Weekend reading: the strange reasons why Amwell doesn’t consider Amazon a competitor; ground rules for the uneasy marriage of healthcare and technology

Yahoo Finance interviewed co-CEO/founder of Amwell Ido Schoenburg, MD on the company’s 2020 results and forecast for 2021. It makes for interesting but convoluted reading on their growth last year in what is a consolidating field where Amwell was once one of the undisputed two leaders. They now compete against payers acquiring telehealth companies (MDLive going to Optum) and mergers like Doctor on Demand-Grand Rounds that are taking increasing market shares. Then there are specialty providers like SOC Telemed and white-labels like Bluestream Health. However, there are a couple of whoppers in the happy talk of growth for all. Dr. S pegs the current run rate of telehealth visits at 15-20 percent. The best research from Commonwealth Fund (October) and FAIR Health (August) tracked telehealth at 6 percent of in-office visits. Epic Health Research Network measured 21 percent at end of August. [TTA summary here

Then there’s the tap dance around Amazon Care. His view is that telehealth companies all need a connective platform but that each competitor brings ‘modular components’ of what they do best. What Amazon excels at is the consumer experience; in his view, that is their contribution to this ‘coalition’ because healthcare doesn’t do that well. There’s a statement at the end which this Editor will leave Readers to puzzle through:  

“And Amazon and others could bring a lot of value to those coalitions, they should not be seen as necessarily competing unless you’re trying to do exactly what they do. And there are some companies, including some telehealth companies, that that’s what they do. They focus on services. They try to sell you a very affordable visit with a short wait time and a good experience. They should be incredibly concerned when someone so sophisticated as Amazon is trying to compete in that turf.”

The last time this Editor looked, none of these companies were non-profit, though nearly all are not profitable.

Gimlet EyeLooking through her Gimlet Eye, Amazon Care is a win-win, even if the whole enterprise loses money. In this view, Amazon accumulates and owns national healthcare data far more valuable than the consumer service, then can do what they want with it, such as cross-analysis against PillPack and OTC medical shopping habits, even books, toys, home supplies, and clothing. Ka-ching!

A ‘bucket of cold water’ article, published in Becker’s Health IT last month, takes a Gimlety view of the shotgun marriage of healthcare and technology. Those of us laboring in those vineyards for the better part of two decades might disagree with the author in part, but we all remember how every new company was going to ‘revolutionize healthcare’. (The over-the-top blatherings of ZocDoc‘s former leadership provide a perfect example.) The post-Theranos/Outcome Health/uBiome world has demonstrated that the Silicon Valley modus operandi of ‘fake it till you make it’ and ‘failing fast and breaking things’, barely ethical in consumer businesses, are totally unethical in healthcare which deals in people’s lives. Then again, healthcare focused on ‘people as patients’ cannot stand either. Stephen K. Klasko, MD, President and CEO, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Health in Pennsylvania, advocates for a change–far more concisely than Dr. Schoenburg. You may want to pass this along.

The Theranos Story, ch. 69: Elizabeth Holmes ‘faked it till she made it’–like other Silicon Valley startups? (Updated)

Lifestyles of the Rich, Famous, and Busted, Silicon Valley Style. As promised by the prosecution in the cases being brought against Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO/founder of Theranos, and separately with COO Ramesh ‘Sunny’ Balwani, they are proceeding with filings that connect Theranos’ continued defrauding of investors with Holmes’ extravagant lifestyle and desire for fame. “The causal connection between Defendant’s fraud and the benefits at issue is strong,” the filing stated, going on to detail how the fraud funded hotels, private jet travel, and “multiple assistants” paid by the company who also assisted with her personal needs.  “In addition to the tangible benefits that she received from her fraud, she also was the beneficiary of a great deal of favorable attention from the media, business leaders, and dignitaries”. Sustaining the illusion was necessary to continue the lifestyle and recognition.

Countering the prosecution filing on Friday was–of course–a defense filing that attributed Silicon Valley’s ‘fake it till you make it’ startup culture as a rationale for Holmes’ and Theranos’ actions. That filing states “founders in this area frequently use exaggeration and dramatic promises to generate needed attention for their companies and attract capital.” The “culture of secrecy” that concealed Theranos’ fraud?  “…if it is admitted Ms. Holmes surely could present evidence that other Silicon Valley start-ups used similar practices, and that persons at Theranos were aware of these practices.” In November, they also filed to block as ‘unfairly prejudicial’ any mention of Holmes’ lifestyle as irrelevant to her guilt or fraud. 

