Tag Archives: Perspectives

Innovative biometrics for the future

Biometrics has been stuck in a rut for a while. You look at one device and it seems like you have seen it all. How so? Lets look at the health and wellness devices area. In basic it will have a[n] (1) accelerometer (2) heartrate monitor (3) sweat sensor (4) temperature sensor and maybe (5) GPS

The tech isn’t actually complex, I can even make my own company hiring experienced rockstar engineers (from Apple, Google, Cisco) to make pretty strong prototypes in under 6 months. But the problem doesn’t reside there. It resides in what marketing strategists call a “red ocean” market.While I will elaborate this in the future the essence is that there are so many products in one area that they are tearing each other apart focusing on the same consumers, aka a highly competitive market.

What does it take to get out of a red ocean? By innovating. Companies currently in the biometrics area have not been innovating as much as they can. Maybe put a new way to measure *insert metric here* or make nicer software or even package it more “minimalist.” In reality, those are all strategies used in competing in a red ocean market.

However, innovation is not easy, but its happening in the biometric market in 3 ways

1. Better software (better software design, better integration onto mobile, more choices for a centralized system)

2. Better hardware (better accuracy, better battery usage, better integration)

3. Novel devices

So where are these novel devices and possible developments? Most reside in the academic setting including Stanford, Harvard, MIT, UC Berkeley but also have developments at places such as the Beckman Laser Institute at UC Irvine where they are using lasers to do what CTs only wish they can. Then there are companies like Tarilian Laser Tech where they are developing laser based Blood Pressure monitors, without using cuffs!

While there are a lot of skeptics thinking how screwed an industry is, there will always be a few innovators that know that this wont always be a highly competitive market.

 

Google and Apple to create wearable devices

You know the industry is growing when Google and Apple have secret projects working on developing wearable devices it isnt out of the realm of possibly that it could possibly be like the Jawbone UP or even more. According to NYTimes, the goal is to sell more smartphones.

To extend the predictions, Google is known to create great products but lack user adoption then buyout another company to gain users. Youtube, analytics and so many more follows this path. Given Google’s relatively huge coffers I am thinking at least one acquisition within a year of Google releasing the wearable device with Apple following suit. Which can possibly consolidate a heavily segmented sector.

Its a good time to create a company in the mHealth sector.

Source: NYTimes

Understanding healthcare problems through basic history (Part 1/3)

I first started this blog in hopes of a better understanding of where mhealth and health IT is headed. A few individuals who went to the mhealth Summit wrote about how the general industry outlook seems droll. The fact of the matter is that our current system is complex enough where there needs to be innovation from entrepreneurs. The government knows it, the patients know it, the doctors know it but where do we start? By first understanding how the system basically works.
From a very general perspective basically we have this (where lines between areas means bidirectional flows and pharma and other services, while detached is still connected with its respective locations above):

Pharmaceutical, medical device and diagnostic companies supporting pharmacies and hospitals to help patients do better. Through a simple diagram the complexities are drastic. There are money flows, care flows, communication flows, knowledge flows to name a few. All of which have voids and are vulnerable to disruption. Each one is not one industry but several and can be expanded.

 

How did we get here? Through advancement in technologies and cures. From 3-5 generations that have not only cured disease but also increased life expectancy. Pre 1800 we had this:

A straightforward process: doctor dealing with patient and patient pays out of pocket, but without proper diagnostic tools, blood tests or others. Remedies were picked by the doctor or others close to the doctor. Doctors were beginning to be required to be certified through education but it wasn’t complete.

 

When it approached 1850, some beginning R&D into x-rays and other pharmacological agents became known which spurred a growth of some remedies that worked and others that didn’t. Vaccines were successfully developed. 

Sadly, a lot of the diagnostic and safe pharmaceutical agents were still not clear. Mercury, cocaine and other remedies were used as curealls. This persisted all the way into the early 1900s. AMA has long been established but has lots of difficulties getting government to support them. Battles back and fourth went on up to 1850s until they become national in the 1900s.

Due to market reasons, doctors finally successfully push for licenses for doctors nationally. Drugs were having problems with deaths and false benefits. Basic regulations with drugs established FDA as we know it still nonexistent, but precursor exists as Department of Agriculture.

By the 1920s, more and more research was being done such that pharmaceutical companies, drug manufactures and doctors knew better what was going on. There were journals and others that brought people together to discuss new technologies. But technologies were not widely implemented. But due to regulations doctors worked in groups and now able to charge more for their services.

