23andMe will go the SPAC route with Virgin Group in a $3.5 bn valuation

February 5, 2021 | by

Have we reached a peak? 23andMe, the genomic testing and genome research company, has struck gold, oil, and platinum in a merger with ‘blank check’ SPAC (special purpose acquisition company) VG Acquisition Corp. VG was formed by Richard Branson’s Virgin Group for the purposes of the acquisition. By end of Q2, the company will be trading on the NYSE under the ticker symbol ME. The company’s valuation is estimated as $3.5 bn.

23andMe’s SPAC follows on December’s $85 million Series F round, bringing their total funding pre-SPAC to about $900 million. The transaction will result in 23andMe having around $984 million in cash to invest. The deal also includes the private investment in public equity (PIPE) transaction in which Richard Branson and 23andMe founder/CEO Anne Wojcicki will invest $25 million each. There is no disclosure of the status of GSK’s ongoing investment in 23andMe, reportedly 50 percent, and Sequoia Capital’s. 

For 23andMe, this is a massive turnaround–and exit from stagnant private ownership–from their precarious state one year ago, which required layoffs of 14 percent of their staff, about 100 people. While the direct-to-consumer testing for diseases and ancestry model fell apart after holiday 2019 (TTA examined why here), the gold in genomics is monetizing that data with large drug and clinical trial companies for drug discovery and therapies. With GSK, they began clinical trials of a cancer drug last year, as well as licensing its first drug candidate to Spanish dermatology drugmaker Almirall. 

Going public via a SPAC and with a PIPE is definitely a one-up on rival Ancestry.com. Last August, they sold 75 percent of the company to Blackstone Group for $4.7 bn. TechCrunch, Becker’s Health IT, Financial Times

New Year’s Deal and Event Roundup: Optum-Change Healthcare, Walgreens-Amerisource Bergen, December’s deal potpourri, CES and JPM

January 7, 2021 | by

Mutated COVID virii may be spreading, the UK locked down tight, but the deals with big numbers just keep on coming….

Change Healthcare not sold for pocket change. $13bn from the coffers of UnitedHealth Group’s Optum took it, though word was that it wasn’t for sale. Change will be part of OptumInsight to reinforce data analytics, technology-enabled services, and revenue cycle management. The deal pays common stock shareholders $25.75 per share in cash plus assumption of Change’s debt. Closing is slated for second half 2021. Neil de Crescenzo, Change’s CEO, will be CEO of OptumInsight which will integrate Change into its structure.

Change houses a dizzying group of diverse businesses including radiology, imaging, revenue cycle and payment management, consumer experience, clinical decision support, workflow integration, communication and payment solutions, network optimization, value-based care enablement….and that is about half of the list. The release emphasized RCM, provider payment, claims transaction analysis, and clinical decision support. It will be interesting what Optum chooses to retain and discard.  Press release, Fierce Healthcare, Forbes. Credit Suisse has also published a lengthy financial analysis (PDF) of the deal which opines that it’s likely to not run afoul of Federal anti-trust interest or significant conflicts of interest (Optum currently serves many payers other than UHC). There may be Federal concern about a concentration of data and transaction information as Change alone serves 19 of 20 major US payers and is a leader in network services and payments.

Walgreens Boots Alliance sells the majority of their Alliance Healthcare pharmaceutical wholesale businesses to AmerisourceBergen, a leading US drug wholesale company, for about $6.5 billion in cash and stock ($6.275 billion in cash and 2 million shares of AmerisourceBergen common stock). Interestingly, Walgreens is the single largest shareholder of Amerisource Bergen at 30 percent of common shares. Both Walgreens and Amerisource Bergen will continue their US distribution agreement until 2029 and Alliance UK with Boots until 2031. One way of interpreting this is fattening their ‘war chest’ for expansion, including their major bet with Village Medical. Perhaps a payer or a health tech company? Press release

December’s potpourri of Big Deals was rounded up by FierceHealthcare:

  • Alphabet’s Verily closed out 2020 with a massive $700 million funding round primarily from Alphabet to fund its commercial work
  • 23andMe got a lifeline of $82.5 million in Series F funding from an offering of $85 million in total equity shares. TTA analyzed why the bloom had faded from the genetic testing rose, so hot only a few years ago, last August and February. Bloomberg
  • New Agey Calm is meditating on $75 million in Series C funding and visualizing a valuation of $2 bn.
  • Pear Therapeutics, developer of prescription apps to treat addiction and insomnia, counted $80 million in Series D sheep. 
  • Provider CityBlock Health raised $160 million to support care for marginalized populations with complex needs and now has an estimated value of $2 bn.
  • On the payer side, Oscar Health raised $140 million in a venture round as we reported before Christmas.
  • And we reported on Everlywell’s digital home testing/telehealth consult Series D of $179 million in early December.