Another fake was pretending that problems didn’t exist and everything was just ducky. The prosecution also introduced emails that confirmed Holmes’ direct awareness of problems with the blood tests in 2014. One example was from her brother Christian, who worked in product management. It requested a meeting to discuss a customer complaint where it was “pretty obvious that we have issues with calcium, potassium and sodium specifically.” According to the filing, “Theranos emails contain many examples of customer complaints routinely being escalated” to Elizabeth Holmes and other senior company personnel. At trial, the evidence will show that defendant shaped Theranos’s response to those complaints, prioritizing the company’s reputation over patient safety.” This Editor would argue that it’s no different with car manufacturers (Ford and the now lower-case GM) than startups to spin a response, but the proper reaction to clinical product faults would be to pull back the offending tests and solve the problem before going any further. But the Edison lab and their technology didn’t work.

Updated with further analysis. In retrospect, it’s obvious that Theranos crossed the ethical line between massive hype (expected) and outright fraud (not), which is why the defense is fighting so hard to keep Silicon Valley Lifestyle and Startup Culture out of the case unless it can be spun their way. A key: Holmes’ emotional state and a psychiatric evaluation have also been introduced by the defense, countered by the prosecution. In this case, the fraud was based on dual ethical nightmares, the first worse than the second: faking of medical results, then defrauding small and large investors by faking company performance. Too many just wanted to believe, like the X Files. But we should not forget another high-profile hype and fraud that happened around the same time, Outcome Health [TTA’s articles here].  Outcome Health’s fraud was strictly financial–ad performance falsification leading to fraud and money laundering. They defrauded Big Pharma advertising and some of the largest global investors like Goldman Sachs. The Federal lawsuits on Outcome have gone very quiet after settlements, plea bargains, and COVID halting court actions.

Thanks in large part to Theranos and Outcome Health, that startup culture is mostly kaput. The lessons are learned–we believe. A modicum of modesty along with a large dose of telehealth/telemedicine/data analytics is The 2020-2021 Thing. A lasting effect? Perhaps. Small-batch blood testing is only now recovering from being radioactive.

Before the start of the company’s collapse in 2016, Theranos had raised a reported $900 million ($700 million in some accounts) and was privately valued at $9 bn. Few of the investors clawed back their money. Fraud doesn’t work. It never works.

The trial in Federal District Court, San Jose, is now scheduled for jury selection 13 July. It was moved just before Christmas from 9 March by Judge Edward J. Davila due to California’s COVID-19 surge (MassDevice). So here we are five years later It promises to be popcorn-worthy, with possible appearances by famous men such as Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch, and former Defense Secretary James Mattis. CNBC, Bloomberg For those interested in the full sturm und drang by chapter, it is here.

The Theranos Story, ch. 58: with HBO and ABC, let the mythmaking and psychiatric profiling begin! (updated)

This Editor thought that her next articles about Theranos would be trial coverage. There are court dates pending for Elizabeth Holmes and Not-So-Sunny Balwani–with the DOJ for 11 counts of wire fraud [TTA 16 June] and, for Mr. Balwani, with the SEC on (civil) securities fraud [TTA 15 March]. 

Instead, Theranos hits the headlines again. On 18 March, there’s the debut of an HBO documentary on Theranos. Titled The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley (YouTube preview), we can treat ourselves once again to the SteveJobs-esque presence of Ms. Holmes, down to the unnaturally deep voice, blondined hair, and wide blue eyes, unpacking the deception and fraud that was part of the company from early days. But that’s not all! There’s a six-part ABC Radio ‘Nightline’ docu-podcast that started on 23 Jan and airs in six parts through February, which includes audio of depositions taken of board members, whistleblower Tyler Shultz, and patients affected by bad test results. (This Editor will give a listen on this alone.) Episode 5 and links to 1-4 are here via Yahoo.

On websites, we’re regaled with rehashes. The articles range from Teasing the Doc to Where The Ex (Balwani) Is Now (they don’t know) to What Is Her Net Worth (not $4.6 bn). There’s even a flurry of sensational podcasts and videos on YouTube–just Google them. 

