately make its way to consumer products. I’m envisioning an airport lounge where a gaggle of road warriors is clustered around a wireless charging station instead of fighting for a scarce electrical outlet. There are no doubt lots of other applications in vertical markets. The company is savvy to start with medical devices where margins are large, patient demand could drive adoption, and the benefits are quantifiable.

Witricity is already working with Thoratec, makers of an implantable ventricular assist device. While the technology itself may not be disruptive, adding it as a feature to existing product categories is a game changer. Wireless power delivery has the potential to energize (no pun intended) patients and physicians to demand the feature in their products.

Takeaways: Medical device product managers and design engineers as well as startup CEOs should be constantly on the lookout for feature-level innovations that can be added to their products. It’s even better if an exclusive can be negotiated for some period of time. Of course the risk to cost, schedule, and reliability must always be considered but in a crowded market segment where differentiation is tough to come by, a feature like wireless power delivery can provide real competitive advantage.

Read more: Wireless Power For Medical Devices | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

The 4 types of buyers for your medical device (and you need a “yes” from all of them) | Medical Device Commercialization 101

Marketing and selling medical devices is complicated. They are highly regulated, competition is intense, and the stakes are high. There are a number of stakeholders and constituents who must say yes – or at least not say no – before you can sell your device.

If you are a startup CEO, medical device sales representative, product manager, or marketing manager, use this general list and description as a place to start to develop a plan. As you get more granular, i.e., at the hospital level, the buyer types and the purchasing process will become very specific. You need a plan to address the needs and overcome the objections of every one of the buyer types and often, more than one buyer in a given category. What I’ve learned in marketing medical devices is that only a few people can say yes to a medical device purchase but many can say no.

I’ve identified four categories of buyers. There are often multiple buyers within each category.

  1. User buyer
  2. Economic buyer
  3. Technical buyer
  4. Paying buyer

Let’s examine each category in more detail:

The user buyer is typically the physician or surgeon. A user buyer can also be a physician’s assistant, nurse, surgical technician or other healthcare professional – literally, anyone who might touch the product. The caveat here is to make sure you address all of the user buyers and satisfy their needs or at least neutralize their objections. I have seen large sales get derailed because a circulating nurse in the O.R. did not like a product’s packaging and was influential enough to use her veto power.

Physician user buyers may have less power than you think to influence a purchase. While they usually have some clout to request specific items for their likes/dislikes, economics and standardization are often invoked to deny requests from less influential doctors. And doctors, just like the rest of us, like to keep some influence in reserve for a time when they might really need it. Just another way of separating “must have” from “nice to have.”

The real challenge is in trying to convert an entire department or practice to a new product. Not only do you have to “sell” all of the user buyers but you have to convince a key decision-maker like a department head to use his/her authority to finalize the decision. This is an area where your marketing staff needs to craft highly specific comparison materials detailing the beneficial features, benefits, and advantages of your product/service. Your sales representative will need to use his/her relationships with all of these people and invest considerable time within the facility to keep the sale/conversion going.

You also need to carefully consider all user requirements before finalizing your product’s features and functions. The old cliche is that you sell the benefits, not the features, but this is an exception. If you omit or include the wrong feature, someone you will never meet may kill your product’s deployment at one or more sites. Market research is extremely important at this phase – well before product design commences.

The key is to identify a need among the user buyers, then establish a value for your product by emphasizing and quantifying your product’s unique benefits, and thus justify a premium price. Easier said than done.

The economic buyer can be a purchasing agent or executive, a department head with budgetary authority such as the O.R. Director (often a nurse) or head of the Emergency Department or ICU, an accountant or even the hospital’s CFO or CEO.

For capital items and capital leases and for purchases that affect a number of people, e.g., physicians, nurses, techs, a purchasing committee (may have a number of different names) often makes purchase decisions. It will be important to know who is on the committee and how to access the committee in order to supply information. At a tactical level, the sales representative or account manager for a given hospital or other site must map out the economic buyers. This requires real diplomacy and smooth interactions, as often the information is not given freely.

The trick with economic buyers is to spend as little time and effort with them as possible. The investment should be in creating demand from the user buyers and in giving the user buyers a business case to justify the purchase. You must avoid inadvertently having your product categorized as a commodity. In that case, your product will be viewed as interchangeable with other products and the (premature) negotiations over pricing will begin.