And the Big January Events Roll On, Virtually.  CES 2021 and the JP Morgan Healthcare conference for their clients will be held next week as usual, along with the usual constellation of independent conferences. These are usually a major venue for deals and deal announcements, and even in the virtual space, will likely be no different. One wonders if Haven’s closure [TTA 5 Jan] will be even whispered.

Will the rise of technology mean the fall of privacy–and what can be done? UK seeks a new National Data Guardian.

August 21, 2020 | by

Can we have data sharing and interoperability while retaining control by individuals on what they want shared? This keeps surfacing as a concern in the US, UK, Europe, and Australia, especially with COVID testing.

In recent news, last week’s acquisition of Ancestry by Blackstone [TTA 13 August] raised questions in minds other than this Editor’s of how a business model based on the value of genomic data to others is going to serve two masters–investors and its customers who simply want to know their genetic profile and disease predispositions, and may not be clear about or confused about how to limit where their data is going, however de-identified. The consolidation of digital health companies, practices, and payers–Teladoc and Livongo, CVS Health and Aetna, and even Village MD and Walgreens–are also dependent on data. Terms you hear are ‘tracking the patient journey’, ‘improving population health’, and a Big ’80s term, ‘synergy’. This does not include all the platforms that are solely about the data and making it more available in the healthcare universe.

A recent HIMSS virtual session, reported in Healthcare Finance, addressed the issue in a soft and jargony way which is easy to dismiss. From one of the five panelists:  

Dr. Alex Cahana, chief medical officer at ConsenSys Health.”And so if we are in essence our data, then any third party that takes that data – with a partial or even complete agreement of consent from my end, and uses it, abuses it or loses it – takes actually a piece of me as a human.”

Dignity-Preserving Technology: Addressing Global Health Disparities in Vulnerable Populations

But then when you dig into it and the further comments, it’s absolutely true. Most data sharing, most of the time, is helpful. Not having to keep track of everything on paper, or being able to store your data digitally, or your primary care practice or radiologist having it and interpretation accessible, makes life easier. The average person tends to block the possibility of misuse, except if it turns around and bites us. So what is the solution? Quite a bit of this discussion was about improving “literacy” which is a Catch-22 of vulnerability– ‘lacking skill and ability’ to understand how their data is being used versus ‘the system’ actually creating these vulnerable populations. But when the priority, from the government on to private payers, is ‘value-based care’ and saving money, how does this prevent ‘nefarious use’ of sharing data and identifying de-identified data for which you, the vulnerable, have given consent, to that end? 

It’s exhausting. Why avoid the problem in the first place? Having observed the uses and misuses of genomics data, this Editor will harp on again that we should have a Genomic Data Bill of Rights [TTA 29 Aug 18] for consumers to be fully transparent on where their data is going, how it is being used, and to easily keep their data private without jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops. This could be expandable to all health data. While I’d prefer this to be enforced by private entities, I don’t see it having a chance. In the US, we have HIPAA which is enforced by HHS’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which also watchdogs and fines for internal data breaches. Data privacy is also a problem of international scope, what with data hacking coming from state-sponsored entities in China and North Korea, as well as Eastern European pirates.

Thus it is encouraging that the UK’s Department of Health and Social Care is seeking a new national data guardian (NDG) to figure out how to safeguard patient data, based on the December 2018 Act. This replaces Dame Fiona Caldicott who was the first NDG starting in 2014 well before the Act. The specs for the job in Public Appointments are here. You’ll be paid £45,000 per annum, for a 2-3 day per week, primarily working remote with some travel to Leeds and London. (But if you’d like it, apply quickly–it closes 3 Sept!). It’s not full time, which is slightly dismaying given the situation’s growing importance. The HealthcareITNews article has a HIMSS interview video with Dame Fiona discussing the role of trust in this process starting with the clinician, and why the Care.data program was scrapped. Of related interest is Public Health England’s inter-mortem of lessons learned in data management from COVID-19, while reportedly Secretary Matt Hancock is replacing it with a new agency with a sole focus on health protection from pandemics. Hmmmmm…..HealthcareITNews.