Fascinating Fraud. There’s fascination in The Long Con perpetrated by the principals, and less examined, our tendency to Want To Believe. Many of us like legal procedurals and the drama inherent in them (the eternal appeal of the long-running Law & Order in several countries.) Let’s face it, there’s a substantial dollop of schadenfreude mixed in.

What we are witnessing is the building of a myth, increasingly divorced from the real world where it happened, and not improbably or with superpowers. 

Where it goes a little off the cliff. There is a curious article in Forbes that is written by a contributor who writes and teaches courses on stocks and entrepreneurship. He interviewed a former neighbor of Ms. Holmes, Richard Fuisz, MD. It turns out this psychiatrist, inventor, and former CIA asset knew her in childhood. The families were friends and Dr. Fuisz helped out her father when he hit a bad patch. There’s some sketchy profiling in this article, but it does make a fair attempt to get to the heart of the forces that put the gap in Elizabeth Holmes’ ethical makeup, including the Big Steal of Ian Gibbons’ IP. His position is somewhat complicated by a patent dispute (settled) between Dr. Fuisz & Son and Theranos. He’s still hammering on at it on Twitter (@rfuisz).

What’s missing? Much credit to the estimable John Carreyrou, who broke the story in the Wall Street Journal and got his livelihood (and perhaps a few other things) threatened a few times by Tough Guy Lawyer David Boies.

(Updated) At least it is here in a Vanity Fair article on the Last Days of Theranos, where they had to move to downscale Newark (California) and Ms. Holmes’ dog pooped where he wanted to poop. Her ‘persecution’ doesn’t seem to faze her from living in SF, frequenting cafes with said dog, and her new romance with a ‘younger hospitality heir’–a far cry from her former employees who wear the months or years of their lives at Theranos like a Scarlet Letter as they look for work and loose cash in the sofa.

We’ve gotten to the point where the hard business analysis ends and the looser parts of psychologizing begins, as we attempt to understand why. Beyond a certain point, does why matter when damage to real patients has been done? Collateral damage persists in funding of startups and for entrepreneurial women in health tech.

For this Editor, she looks forward to the warmer weather, when it’s expected when the Legal Action–and reality–resumes. 

The Theranos Story, ch. 43: Walgreens settles, $54 M in cash draining away

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/jacobs-well-texas-woe1.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]While your Editor was on leave last week, it appears that Theranos may have grasped the thorn of Walgreens Boots Alliance’s lawsuit and settled. The Wall Street Journal (subscriber access only, largely reported on Fox Business) reported that Theranos told investors of a tentative settlement with Walgreens for less than $30 million. 

Walgreens’ lawsuit, filed last year, was intended to recoup their $140 million investment in the company and store location payments. It surprised many observers that Walgreens would be content with 21 cents returned for every dollar of its investment, but since the original contribution took place over several years from 2010, much of this has likely been written down on Walgreens’ books as adjustments for bad debt. 

But this seeming win for Theranos further rips the veil off their dire financial situation. Theranos also told investors recently that it is down to $54 million in cash, according to the WSJ/Fox Business. This is much reduced from their last report of $150 million in March [ch. 41]. With a monthly burn of $10 million a month, this would leave $120-130 million if the March estimate was correct. Part of the settlements, including Walgreens, may be covered by insurance policies. However, what has transpired since then may further account for the discrepancy.

  • In May, Theranos settled with Partner Fund Management (PFM) for an undisclosed amount which WSJ sources estimated at $40-50 million. They sought to claw back their $96 million investment. (more…)

The Theranos Story, ch. 32: 155 employees out in latest layoffs, 220 left to go

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Yak_52__G-CBSS_FLAT_SPIN.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Endlessly, flatly spinning, towards Ground Zero…. As a marketing person made redundant (US=laid off) for various reasons by companies (moving out of area, acquisition, dissolution, etc.), this Editor has zero joy in reporting that 155 Theranos employees will be discharged as it “re-engineers its operations” “towards commercialization of the miniLab testing platform and its related technologies” “aligned to meet product development, regulatory and commercial milestones.” Their Friday press release successfully buried itself on a weekend, aided by a tragic Heaping Helping of Bad News out of Fort Lauderdale. The rationale is that this is justified to better position itself to commercialize the miniLab and “related technologies”. The miniLab reportedly is a compact, microwave-sized lab that automates small volume samples by sending them for analysis to a central server which would do the full analysis, thus driving down cost and time.