Between 1930s and 1933, doctors and pharmacies successfully integrate a miniscule portion (as we know it) of modern medical science into the mainstream. However due to rising costs, insurance companies come into being hoping to ensure everyone costly “high tech” care. Vaccines widely used, various drugs ready to use, diagnostics (x-rays) used.

In the 30 years between 1930s to 1960s technologies continue to gain ground. Without the help from insurance companies, technologies could not have been developed and profits realized. However due to the profitability nature of insurance, government intervenes and instates Medicare for the older generations. By this time nearly all the modern pharmaceutical giants have been established (if not already), some fundamental medical device companies established advanced medical devices in research.

 

However, since the 1960s, it has been primarily the development of technologies that would sell to doctors and be paid by insurance companies. Some can say that modern medical structures still follow the basics of care from the 1960s-1980s. The primary difference is better doctors and better tools for doctors. The fundamental structure remains the same until modern times. Which finally brings us to this.

In part 2, I will talk about a few problems in this trillion dollar ecosystem and how modern technologies have and can change the healthcare market.

 

 

 

 

 

How to use the mHealth list

Royndin Fríða, Blikur og Svanur - 5-mannafør D...

I wanted to do a competitor list for the seed/early stage entrepreneurs, VCs and PEs,  so that they better understand the ecosystem. However seeing the concentration of mHealth (generic) companies by location is not the only reason why I made this list. The mHealth list has a few more interesting purposes.

1. Competitor identification:

Know who is doing what so you can better prepare yourself on competing with them. I forgot who exactly said it, but an ex-consultant at McKinsey said “3 is too little 5 is too much.” What does that mean? If you have more than 5 competitors you damn hell better differentiate your product, your target market, your public relations, or others. If you have advisers, that’s what they are for to advise you. If you don’t, I would be more than happy to offer you my 2 cents and possibly help you find an adviser. Incubators are there for that as well.

If you have too little (less than 3), you maybe a first mover giving your self an advantage.

2.  Locations

While obvious, knowing where they are, you can better understand their access to the talent pool, financing and consumers. If you see a concentration of these companies, it maybe a good idea to investigate if its worth moving there. As I mentioned with Doximity, they are surrounded by social networking companies (Facebook. LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+). Any of which can help them with talent, money and even partnerships. Since they are literally next door neighbors.

3. Independent analysis:

One you know who your competitors are there are a wide array of knowledge you can obtain. The obvious one; are they a publicly traded company? (If so you can take a look at their annual statements which offer a wealth of info.) Can they help you achieve an objective? Is an alliance a possibility? (If you feel there are regional domains or other benefits.) There are also ways to roughly estimate a lot of things once you identify who your competitors are. I wont identify them here, but I know you can.

Armed with the right information, you can even better understand the ecosystem and better finance or build your company.

Image:  Eileen Sandá via Flickr

100 million dollar exits

100 Million Pennies In NYC

At the mHealth Summit (an event I have no means of going to) there were various amazing talks about the development of wireless health, mHealth, HIT and health discussions. All of which are news worthy, but one in particular caught my eye. One written by Brian Dolan of MobiHealthNews.

In the article, it mentions a quote from Radius Ventures’ Dan Lubin saying:

“Most deals are under $100 million — that is the exit… I think we can build companies, make them really attractive, and sell them to strategics for $100 million. I think that’s a four to [six year] time frame. If we want to build billion dollar companies — and healthcare has billion dollar companies [usually biotech and sometimes medtech] — well, that’s going to take longer. It all depends on how much money you plow in and how long you are willing to wait.”

While I do agree with him, his statement is generic enough that it fits with most companies in this economy. Rarely do we see an exit above 100 million nowadays, in any growing industry. It is now mainly an acquisition economy (although IPOs are on the rise). The main question is if the strategic company is thinking about growing vertically or consolidating horizontally. What I am hypothesizing is that vertical acquisitions possibly may mean a heftier exit.

But this does not preclude exits of the billion dollar range and possible increasing amounts of exits at those values. In four to six years (as mentioned), if enough subcatagories in mHealth has consolidated and market leaders identified we can easily see as many low billion dollar exits as pharmaceutical companies.

In the end we shall see what happens in the rapidly growing generic mHealth industry.

(The article is a short but good read)

Source: Mobihealthnews via mHealthSummit event