News roundup: Ancestry sells 75% to Blackstone, Cornwall NHS partners with Tunstall, most dangerous health IT trends, Slovenski departs from Walmart Health

August 13, 2020 | by

Ancestry sells 75 percent of the genealogy/genetics company to Blackstone for $4.7 bn. The acquisition by the private equity company buys out other equity holders: Silver Lake, GIC, Spectrum Equity, Permira, and others. Ancestry’s business combines their genealogy database with consumer genomics for both heritage and health. The Blackstone release notes that their goals in the acquisition are to expand data, functionality, and product development across the Ancestry platform as part of their investment in growth businesses. If an acquisition cost of $4.7 bn seems high, Ancestry’s revenue is cited as $1 bn annually.

Once blazingly hot, both Ancestry and 23andMe saw their consumer businesses crater late last year, with layoffs in January and February. It’s an example of a quickly saturated market (one test and you’re done) flogged by annoying TV commercials over the holidays [TTA 13 Feb]. Where the profit is, of course, is not in consumer tests but in selling the genomic data to other companies, something which the market leader, 23andMe, realized early on with half-ownership by GSK ($300 million, a real bargain). 23andMe is also intensively marketing as a premium subscription service updates on health information derived from member testing. Ancestry has followed, but reportedly has not been as proactive in linking genetic information to health outcomes. STAT

 This Editor noted back in August 2018 that it was long past time for a Genomic Data Bill of Rights for consumers to be fully transparent on where their data is going, how it is being used, and to easily keep their data private without jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops. It’s a conclusion now being reached by various privacy groups according to MedCityNews. Also noted is that Ancestry, in its complex and long privacy policy, can use your “personal information to market new products from the company or its business partners, but says it will not share users’ genetic information with insurers, employers or third-party marketers without their express consent.” But when your 75 percent owner has real estate and other healthcare holdings, can you trust them?

Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust partnered with Tunstall Healthcare UK on a 26-week support program during the pandemic for young people 11+ with a range of eating disorders. The patient group used the myMobile app and the ICP triagemanager software to send in weekly reports on their vital signs and answer symptom-related questions, which are tracked over time via a secure portal to monitor progress. The myMobile app has parameters set for individual patients, where readings outside them generate a system alert that is sent to clinicians. The program was able to ascertain that 32 patients were at high risk and have been referred. Cornwall/Tunstall white paper, ATToday.co.uk

As if COVID Fear weren’t bad enough, now we have to be frightened of Dangerous IT Trends. Becker’s Health IT interviewed eight healthcare executives and came up with a list of what keeps them up at night:

  • The sluggish rate at which healthcare systems embrace new technology
  • We won’t be going back to the pre-pandemic normal and how healthcare deals with that
  • Overlooking data security and medical device vulnerabilities
  • Cutting IT staff and budgets without acknowledging the consequences
  • The consequences of hastily moving workers remote and securing their devices

All of the above are not new, and it’s rather shocking that they haven’t been addressed.

And in Comings and Goings, we have a Notable Going. Sean Slovenski, who for the past two years has been heading up Walmart US’ Health and Wellness initiatives, departed the company last week with a replacement to be named in the coming weeks. Mr. Slovenski had been heading up a variety of healthcare initiatives, including in-store primary and dental care clinics which have opened up in four Arkansas and Georgia locations with an additional eight planned plus Florida. Walmart also opened up 100 COVID testing locations in store parking lots. His efforts were acknowledged in Walmart’s departure statement to staff. Mr. Slovenski “and his team have successfully stood up the strategy we hired him to create,” Walmart’s CEO John Furner said in a memo to staff. Walmart has also laid off over 1,000 corporate employees in a recent restructuring. Mr. Slovenski is most noted in digital health circles as CEO of Care Innovations for 2 1/2 years during the Intel-GE ownership. He was also with Healthways-ShareCare and Humana. Walmart is up against a long list of heavyweight challengers in retail health, including Amazon, CVS Aetna, and Walgreens–and may be deciding that an independent run is not worth it.