Theranos is a company flailing. This Editor notes in its string of releases an endless emphasis on compliance, regulation and operational expertise, the kind of attitude and caution that should have been present years ago. The layoffs follow on last October’s involuntary exits of 340 employees and lab closings (Chapter 21). Run the numbers and there are 220 employees left to go. Will the miniLab, seemingly hastily concocted, be their salvation? Flip back to our Chapter 18 about the October AACC meeting.  Chemical laboratory professionals were distinctly underwhelmed by the miniLab and CEO Elizabeth Holmes’ presentation. Also not boding well was Theranos’ withdrawal of a miniLab Zika test FDA emergency clearance in late August, at the height of the crisis. What may be wafting is the aroma of performing seals on a hot day.

Speaking of leadership, is Ms Holmes among the fired or demoted? Highly unlikely as she controls all $9 of the company’s formerly $9 bn Unicorn Worth. Is she even taking a pay cut? Will you see her out in front of Palo Alto HQ mowing the long grass?

To nearly 500 people now wondering about their livelihood in one of the most expensive areas of the US, how damaged they will be by their association with Theranos? Despite the ‘fail fast’ mantra of Silicon Valley, there’s little tolerance by employers for those at the operational level having a failed company in their past. These people should have our empathy, not ‘guilt by association’, and as appropriate, respect for their skills which were badly used in their last situation.

One also wonders how long it will take before there is another Chapter in The Theranos Story, one that they will file via one of their multitudinous law firms–Chapter 11. Consumerist (Consumer Reports), Yahoo News.

See here for the 31 previous TTA chapters in this Continuing, Consistently Amazing Saga, including the resignation of General Mattis from the BOD (Ch. 31), Theranos’ annus horribilis (Ch. 30) and the law firm feeding frenzy (Ch. 29).

‘Silicon Valley Tech Press’ blamed in the Theranos buildup; WSJ threatened

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Yak_52__G-CBSS_FLAT_SPIN.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]A fascinating view from an ironic source. Vanity Fair’s short article tags the buildup of Theranos and its founder/CEO Elizabeth Holmes to a purposefully gullible Silicon Valley Tech Press and their moneymaking conferences. While not naming specific publications, it cites TechCrunch’s Disrupt as an early builder-upper of Ms Holmes (drawing blood onstage, how daring!). The operating thesis here is that the tech press vetted her with uncritical and fawning coverage, which led to profiles and shiny articles in the New York Times, the New Yorker and ….Vanity Fair, which also featured Ms Holmes at their 2015 New Establishment Summit. It’s a classic PR strategy to me, one that any skilled marketer has in their playbook (Ed.–it also works in reverse, having mainstream press vet a technology sold B2B), and one that evidently worked.

One would think that writers and editors with some biotech and science knowledge would raise more questions. The author, Nick Bilton, critically outlines the ‘Game of Access’ underpinning the tech press and blogger business model: you say nice things and play ball, you get a preview of the latest gadget or a sitdown with the CEO. If you don’t, you’re shut out. So writers don’t ask tough questions, probe hard enough, or tell the truth about where the facts are leading them, because if they do, there goes the access and the sponsorships, as well as your job. While the former doesn’t apply to your Editors, many of us who write also hope that we uncover a technology that benefits people, or is even revolutionary. We like a bracing story.

However, Mr Bilton, perhaps mindful of the cart he rode in on, doesn’t scoop an equal share of blame onto the ‘mainstream’ press. To this Editor’s mind, the Ken Auletta profile in the New Yorker should have been stopped by the New Yorker’s EIC and sent back to Mr Auletta with a blue-penciled “DIG DEEPER”. This excerpt is from the VF article:

Auletta acerbically noted that the technology behind Theranos was “treated as a state secret, and Holmes’s description of the process was comically vague.” She told him, for instance, that one process occurred when “a chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel.”

Say wot? Sheer gobbledygook. For the WSJ investigative reporter John Carreyrou, who read this and eventually blew the lid off Theranos, this was caviar on toast too delicious to pass up. (Vanity Fair, on the other hand, was too busy making Ms Holmes one of its New Establishment, but investigative reporting has never been one of their strong points. Another reason why this article is an interesting read.)