The technical buyer can be someone in the Biomedical Engineering Department if the facility is large enough to have that resource or it could be another technical person in a completely different area who performs biomedical engineering functions in his/her spare time. In rare cases, the technical buyer could be a healthcare professional such as a physician.

In any event, get your compliance engineer in touch with this person ASAP to determine if there are unusual or extraordinary requirements. Also make sure the biomedical engineer understands all of the features and functions of your device, including IEC 60601, UL, etc. If you have a software product or a physical product with software functions, you may need to get the blessing of the CIO, CTO, or other technology executive or one of their reports. Obviously, HIPAA compliance is a hot topic with everyone so it will be helpful to demonstrate compliance in advance.

The paying buyer is usually an insurance company or Medicare. For procedures that aren’t reimbursed such as elective plastic surgery, the paying buyer can be the patient or it can be the physician for minor products that are consumed or implanted as part of a procedure.

Making sure your device has the proper reimbursement codes is beyond the scope of this article but I strongly recommend engaging a reimbursement consultant and following their recommendations before completing your plan and long before planning your market launch. That step is critical for maximizing your revenue and proving to investors that you have a sound business model and know how you are going to make money.

Whether conducting primary market research to plan a launch and understand the purchasing process for your device or moving through the sales process at a target healthcare facility, always ask two questions to whomever you are selling: First, can you make the decision to purchase this product/service on your own? If the answer is no, ask who does have that authority and then target that person. If the answer is yes, then ask if the person has a budget with which to purchase the product/service. If the answer is no, they are no longer a serious prospect.

Takeaways: Use market research, competitive analysis, and field representative input to develop a plan to address all four of the medical device buyer types: user buyers, economic buyers, technical buyers, and payer buyers. Keep in mind that anyone could have veto power over your sale. Avoid commoditization of your product by emphasizing benefits over features and by relating benefits to value.

Four Signs That a Medtech Firm Needs To Reinvent Itself | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry

As the cliche goes, hindsight is 20-20. I wish I had known these signs of internal rot at the start of my career but I’ve earned my scars from learning the very hard lessons about innovation, complacency, etc. along the way. And I’ve seen a surprising number of companies fail that were market leaders and darlings of Wall Street at one time.

The four signs as enumerated by Arundhati Parmar, Senior Editor at Medical Device and Diagnostics Industry, are:

  1. Lack of Product Differentiation
  2. Profit Model Under Pressure
  3. Market Disruptors On the Horizon
  4. Internal Infrastructure Deteriorating 

Let’s tackle these one at a time.

The medical device industry is all about innovation. Just as sharks must move to stay alive, so must medical device companies innovate to assure their survival. No one has claimed, as one former head of the U.S. Patent Office famously did in the 1800s, that there is nothing left to invent.

Medical technology is still rapidly evolving and having major positive effects on patient health. I have seen a radical shift, however, away from internal innovation in large companies during my medical device career. Nowadays it’s common for the large device companies to invest in and then acquire innovative startup medical device companies. For startups, it’s the only exit strategy that has worked since the IPO boom of the late 1990s. If you are in a major medical device company that has stopped innovating, ask yourself why you are still there when the real action is in the small companies and startups.

Declining margins are a fairly accurate indicator of a sick business. To maintain market share with noncompetitive products, the company resorts to massive discounting, creative financing, and sometimes illegal behavior such as loading the distribution channel with unsold product in order to meet quarterly goals. Often there are write-downs and write-offs of obsolete or unsaleable inventory. These tricks are usually hidden in the quarterly and annual financial reports that all publicly traded companies must file, but sometimes it almost takes a forensic accountant to sniff out the dirty laundry being hidden.

Disruptive innovations are by definition “hiding in plain sight.” Insiders at market leading device companies consider these insolent startups as jokes until it’s too late and the joke’s on them. Consider the classic example of the rapid shift to laparoscopic cholecystecomy in the early 1990s. Many of the traditional instrument companies stayed on the sidelines while first U.S. Surgical and later Ethicon Endosurgery made hundreds of millions of dollars with procedure-specific disposable instruments. In the present day, I marvel that Medtronic paid $800 million for Ardian prior to FDA approval but concede that the market for procedure-based treatment of hypertension is massive. But look out for Kona Medical, which may be about to disrupt the disrupter with a noninvasive ultrasound treatment vs. Ardian’s radio frequency catheter-based procedure. And who will acquire Kona???