Is the bloom off the consumer DNA business? It’s past time for a Genomic Bill of Rights. (updated)

February 13, 2020 | by

Perhaps a bit of sanity enters. Ancestry, the largest vendor of home-based tests for genetic testing to trace ancestry and seek health information, announced layoffs of 6 percent, or about 100 people, from its Utah and California offices. This follows on post-New Year layoffs at chief rival 23andMe of 14 percent of its staff, also about 100 people.

The slowdown in the consumer appeal of genetic testing is apparently across the board. While one hears of genetic tests being given for holidays and birthdays, there is little repeat need. The market was easily saturated: the early adopters have done their testing; the second wave of consumers which normalize a technology now are increasingly aware of and have privacy concerns about their genetic information being misused. This Editor would add a lingering wave of silly TV and online commercials with wide-eyed folks imagining their connection to ancient royalty or swapping out lederhosen for kilts after their testing report comes back. 

The bright spot for both companies is where they were really heading–healthcare data. AncestryHealth is not being cut back. As previously noted, GSK owns half of 23andme.

This Editor in 2018 advocated a Genomic Bill of Rights where before testing, a genetics testing client would be told how their genomic data is being used and being protected, informed about de-identification, and easily able to opt-out of commercial use. And the revelations about matching to others in the database or health revelations should be done not only with circumspection and respect for the disruption which may happen in the client’s life, but also held to the highest standard of testing. Sometimes that discovery is the equivalent of tossing a hand grenade into a person’s life. There also hasn’t been a lot said about making de-identifiable data identifiable through the ‘nefarious use’ of genomic data sets available through research networks.

DNA is being used for so much advanced medicine and even home testing (example–Cologuard in the US for colon cancer). It’s regrettable that the most public face of genetic testing rests with two companies whose main sell on your past and health has had unintended consequences, and whose main chance lies in the sale of their consumer data. The Verge, CNBC

Where’s the evidence? Healthcare unicorns lack the proof and credibility of peer-reviewed studies.

January 30, 2019 | by

Another sign that too many healthcare unicorns are decoupled from the rock-solid fundamental reality–that they work. Healthcare unicorns–those startups valued over $1 bn–are unicorns because they have patents, processes, or a line of business that has immense potential to be profitable. The standard in healthcare, unlike other tech, is the peer-reviewed study. Is this process or device effective based upon the study? Does this drug looks like it will work? Is this study validating, encouraging? Peer-reviewed research takes place before a drug or device goes into clinical trials — a precursor. It ensures a certain level of disclosure, validation, and transparency at an early stage.

Instead, these unicorns largely rely on ‘stealth research’–a term coined by Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University (METRICS). He summed it up in his latest peer-reviewed paper, “Stealth research: lack of peer-reviewed evidence from healthcare unicorns” (co-authored with Ioana A. Cristea and Eli M. Cahan), published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation 28 Jan: 

In 2014, one of us (JPAI) wrote a viewpoint article coining the term “stealth research” for touted biomedical innovation happening outside the peer-reviewed literature in a confusing mix of “possibly brilliant ideas, aggressive corporate announcements, and mass media hype.”

The term ‘stealth research’ was prompted to the author by the practices of Theranos–ironically, a company that started and was funded in the Stanford nexus. By the time Dr. Ioannidis’ viewpoint paper was published in JAMA in Feb 2015, Theranos had ballooned to a $9 bn valuation. His paper was the first to question Theranos’ science–and Theranos aggressively pushed back against Dr. Ioannidis, including their general counsel attempting to convince the author to recant his own writing. Three years later, we know the outcome.

This latest study concludes that there is a real dearth of peer-reviewed research among healthcare unicorns–and that it’s detrimental. It measured whether these unicorns published peer-reviewed articles and whether they publish highly-cited (in other publications) articles; compared them against companies with lower valuations; and whether founders or board members themselves impacted the scientific literature through their own citations.