A side note: Ms Holmes kept on refusing to disclose, even to VCs, the blood analysis process as a technology too secret to share, even with fellow researchers to get verification and validation. And that led to very few truly major VCs investing in the formerly $9 bn valued company, a point Mr Bilton relishes.

The final revelations in the article–truly the lead–should scare anyone who values a free press. They are the bullying tactics taken by Theranos’ legal team led by that new governing board member, David Boies, to intimidate both Mr Carreyrou and the WSJ from their investigative reporting. Mr Bilton’s source describes the team marching into the WSJ office in June, threatening legal action on the proprietary information Mr Carreyrou supposedly had (he did have internal documents). After repeatedly denying all requests for an interview with Ms Holmes, the WSJ went with the story in October, and the rest is history. Mr Boies now has his hands full elsewhere with other types of letters: CMS, SEC, DOJ and FDA. And Ms Holmes is no longer making herself available to the media, even to her former friends in the tech press. The Secret Culprit in the Theranos Mess

If Silicon Valley were a rose, it would be wilting

Does this signal a new ‘trough of disillusionment’? The lead in this story is one of the major practice EHRs in the US–Practice Fusion. From a high valuation in 2013 of $635 million as a healthcare darling (free to doctors, ad supported), it burned through $4 million cash per month while revenue missed targets by 10 percent, chased after rainbows such as telemedicine, overhired, overperked and overpartied in the office. Now with a quarter of their staff pink-slipped, a new CEO is trying to bail them out. Most of the other examples aren’t healthcare, but huge deals by VCs are slowing, companies are discounting the price of their shares, taking on debt to not dilute shares, laying off employees and subletting their space. Adding to this is the glut in wearables and a slowdown in demand for single-purpose devices, leading to a 20 percent loss today in value in shares of Fitbit (MarketWatch). Like the ‘oil patch’ in the upper Midwest, the San Francisco area is feeling the chill that never really left the rest of the country. And ‘unicorns’ may become an endangered species. Wall Street Journal

Silicon Valley’s betting on ‘citizen doctors’, ‘citizen science’ and useful data

A fascinating and slightly cynical overview of Silicon Valley’s ideological view of health tech that will fix our ‘deeply flawed healthcare system’ and what is getting funded (or not) is in next month’s San Francisco magazine. It profiles the ‘citizen doctor’ founders of vital signs ‘tricorder’ Scanadu (Sam–who’s not often mentioned–and Walter De Brouwer), bacteria tracker uBiome, ‘personal data recorder’ and experience charter We Are Curious (founded by Linda Avey, a long-departed co-founder of 23andme) and touches on the Theranos debacle. While these stories are bracing and in the instance of the De Brouwers, courageous, the notion of ‘citizen science’ (defined as direct-to-consumer health data) and its companion, Dr Eric Topol’s patient-centered/controlled medicine, has its drawbacks, viewed through the slightly gimlety ‘digital doctor’ eye of UC San Francisco’s Dr Robert Wachter. “The overarching message—not just from Theranos but from other companies struggling to get a toehold—is that, ultimately, the laws of economic gravity hold. The companies will have to produce products that add real value, either to patients or to payers. If they don’t, the market—or the regulators—won’t treat them kindly.” Flatly, there aren’t enough Quantified Selfers right now to support these companies. And Mr Market is a hard master. 23andme is back in the good graces of the FDA after a two-year scuffle and back doing direct response TV here in the US. Scanadu’s two products, Vitals (formerly Scout) and Urine are still not through the long slog of FDA clearance. The jury’s out on Theranos. And all these companies, including ‘unicorn’ Theranos, are bleeding cash and nowhere near turning a profit. ModernLuxury. Hat tip to Dr Topol via Twitter, who had a patient-centered conversation with Dr Wachter that we covered back in September.  Another recent podcast with Dr Wachter is here (Community Health Center radio).

Update: ‘Citizen science’ is nothing new, as revealed by the Science Museum (London)–it’s over 300 years old. While it entered the OED in 2014, ‘in 1715, Edmund Halley used Philosophical Transactions to ask colleagues to help him observe a total solar eclipse, prompting observers from all over the country to respond.’ Other examples are from Benjamin Robins in the same publication in 1749 on fireworks, Charles Darwin and evolution, to the present day. The difference is the flow–similar to what we now call crowdsourcing versus the individual using the data to affect their care.