Insiders can sense when the internal infrastructure of a company needs revitalization. Key people start to leave, there is more focus on cost–cutting and top-down management fad programs, and big-name management consultants show up to gather data and have lots of meetings with top executives. There is often a curious reluctance by management to make decisions to pursue new market opportunities, as if they are afraid to take risks. The absolute worst sign is when the company engages an investment bank to study “strategic options”. If you see these signs developing, have your resume and LinkedIn profile up to date and be on good terms with the management recruiters for your market segment because change is coming soon.

Takeaways: The warning signs of the impending decline of a medical device company are easily discerned by company insiders, often long before Wall Street analysts have a clue about what’s going wrong. If you are a large device company employee, keep your wits about you, don’t be lulled into complacency and be ready to jump ship before disaster strikes. If you are a startup CEO, make sure you understand the risk in being acquired for shares of large company stock. To use one last cliche, “cash is king.”

Read more: Four Signs That a Medtech Firm Needs To Reinvent Itself (slideshow) | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

Sales reps not included: On e-commerce site, device firms discount routinely used implants | MedCity News

This story is another good example of how the Internet helps create a new business model and saves money. I call it the selective democratization of information along with decoupling products and services.

The basic premise is that commodity products, e.g., screws, anchors, etc. should not require much, if any, sales/technical support. And sales support can be very costly in medical devices. Think of a rep making mid-six figures and spending a half day in a hospital surgery suite.

For those customers that do want that support and are willing to pay for it, the device company charges list price. For everyone else, MedPassage provides a virtual market for a cut of the action. The device companies can also control which customers have access to the MedPassage marketplace. Device companies cannot see each others’ prices or transactions.

Everyone wins. The device companies sell more products, the hospitals save money, and MedPassage sells an innovative, profitable service.

Takeaway: If you are on the commercial side of a medical device business, don’t accept the status quo when it comes to distribution and sales. You can differentiate your offering with value-added or value-subtracted services.

Read more: Sales reps not included: On e-commerce site, device firms discount routinely used implants | MedCity News.

Healthcare Social Media Efforts of Medtech Firms Deserve an “F” [? No!] | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

I disagree with the basic premise of this article. The medical device marketers I know and have managed are extremely media-savvy. They “get” social media and use it personally. What they don’t see or get is any return on investment in social media for their hard-won device marketing budgets.

And these days, if you can’t measure it, it isn’t worth doing.

Yes, there are a few examples like Biomet Orthopedics where a direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising model was innovative and made some sense. Unfortunately, even Mary Lou Retton’s endorsement could not prevent the recalls, class-action lawsuits, and negative publicity that followed deployment of a flawed product. In most cases, however, the typical patient/consumer doesn’t know and doesn’t care much about the brand of device being employed or implanted, etc. Further, in my experience, the physician or surgeon would not be amused or grateful to get this sort of “assistance”. The docs have their preferences and are reluctant to change, to put it mildly.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry has had a disruptive effect over the past twenty years with direct-to-consumer marketing. Drugs are very different from medical devices, however. Patients can learn about their medical condition online and compare drugs for effects and side effects and then make a “request” to their doctor. The doctor can then grant the request, deny it (perhaps driving the patient to a different physician), or agree to a trial of the new medication.

Because drugs work (or don’t) over a period of time, there is an opportunity to evaluate one or more brands. The acute nature of device use/therapy means that there is typically only one chance for evaluation, raising the stakes and minimizing the incremental benefits of one brand over another.

I think it’s absurd that a typical patient can self-educate using online resources and become more knowledgeable than his/her physician or surgeon about a highly specialized piece of medical equipment and the procedure in which the device is used. And just because a pacemaker gets 1,000 likes on Facebook or 10,000 retweets doesn’t mean it’s right for you.

Is there a place for DTC in medical devices? Certainly, if it is used for education, as in informing patients about new procedures, directing them to patient-oriented consumer web resources, referring them to physicians experienced with the new procedure, and only indirectly reinforcing the device brand.

Takeaway: Medical device marketers have limited budgets, especially compared to drug marketers. They need to focus with laser-like precision on creating awareness and leads among their target market, healthcare professionals.

Read more: Healthcare Social Media Efforts of Medtech Firms Deserve an “F” | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

How Do You Design a Medical Gadget That Costs 95 Percent Less Than Before? | Wired Design | Wired.com

It’s relatively easy. Just put off compliance with regulatory requirements, adherence to a quality system, leave out nice-to-have product features, and omit the infrastructure for customer support, sales, training, etc.

