Doctor on a Chip
by gerrievr | June 4, 2015 2:34 pm
Hi All
I just became a regular – I enjoyed the comments and discussions so much I had to! Have you had a look at Jason Stutsman’s tease of the Doctor on a Chip? It seems interesting.
Kind regards from South Africa[1].
Gerhard van Rensburg
Endnotes:
- Africa: https://www.stockgumshoe.com/tag/africa/
Source URL: https://www.stockgumshoe.com/2015/06/microblog-doctor-on-a-chip/
Welcome Gerhard! Here’s the article:
Anyone who’s ever gone to the doctor to get their blood drawn knows conventional medical diagnostic practices are a major pain.
I’m not just talking about the sudden prick of a needle piercing through your skin, either. The entire process of in-vitro testing can be pretty agonizing from start to finish.
Not only does the doctor have to fill a considerable-sized vial with your blood, but you usually end up leaving the office without any of the answers you were looking for. After all, most blood tests need to be sent off to an outside lab, analyzed by diagnostic technicians, and then interpreted by your doctor — a process that can take anywhere from 24 hours to as long as several weeks.
Depending on what you’re being tested for, the anxiety of waiting for medical test results can range from mild to severe. In some cases, it can even have negative outcomes on your health. According to the New York Times:
The impact of waiting for test results on patient anxiety is significant. It has been studied in breast cancer biopsy patients, infertility patients and patients undergoing genetic testing, among others. Stress alone, these studies show, can affect recovery time and exacerbate side effects from medications. The psychological toll in households can also be harsh, especially among family members with clashing coping styles — if, say, one person has an optimistic bent, while the other tends to presume the worst.
Even scarier, Dr. Hardeep Singh, who leads the health quality program at the Houston Veterans Affairs Research Center of Excellence, claims that according to recent studies, doctors either delay or completely fail to notify patients of abnormal test results a shocking 36% the time.
The reasons for this failure to notify on time are many, but Dr. Singh believes the primary culprit to be simple logistics. Doctors, as I’m sure you’re aware, are incredibly busy these days. They send out hundreds of blood tests every day, and in combination with the lack of reliable tracking systems, this can make following up on results especially difficult.One widely proposed solution to this problem is to give patients direct access to their medical results from the lab. This way, patients wouldn’t have to wait on a phone call from the doctor. Currently, only seven states permit patients to access results directly through the lab without any restrictions, while most states don’t allow access at all.
Now, personally, I fully support giving patients access to their results. It’s your blood, and you should be able to know what’s in it as soon as that information is available. However, that doesn’t mean this is the best solution to the problems that currently plague in-vitro testing.
For one, if you’re not a doctor, you probably won’t know how to interpret your results. Pouring over dense and technical lab results could arguably cause just as much stress as (if not more than) waiting for your physician to call.
Even worse, some patients may decide to take action before consulting their doctor. Access to personal information is great, but it’s also a double-edged sword for those impatient enough to self-medicate.
Ultimately, it’s best to hear from a trained physician before diagnosing yourself with any sort of disease or self-treating, for that matter. A few hours on WebMD might give you a decent grasp of your condition, but it’s never going to replace years of medical education.
With that said, the solution to the tedious testing process isn’t to give patients access to their records through the lab — either way, you need to hear from your doctor before taking any action.
In other words, cutting out the doctor isn’t going to help. Quite frankly, that should be pretty obvious. Of course, it’s also obvious that cutting out the patient wouldn’t make much sense either.
The only other solution, then, is to cut out the middleman, or the outside lab. At the very least, we can bring it in house.
Doctor on a Chip
According to Forbes, the in-vitro diagnostics market is expected to reach $70 billion in 2017. According to corporate advisory firm Results Healthcare, it will be the “single largest medtech segment.”
Primarily driving this growth are the following factors:
Demand for point-of-care testing: Patients would rather get tested in a doctor’s office or at a medical clinic than have to get tested in a hospital. They would also prefer to have their sample analyzed in-house.
Demand for quicker results: Patients want their results ASAP. This is driving the demand for minimally invasive diagnostic tools that provide results not in weeks, days, or hours but in minutes.
Emerging markets: Demand for rapid and reasonably priced diagnostic testing in emerging markets is rising. High disease rates in developing countries are heavily driving this trend, as is the lack of nearby lab facilities.
The aging population: As the global population ages, the demand for diagnostic testing continues to grow. The baby boom generation is a major boon for the in-vitro testing industry.
In order to best serve these demands, the in-vitro testing market is being forced to evolve. No longer are patients willing, and in many cases able, to wait for sample analysis to be outsourced to faraway labs. Instead, the market is demanding analysis be done at the doctor’s office.
To pull this off, medical researchers have very recently developed a new set of diagnostic technology using what’s called “microfluidics” to obtain results cheaper and faster than ever before.
The most popular example of a company developing microfluidics is privately held Palo Alto-based company Theranos, which recently partnered with Walgreens to provide low-cost diagnostics at the latter company’s health care clinics. The results come quick and cheap, but you still have to wait for a doctor to interpret the results.
As stated on the Theranos website:
Walgreen Co. and Theranos, Inc. do not have any obligation to directly advise patients with respect to the interpretation of the tests results or any treatment or care of any condition that the test results may indicate.
In other words, while Theranos may be cutting down on time and cost using microfluidics, it’s still acting as a middleman. Despite being the most recognized name in the game, its technology is not truly disruptive.
As far as we’re aware, there is only one company with the technology to truly disrupt the diagnostics industry by cutting out the need for outside labs. Like Theranos, this company uses microfluidics to get the job done. Unlike Theranos, though, it brings the lab straight to your physician.
Specifically, this company has developed a small desktop laboratory capable of analyzing blood samples while you’re at the doctor’s office. Even better, the test only requires a few small drops of blood, and results are pushed out in a matter of minutes.
This new diagnostic technology has been referred to in a variety of terms, but we’re most keen on the label “Doctor on a Chip,” as the desktop laboratory uses a small, credit card-sized device, or chip, to draw blood and provide results.
If you care to learn more about this particular investing opportunity, I invite you to check out the following free video presentation, where I explain Doctor on a Chip and the company behind the technology in further detail.
Until next time, JS Sig Jason Stutman
Best2ALL!-Benjamin
Jason, I just saw your video yesterday so I naturally searched “Doctor on a chip” as soon as I got around to scoping out the latest SG notice in my inbox. Of course you know SG is in the business of identifying teased stocks from your teasing industry and analyzing the hype around them. Since this thread is about a stock Travis hasn’t gotten around to yet I don’t know what his policy is regarding using his forum as an extension of anyone’s commercial hyping but I think it proper somebody points it out when he/she sees it.
OPK
YES, COMPANY CALLED OPKO HEALTH (SYMBOL – OPK) AS PER MRTV ABOVE…OPKO BOUGHT OUT A COMPANY CALLED, “CLAROS” IN/AROUND 2011
OR THEREABOUTS. CLAROS, I BELIEVE, ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED THIS CONCEPT AND OPKO PICKED IT UP…BEEN AROUND A FEW YEARS…
Like to buy the stock if there is one
Helmut.. you don’t’ want to buy their stock. the company is going down the drain. they have been called out for lying about their product and for labs having to get full blood draws of their patients because theranos tests came back incorrect. not a good company to make money with. you will lose money if you go with them. look up the recent articles about the company.. don’t look at the 2014 articles because things have drastically changed since then.. the FDA is investigating the company.. and many scientists say that its’ a fraud. if they come back out it will be because some big money friend of hers backs her.. but the reality will still be the same and you would do well to stay away because it will come to light again.. just some advice from someone who knows.