← Back to context

Comment by ChuckMcM

13 years ago

That is a pretty stunning board of directors as well. I don't doubt their CEO can get an introduction to, and lunch with, nearly anyone on the planet.

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

What they overtly lack is connections to the healthcare world. I'm surprised they aren't publicly roped into Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic or Kaiser, as they to support novel technologies in this space. I suppose you can argue that the business model is fundamentally incompatible, but I've seen Mayo and Kaiser go in anyway; they can acquire these labs and roll them into operations pretty easily.

  • Serious question: what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this?

    If it's a finger prick, there's less to mark up.

    From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up.

    To the VA, inefficiency is a problem. In the healthcare world in general, it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    • Kaiser is one example where incentives align, because they're an integrated HMO, running both the insurance and the care side of things. It's kind of like an opt-in single-payer organization. Their model is that they charge you X/month for care, and then everything is billed internally, with Kaiser clinics treating Kaiser plan members. So if they can bring costs down, that helps them; since nobody external is reimbursing for services, there is no advantage to billing expensive tests.

    • It's all about speed and costs. The finger-prick is a distraction; phlebotomy is not a huge deal.

      Instead, the important things are the turn-around-time and billed cost. If Theranos can offer 4 hour turnaround and a clinic/hospital cannot (or even get close), they will pay for it because it is good for doctor productivity and patient outcomes. If Theranos can maintain a half-medicare cost structure, that's also good for the provider because they can expand their margins.

      Additionally, Theranos might do deals with insurance companies such that they reduce their reimbursements/push providers to use Theranos, which reduces the insurer's costs. The outcomes-case is even more pressing for an insurer these days.

      Now, none of these directly translate to lower insurance premiums, but that doesn't mean that there aren't economic reasons to adopt the service.

      > From the outside, it seems like the entire healthcare industry is built on being purposefully inefficient so as to create large costs that they can in turn mark up.

      This is generally untrue, as much as it is a public perception. The system lacks simplicity and thus comes across as opaque; this is its failing. Its complexity is not malicious, though.

    • what economic incentive does the healthcare world have to adopt something like this?

      Not much, which is why this service should not be offered through the standard healthcare system. I can see two other ways to do it:

      (1) I walk into a drugstore, sit down at the testing machine, select the tests I want, swipe my credit card, and the machine takes a drop of blood from my finger, runs the test, and gives me a printout of the results.

      (2) Home testing kits for every common lab test, not just blood sugar.

      3 replies →

The BOD (or "Board" as the company calls it) seems a little strange to me as if she runs in rarified circles. While I'm sure folks of such stature could provide some assistance, I have a hard time believing they are acting under traditional BOD-like activities. And where's the management team or is this a one-person affair?

That BOD is stunning with heavy national security/ military operations. I almost thought it was a CIA cover company.

The application is interesting.

Fascinating that they're all national security related, except for the ex-CEO of Wells Fargo. I'm honestly curious how that came about...

  • maybe some sort of outgrowth from rapid triage/battlefield medicine tech? I know there's been a lot of pentagon efforts to figure out how to treat soldiers in the field more quickly, but mostly with trauma applications.