The meta-study looked at 18 current and 29 exited healthcare unicorns. Highlights:

  • Two companies–23andMe and Adaptive Biotechnologies published almost half of all unicorn papers–196 combined
  • Three unicorns (Outcome Health, GuaHao and Oscar Health) had no published papers, and two more (Clover Health, Zocdoc) had published just one
  • Seven of the exited unicorns had zero to one papers
  • In fact, ‘there was a negative, non-statistically significant association between company valuation and number of published or highly-cited papers’

As our Readers know, Outcome Health had a little problem around artificially inflated advertising placement wrapped in health ed and placed in doctors’ offices [TTA 29 Jan 18]. Oscar and Clover Health are insurers. Zocdoc…well, we know their business model is to get as many doctors to sign up in their scheduling app and pay as much as possible. But it’s the drug and device companies that are especially worrisome in a stealth research model. The paper points out among other examples StemCentrx, bought for $10.2 bn in 2016 by AbbVie for its Rova T targeted antibody drug for cancer treatment, was halted at Phase III because it was not effective. Acerta Pharma, also focused on cancer treatments, was bought by AstraZeneca for $7.3 bn; two years ago, AstraZeneca had to withdraw the Acerta data and admit that Acerta falsified preclinical data for its drug.

The conclusions are that healthcare unicorns contribute minimally to relevant, high-impact published research, and that greater scrutiny by the scientific community through peer-reviewed research is needed to ensure credibility for the underlying work by these startups. “There is no need for numerous papers. Discrete pivotal, high-impact articles would suffice.”

This Editor returns to #5 on Rock Health’s Bubble Meter: high valuations decoupled from fundamentals. Based on this, the lack of publishing represents risk–to investors and to patients who would benefit from better vetted treatments. To these companies, however, the risk is in having their technology or researched poached–as well as the investment in time and money research represents.

The study authors point out several ways to minimize the risk, including collaborating with academic centers in research, validation without disclosing all technical details, secure patents, and contributing their technology to other research. A higher-risk way is to “withhold significant publications until successful validation from agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA)” but usually investors won’t wait that long. ‘Stealth Research’ paper, TechCrunch review Hat tip to David Albert, MD, of AliveCor via Twitter

Soapbox: Big Genomics and DNA testing–why we need a Genomic Data Bill of Rights

August 29, 2018 | by
[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DNA-do-not-access.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]This week, consumer genomics testing company 23andMe announced that outside app developers would no longer have access to raw genomic data, as they have had since 2012. They will continue to have access to data through reports generated by the company. 23andMe cited privacy concerns–wisely, in this Editor’s opinion, to safeguard this burgeoning area of digital health. Seeking Alpha

TimiHealth is an affected firm that seeks to move customer data, with consent, to an allegedly more secure blockchain platform, TimiDNA, citing 23andMe’s monetization of their data and CMS’ Blue Button initiative, a recent meeting in which 23andMe participated as a developer. Blasting away, TimiHealth stated that “It flies in the face of the mission of CMS, and the MyHealthEData initiative and the goal of putting patients first.” Release

However, the consumer marketing of DNA testers such as 23andMe, Ancestry.com, and smaller competitor Helix, has already led to multiple privacy questions on how the data of millions are being used and sold. 

This Editor would feel safe in assuming that most customers do not know nor particularly care that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) as of July owns 50 percent of 23andMe via a $300 million investment. Both have announced a four-year partnership to use the 23andMe genetic database for drug research. For instance, the LRRK2 gene has been linked to some forms of Parkinson’s disease. GSK needs about 100 for a trial sample of one, but 23andMe has already provided 250 Parkinson’s patients who have agreed to be re-contacted for GlaxoSmithKline’s clinical trials. Scientific American

While most data is de-identified, you can agree to be contacted for further use in clinical trials, which is fine–but most users do not know how to opt out. It’s a surprisingly tricky process, as outlined in this useful Business Insider article, and you may not be able to withdraw all your data or have your saliva sample destroyed.

Data can be hacked and reprocessed. Three years ago, TTA explored reports on exactly how de-identified genomic data could be made identifiable through the ‘nefarious use’ of genomic data sets available through research networks [TTA 31 Oct 15].

Despite the trite, simplistic, and condescending commercials by Ancestry.com on how someone found they had ethnic or national roots they never dreamed of, or were related to royalty, both giving meaning to their presumably mundane life, genetic info has value beyond the feel-good. It’s long past time for a plain language Genomic Data Bill of Rights.

  • Individuals should know how their personal genomic data is being used and how it is being protected
  • They should be able to opt out of use, identified and de-identified, easily–and not have to jump through hoops
  • Reporting/interpretation should also have integrity, consideration, and respect that it may upset a person or that it may not be interpreted correctly, which is a fundamental problem 
  • A more radical view is that the same individuals should be compensated when their data is used

This Editor will settle for the first two bullets, for now. 