 

Is Theranos a $9 billion question mark?

Breaking News. According to an exposé published yesterday in The Wall Street Journal*, low-cost and fast growing small sample blood testing company Theranos [TTA 28 Aug] is not ‘doing what it says it does’. Four former employees allege that Theranos’ testing system, dubbed the Edison, which processes small finger-pricked blood samples collected in ‘nanotainers’, only handles a fraction of the tests claimed–19 out of 205. In a complaint to regulators, one Theranos employee accused the company of failing to report test results that raised questions about the precision of their proprietary Edison system–and that most of the tests were being run on traditional testing machines which required dilution of the tiny samples. The article reports on serious questions which have been raised on the accuracy of the Edison testing versus conventional testing, including the integrity of finger-pricked blood and sample dilution. Gaps in results were seen last year on tests for vitamin D, two thyroid hormones and prostate cancer, though Theranos has been reporting its tests to CMS in a process that all labs go through called proficiency testing, and has one test for herpes that has been FDA cleared.

In a follow up article, Theranos reportedly is no longer collecting nanotainers except for the FDA cleared herpes test.

Theranos is currently valued at $9 billion and has raised over $400 million in VC funding.

According to the first article, British biochemist Ian Gibbons, (more…)

The Internet.org initiative and the real meaning for health tech

Internet.org — Every one of us. Everywhere. Connected.

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gimlet-eye.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Much has been made of the Internet.org alliance (release). The mission is to bring internet access to the two-thirds of the world who supposedly have none. It is led, very clearly, by Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook. Judging from both the website and the release, partners Ericsson, MediaTek, Nokia (handset sale to Microsoft, see below), Opera (browser), Qualcomm and Samsung, no minor players, clearly take a secondary role.  The reason given is that internet access is growing at only 9 percent/year. Immediately the D3H tea-leaf readers were all over one seemingly offhand remark made by Mr. Zuckerberg to CNN (Eye emphasis):

“Here, we use Facebook to share news and catch up with our friends but there they are going to use it to decide what kind of government they want, get access to healthcare for the first time ever, connect with family hundreds of miles away they haven’t seen for decades. Getting access to the internet is a really big deal. I think we are going to be able to do it”

Really? The Gimlet Eye thought that mobile phone connectivity and simple apps on inexpensive phones were already spreading healthcare, banking and simple communications to people all over the world. Gosh, was the Eye blind on this?

Looking inside the Gift Horse’s Mouth, and examining cui bono, what may be really behind this seemingly altruistic effort could be…only business. (more…)

Is Silicon Valley-style thinking right for healthcare?

The always thoughtful David Shaywitz writes about coming out on the other side of the Gartner hype curve (ever so familiar to this Editor) into the ‘plateau of productivity’.  He provides some anecdotal evidence from his Silicon Valley experience that you could possibly take the good parts of Hope and Hype and make them work for Health. His qualifiers lead this Editor to the following takeaways, with which Dr. Shaywitz might not necessarily agree:

  • You the entrepreneur may well be thinking about changing the world with your service or device, but you might be better off focusing on solving a specific problem (or in Clayton Christensen’s terms ‘a job to be done’) and then being gratified when you do, actually, find a way to change the world and yes, you make some money for your investors. The Epic EHR started quite modestly.
  • Silicon Valley observers are onto the hype cycle there– “the contrast between grandiose ambitions and disappointing delivery.” You should be too. If you’re in health tech, steer clear of the hypesters and the cocktail parties. In fact, be more like Dr. Shaywitz’s colleagues at MIT, understanding “the limitations of your work and the enormity of the unanswered questions remaining.”
  • Aim for more than tweaking something existing–the incessant efficiency innovations so attractive to VCs in this ‘stuck on stupid’ economy–and “learn how to develop profoundly improved therapies, that cure – or better yet, prevent – disease and disability. ” Break out of what Dr. Christensen’s ‘broken circle.’ [TTA 9 Nov 12]
  • Most startups fail, and to date there are far fewer successful exits in healthcare than in social media, which is why VCs like them ever so much more and they get the billion-dollar exits. More realistic is a modest return and a long development curve. So when seeking funding, be conservative and find alternate means.

Hope, Hype, And Health In Silicon Valley (Forbes)