I admire what this inventor is doing. He’s trying to meet an important need for an endoscope in developing countries. I don’t believe, however, that it can be considered the same product as commercially available endoscopes sold in the USA, EU, and other developed countries. In that respect, the Wired headline is misleading.

This innovation has the potential to have a large beneficial effect on public health in developing nations. It will be interesting to see if this design shift becomes “disruptive” technology and challenges the market in developed countries.

“Traditional endoscopes cost anywhere from $30,000-70,000, but by making different design choices and cutting out extraneous “nice-to-have” features, the price can be reduced dramatically. The EvoTech team found that off-the-shelf camera modules, only slightly better than the ones used in smartphones, could provide pictures crisp enough to meet clinical standards for just a couple hundred dollars. “The EvoCam is basically a webcam you put in your body.” says Zilversmit. Most endoscopes come with dedicated computers and complex image processing hardware. The EvoCam replaces all those expensive extras with software running on a standard laptop, using solar power if necessary, and soon hopes to have a version for tablet. Instead of sending a team of technicians to train doctors, EvoTech distributes training documents and video over the web.”

Read more: How Do You Design a Medical Gadget That Costs 95 Percent Less Than Before? | Wired Design | Wired.com.

How are hospitals responding to startup queries to use de-identified patient data? Cautiously | MedCity News

Access to large amounts of de-identified patient data has to be like oxygen to healthcare IT startups. They need the data to show that their software and algorithms function correctly and (a recurring theme) that they can credibly save money for their customers. This is critically important in attracting investors and scaling up to more customers.

Unfortunately for startups, the CEOs, CFOs, and CIOs of large hospitals and healthcare systems know exactly how valuable this patient data is. While they may have granted easy access to it once upon a time, those days are largely in the past. You will have to earn their trust and pay in some form to get access today and in the future.

If I were the CEO of one of these companies, I would do everything possible to get access to this data. Here are a few things that one should try in order to get to the precious data:

Partner with the hospital/healthcare system that owns the data. Easier said than done for a startup. Yes, you will need to make some sort of gain-sharing agreement. You will also need to indemnify the partner against legal and financial penalties resulting from your improper use of the data, e.g., HIPAA violations and any willful or inadvertent patent infringement. Essentially, you will need to guarantee the hospital that your startup will assume all of the downside (risk) and cut them in on the upside.

Partner with one of the hospital’s primary IT providers. They have far more influence and access to key decision-makers in the hospital. There is a veritable alphabet soup of systems out there, from EMR to HIS to RIS to PACS and beyond. None work perfectly and who knows? You may find the perfect corporate partner along the way.

Partner with a prominent and/or influential physician on the staff and preferably on the management team of the hospital. This could take the form of a consulting agreement, part-time employment, or membership on your medical advisory board. All of those should include a generous helping of stock options if permitted by the physician’s primary employer.

Offer to conduct an onsite beta trial with the data and aggressively identify all patient and economic benefits. Also offer substantial discounts for sale, installation, and support of your software.

If you live in a state or congressional district with a Democratic representative or senator, contact their offices and ask to speak to the aide responsible for healthcare liaison.  They are motivated to help anyone who has the slightest promise of showing that Big Data can help patients and save money, all key components in the promise of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). Their help and influence will be mostly indirect, however, and the most you could hope for is a phone call from the elected official to an executive at the hospital.

Conduct a PR campaign highlighting your company’s efforts to save money and improve patients’ lives. This works best if there are competing hospitals or healthcare systems in your area so you can play one entity against the other.

If nothing else works, expand your geographic scope and consider other metropolitan areas.

Read more: How are hospitals responding to startup queries to use de-identified patient data? Cautiously | MedCity News.

Health IT startups, “physicians” shouldn’t be a target market. Get more specific. | MedCity News

This is good advice and good practice for all medical device companies, not just startups. Market segmentation is difficult but, properly done, leads to successful launches.