StartUp Health’s Q3 is an even crazier $9bn YTD

October 11, 2017 | by

And you thought Q2 was ‘crazy’? There’s no cooling in StartUp Health’s reported digital health funding activity in Q3, which at $9bn is already past 2016’s $8.1bn and is poised to cross the $10bn bar by end of year.

  • Q3 charted $2.5bn in funding, less than Q2 ($3.8bn) but above Q3 2016 ($2.2bn).
  • Series C and D deals led the funding charge at 15 percent of deals, with Series D on average $113 million. It’s an indicator of market maturity, though A rounds were still in the lead at 35 percent and 21 percent in Series B.
  • Deals are bigger than ever at an average $18 million versus $14 million in 2016
  • Half the deals they tracked were in personalized health and patient/consumer experience, a distinct difference from Rock Health’s shift to B2B. Population health held its own.
  • They tracked more mega-deals YTD due to broader category and ex-US. Rock Health’s lead this quarter of 23andMe was only #6 on the list, surpassed by Auris, Peloton, Guardant Health, Outcome Health, and Grail.
  • The Bay Area leads for deals substantially YTD, with NYC, Boston, and Chicago combined still trailing

Remember that StartUp Health takes a wider sample than Rock Health [TTA 3 Oct], tracking over 500 international company deals, including those below $2 million as well as both service and biotech/diagnostic companies. StartUp Health on Slideshare.

Rock Health’s Q3 report: funding and mega-deals cool down

October 3, 2017 | by

Too hot not to cool down? This year’s digital health funding, as reported by Rock Health, may be ‘just one of those things’ depending on what happens next quarter. After a torrid Q2 which brought first half 2017 to an explosive $3.5 bn [TTA 11 July], Q3 added only $1.2 bn for a total $4.7 bn. Bear in mind that this is larger than the full years of 2014-2016, and that Rock Health tracks only US deals over $2 million in value from venture capital, excluding government and grant funding. Rock Health’s report concentrates on deal sizes, trends, and types of companies. Here’s what this Editor found to be interesting:

Here’s what this Editor found to be interesting:

  • Number of deals is at a record: 268 digital health funding deals across 261 companies. In 2016, 240 digital health venture deals had closed by the end of Q3 in 2016.
  • Few mega-deals this quarter: The only ones are 23andMe with a $250 million round in September followed by cancer data company Tempus’ $70M Series C round. Average deal size dropped to $14.6 million. The cooling is great enough for Rock Health to predict that there may not be any IPOs this year–23andMe was considered the leading candidate but instead went for another round.
  • 16 percent of companies funded in Q3 are led by women CEOs, up from 11 percent. Of course, this is influenced by 23andMe’s founder/CEO Anne Wojcicki. But almost more importantly, there’s been a breakthrough in that women’s and reproductive health companies continue to gain funding traction, and most are led by women.
  • The two top categories for funding through Q3 are consumer: health information and personal health and tracking tools.
  • Yet companies are shifting to a B2B business model from B2C, with 23andMe in the lead targeting drug discovery via the Genentech deal they have had for a long time. 61 percent of digital health startups that Rock Health tracks converted from B2C to B2B. No surprise to this Editor as consumer adoption is a slow and costly road.
  • Exits are also cooling down as long-cycle reality hits. The ‘nine-inning ball game’ stated by an investor is, given healthcare’s long cycles, regulation, and slow adoption, is more like 15. 
  • Some recovery in public companies making money in earnings per share (EPS). Teladoc‘s recovered, while NantHealth continues in the doldrums. (Perhaps it’s Cher suing Patrick Soon-Shiong?)

Awaiting StartUp Health‘s always numerically bigger report, but this Editor’s bet is that it won’t be ‘crazy’ like Q2 [TTA 15 July]. Rock Health Q3 report.

Care Innovations’ Slovenski, 23andMe’s Schwartz move to Healthways

January 13, 2016 | by

Breaking News: Healthways, an online wellness program company based in Nashville, this morning announced that two executives well known to many of us in digital health have joined them. Sean Slovenski, CEO of Intel-GE Care Innovations, is now their President, Population Health Services. Steve Schwartz, their new SVP Strategy and Corporate Development, joins the company from VP Business Development and Strategy, 23andMe.

Mr Slovenski’s track record in 2.5 years at CI certainly impressed this Editor (formerly with the developer of their behavioral telemonitoring system bequeathed from GE Healthcare, QuietCare) with turning around the company from an outpost of Intel and GEHC having difficulty transitioning from ancient technology (remember the Intel Health Guide?) to a telehealth platform dubbed Health Harmony. He also put together a team that engineered multiple academic and health system alliances, along with an interesting turn into home digital health certification. While he came to CI from health insurance giant Humana in Louisville Kentucky running their behavioral health and wellness businesses, his prior experience includes both entrepreneurial turns at his own company and with smaller companies. He most recently engineered a Louisville outpost of CI [TTA 14 Oct 15]. Since Mr Slovenski is still listed on the CI website as CEO, this may have been a quickly executed move.

Mr Schwartz’s business development background includes long stints at two large healthcare companies, Allscripts (EHRs and practice management software) and LabCorp (lab testing). He weathered 23andMe’s FDA troubles and headed up their B2B sales area. Healthways release

Unusually, Healthways is a NASDAQ traded company that closed at $12.11 today in a down market. It’s old (in our terms) having been founded in 1981, becoming publicly traded ten years later. Its last round of venture financing was $20 million from CareFirst BlueCross Blue Shield in October 2013 (CrunchBase). Healthways has a fairly new CEO as well, who joined last August and obviously feels comfortable adding to his team.

Rounding up the funding rounds of 2015–and the deals some would like to see (?)

December 30, 2015 | by

Mobihealthnews rounded up 2015’s hot funding in the mobile health/health tech-related space, with helpful links to their articles. They cite as we have previously [TTA 16 Dec] Rock Health‘s flattish year-to-year 2015 total of $4.3 bn, but also StartUp Health’s bloom-off-rose 2015 digital health total of $5.8 bn–larger than Rock Health’s tote, but 17 percent off their 2014 total of $7 bn. If you consider the proportions: the top 10 deals raised $738 million–$130 million alone to the endlessly funded but yet to take over the world ZocDoc –the roster below $20m remains the longest, which is completely in accord with the lower part of Rock Health’s pyramid of angel-A-B rounds.

Yet Aditi Pai’s detailed summary strikes this Editor as useful in an unanticipated way. There is a certain sameness in the products and services of these companies, as if funders are seeking validation in similarity. ZocDoc, DoctoLib and Vitals–doctor profiles and appointment booking. Sharecare, Welltok, Novu, Noom, AbilTo, SocialWellth, Health Recovery Solutions, Jiff–health and wellness engagement programs/apps, many for corporate programs. Whoop, Sano, Sproutling, TuringSensor, Valencell, Moff and four others–wearables. Hello, Sleepace, Sproutling (baby)–sleep tracking. Klara, SkinVision, Spruce–dermatology apps. Beyond the gloomy forecast for unicorns (Theranos being the Child on the Milk Carton), how many of these corporate wellness programs, sleep trackers and wearables will be around in 2017? Mobihealthnews’ 2015 funding roundup.

MedCityNews takes a lighter-hearted (I think) look at 2016 deals. IBM would buy athenahealth mainly for its EHR and practice management data, plus data aggregator Validic, to beef up Watson; 23andMe, past its two years of troubles after stepping on FDA Superman’s cape, would buy PatientsLikeMe (endangering its community shaped credibility? 23PatientsLikeMe?) and the best–Theranos bought by Boston Heart Diagnostics/Eurofin (EU lab testing giant), which would reduce this unicorn to a pony…but one that might make it. Theranos also made VentureBeat’s list of Likely Carcasses in the Valley of Unicorn Death (to quote the article’s author). Chris Seper’s Deals He’d Like To See.

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

December 23, 2015 | by

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.

 

2015 digital health VC funding flat, consolidations nearly double: Rock Health

December 16, 2015 | by

Rock Health published yesterday their 2015 annual Digital Health Funding report, and perhaps it is good news that 2015 activity maintained the blazing 2014 total at $4.3 bn. Still, it represents a compound annual growth (CAGR) from 2011-2015 of 30 percent.

Consumer digital health is thriving, with healthcare consumer engagement, personal health tools and tracking accounting for 23 percent of overall funding. Two of the six largest deals were won by consumer-driven genetic companies, 23andMe and Helix.

The one new record was that there were 278 deals across 248 companies, with an record-breaking average deal size of $15.6m. What continued is that the vast majority of funding deals (70 percent) were Series B and below, but C and C+ deals increased slightly.  It was also a big year for exits. M&A activity nearly doubled in volume with 180 deals and $6B in disclosed activity. Their index comprising shares of publicly traded digital health companies was off over 5 percent with two of this year’s IPOs trading lower than their opening prices.