Here are a few other ways to categorize and target physicians beyond medical specialty:

Career status: Resident, senior resident/fellow, young attending, mid-career attending, late career attending, emeritus.
Decision-maker status: Department head, Chief of practice, second-in-command, member of purchasing committee or similar group, “worker bee.”
Case load: low, medium, high, unbelievable.
Geographic region: There are clear differences around the USA in medical practice as well as from country to country.
Corporate affiliations: You may or may not want to target physicians with strong ties to your competitors. And the ties can be VERY strong!
Primary type of practice: Hospital, research/academic/teaching, private practice, VA/military, standalone surgery centers. There is a lot of overlap in this category with physicians working in multiple settings so it can be a bit fuzzy.
Technology adopter status: Innovator, Early Adopter, Early Majority, Late Majority, Laggard
Influencer/Key Opinion Leader/Notoriety Status: Prolific article author, leads or participates in numerous clinical trials, frequent speaker at medical conferences, frequently interviewed and/or quoted in news and media.

You can purchase lists of physicians with some demographic data relatively inexpensively. You should then create a database and augment that data regularly with information you or your commercial team finds. Before you make final decisions about targeting, be sure to talk with actual prospects and test your model!

As for what happens after a company has decided its target specialties, Kim offers this advice: “If we could do it over again, we would have spent at least six months to one year working on site or near-site with a handful of actual customers.”

Read more: Health IT startups, “physicians” shouldn’t be a target market. Get more specific. | MedCity News.

Scanadu Builds a $149 Personal Tricorder for Non-Trekkies | Wired Design | Wired.com

It must be incredible fun to be a biomedical engineer these days. I would be like a kid in a candy store with all of the incredible tools and components that one can use to make just about anything.

“Scanadu is making fast progress in building one of the most mythical pieces of tech known to geekery. As an entrant in the Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE, the health-tracking device is designed to read your temperature, blood pressure, respiration, and other vital signs, just by holding it to your temple. Last week, the Scanadu Scout finally launched on Indiegogo, and already has raised nearly $700,000–seven times its stated goal, with two weeks left to go. [update – now at $1.3 million! TES]

The XPRIZE originally used the omni-informative tool as inspiration for a $10 million prize founded to make health analysis available to consumers at home. “Somebody will have to build the Tricorder one day,” says Walter De Brouwer, Scanadu’s co-founder.”

“We are in the biggest tsunami of personalization in the world but for medicine we are still waiting in line in an emergency room.” De Brouwer

Scanadu seems to have adopted the iRobot strategy that produced the Roomba and a number of line extensions including products for military and aerospace use: Use science fiction for ideas and adapt current technology to make something useful. Not a bad plan.

Read more: Scanadu Builds a $149 Personal Tricorder for Non-Trekkies | Wired Design |Wired.com.

They must be well-financed. The video embedded in the Wired article is very slick, even a bit too promotional (in my opinion).

As for the Star Trek connection, it probably won’t be long until another company markets a phaser for home use. Maybe that Taser company that’s always getting sued?

The one thing that makes a company last forever | qz.com

According to Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Charles O’Reilly, long-lasting companies have a quality he calls “organizational ambidexterity” – the balancing of exploration and exploitation.

Escher hands drawing

“All companies hit rough patches from time to time. But only a few manage to survive decade after decade—some of them in a form that bears no resemblance to the original organization. Nokia began in 1865 as a riverside paper mill along the Tammerkoski Rapids in southwestern Finland. In the late 1880s, Johnson & Johnson got its start by manufacturing the first commercial sterile surgical dressings and first-aid kits. And in 1924, the founder of Toyota came out with his company’s first invention—an automatic loom.”

“You can’t just choose between exploiting your current opportunities and exploring new ones; you have to do both. And the companies that last for decades are able to do so time and time again.”

“The researchers looked specifically at what type of corporate culture was associated with growth in revenue and net income, and found that more adaptive cultures, or ones that emphasized speed and experimentation, did much better. “A culture that says, ‘We don’t have all the answers; we’ve got to try these experiments’—that’s the type of culture that promotes ambidexterity.””

This seems to be a remedy to The Innovator’s Dilemma which asserts that big companies fail because of their own inertia, giving way to aggressive if imperfect new entrants.

Being ambidextrous also calls for strong management that can articulate a vision and lead everyone to support the vision as well as aligning the company’s various businesses with the vision. Interestingly, Prof. O’Reilly maintains that large corporations have an advantage over startups because the large entities have resources to spare. Essentially, they can cover several bets while a startup is typically dedicated to a single direction in what is usually a “bet the company” move.

A couple of excellent examples in American business: GE and IBM. It remains to be seen if the likes of Microsoft and Apple are also ambidextrous.

Read more: http://qz.com/90969/companies-that-succeed-have-this-in-common/