According to the Rock Health newsletter, early-funded companies had a few zombies among them. Rock Health looked at companies up to five years ago, and found that 11 percent they classified as either dead or “zombies” (which have not raised a round in 3+ years). “Most likely to die? A disproportionate number of these zombie companies are in the care coordination, EHR, or clinical workflow space.”

The web page with a link to the full study is here. Unfortunately, the download is not free, but $99.

In Big Genomics, preventing unwanted hacking and identification of individuals

October 31, 2015 | by
[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fotolia_41683185_S-Genomics.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Two Stanford University researchers, through their own ‘hacking’, are making genomics research and data base usage more secure–and shutting the door on misuse of personal genome sequences which are now available through commercial saliva testing (23andme) and even through records on family research websites.

Genomic data sets have become more accessible to researchers through a network of servers, dubbed beacons, called The Beacon Project, organized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Genomics researchers are interested in looking for a particular genetic variant in a multitude of genomic databases. Using these beacons, when a researcher finds a gene of interest, they then can apply for more complete access to the data. They can find mutations and find other researchers working on the same one.

However, the risk is that some of this data is not sufficiently de-identified, and in the process of ‘pinging’ these beacons for genetic data, someone can create an unauthorized genomic profile of that person. For instance, a ‘nefarious user’ can find the match for an individual’s genome in a heart disease beacon, then can infer that the individual — or a relative of that person — likely has heart disease. (more…)

23andMe returns to direct-to-consumer genetic testing marketing

October 23, 2015 | by

Nearly two years after the FDA shut the door on 23andMe‘s direct marketing of genetic testing, it is now back in the market with FDA clearance. The new Personal Genome Service (PGS) now meets FDA standards–and is now $199 where it was previously $99. It is as before a saliva-based test that in about two months, provides that person with an online report. There are multiple types, for instance the carrier status test on 36 inherited conditions, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. The company is also bolstered by closing a $115 million round this month and in January a partnership with Pfizer to sell the company its Research Portal aggregated, anonymized data. Earlier this year, FDA cleared in Class II their Bloom Syndrome test [TTA 20 Feb] and late last year resumed DTC test marketing in the UK. Mobihealthnews also includes a helpful timeline of 23andMe’s troubles and recovery.

The Theranos Kerfuffle: a setback, but is it for the best? (updated)

October 20, 2015 | by
[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/question_mark.jpg” thumb_width=”120″ /]Some clarity emerges from the controversy around Theranos and last week’s Wall Street Journal exposé [TTA 16 Oct]. Last week’s rebuttal/denial released by the company said remarkably little, which disturbed Roger Parloff, the Fortune writer who profiled the company in June 2014’s high-profile cover story. He failed to reach CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who on her break from an all-day with the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows, taped a segment with CNBC stock tout Jim Cramer (a questionable priority indeed–Ed.) Fortunately he received more specific answers via email from General Counsel Heather King. It clarifies among other things that venipuncture, not finger stick, is used in the majority of their tests in practice, and that dilution of samples is within industry practice for use in third-party analyzing machines. There also seem to be two sides to the proficiency-testing story. (Oddly, no mention of the sensational claims around British biochemist Ian Gibbons who was key to Theranos’ patent development and the alleged legal threats to his widow.)

For those who have difficulty getting through the WSJ paywall, Mr Parloff’s summary of the WSJ article’s main points is helpful. His conclusion: Theranos is wisely ‘dialing back’ its USP on drawing blood through finger stick to “Smaller samples. Smaller needles. Better experience.” (A neat pivot from what Theranos ‘made their bones’ on and still features–tiny finger-sticks.) His open-ended question (for, presumably, the next article): can it profitably run its low-cost testing business when it’s using the same analyzing machines as the big testing labs; and while cheaper, can doctors and patients trust the Theranos tests (which are a matter of health, and perhaps life and death) if they’ve flunked their first test at transparency?

Another view from Health 2.0 supremo Matthew Holt over at his Health Care Blog is that for Theranos, this blow is eminently recoverable if they play their cards right. Witness the recovery made by 23andMe, now in the good graces of FDA after having blown it badly to near-shutdown. (more…)