Silicon Valley Is Too Focused On Taking the Easy Path in Health Care (cnbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Is Too Focused On Taking the Easy Path in Health Care (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday June 5, 2017 @03:25AM from the easy-way-out dept.

Silicon Valley investors are increasingly looking at health space, but they are mostly eyeing for opportunities on the fringes of the traditional health care system to avoid long and complicated regulatory cycles, an analysis on CNBC shows. As a result of this, these start-ups will not help low-income and chronically ill patients who need innovation most. From the article: Founders often talk about about how challenging it can be to break into the multi-trillion dollar medical sector. Health care startups face regulatory hurdles, long sales cycles and a high burden of proof -- and that means it can take more than a decade to make a return. As a result, many venture-backed entrepreneurs are looking instead at opportunities on the fringes of the health care system, such as cash-only health services that don't require insurance or tests and apps that aren't regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For tech investors, these opportunities hold the chance of an outsized return in five years or less. That often valuations on par with consumer Internet start-ups. [...] Many entrepreneurs acknowledge this, but justify their approach by promising to focus on more at-risk groups once they've nailed the product.

135 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Brilliant by stephenmac7 · 2017-06-05 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

They've figured out that the regulations they're always pushing for make it near-impossible to compete with established companies and hurt innovation.

--
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
1. Re:Brilliant by stephenmac7 · 2017-06-05 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm aware that I accidentally submitted the same comment twice. Sorry about that -- wish Slashdot would let you delete your comments.
  
  --
  "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
2. Re:Brilliant by Luthair · 2017-06-05 03:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have some snake oil it cures cancer and makes you live 50% longer. Would you like to buy some?
3. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  "regulations hurt innovation" hahahahaha. no, regulations hurt making the quick buck. thats it.
4. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  Some regulations do - the patent system is an example. The system was actually designed to help innovation, however in its current form it harms innovation more.
  However, regulations in some actors are needed in order to protect you from greedy profiteers that would sell you about anything to make a quick profit. Healthcare is an example.
5. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've never met this guy before but I can confirm it cured my cancer and gave me a six pack.
6. Re:Brilliant by cayenne8 · 2017-06-05 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They've figured out that the regulations they're always pushing for make it near-impossible to compete with established companies and hurt innovation.
  Yep....
  I think the reply to them is pretty much, "Duh".....
  That's the way it is with overly onerous regulations...it ONLY helps the big guys that can afford to fund a full department dedicated to only the regulation and documentation side of the business.
  It is understandable in some respects, due to this being medicine...lives can be affected by errors, but the regulations aren't just targeted at direct patient interaction...but many other things.
  It does bring up, however, questions as to how some parts are SO over-regulated, yet direct patient contact items, like heart regulators, insulin and other drug pumps are able to be put out there, without even *basic* encryption, so as to protect patients from being literally hacked, and possibly killed.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
7. Re:Brilliant by elrous0 · 2017-06-05 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  While I might normally be inclined to agree with you, I have to point out that regulation in the healthcare industry is there for a very important reason. When you're dealing with human bodies and human lives, you need a very carefully regulated system to prevent someone's mistake from turning into a disaster that costs a lot of lives or causes a lot of harm.
  For example, those annoying regulations that require extensive clinical trials and testing of new drugs are there for a very good reasons. They're in place to prevent disasters like what happened in West Germany and the UK in the 1950's, when the drug Thalidomide was okayed for sale without adequate testing.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
8. Re:Brilliant by Kohath · 2017-06-05 04:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not so much regulations. Health care needs regulations. It's that US regulators are notoriously bad at it. My friends in the medical device business do most of their work in places like Germany and other Northern European countries because the regulators are strict, but they do their jobs predictably and in a timely manner. They shun the US because the regulators are sloppier and everything takes forever in the US.
9. Re:Brilliant by jeff4747 · 2017-06-05 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, including innovation like snake oil and Thalidomide.
10. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Regulation helps people avoiding get killed by irresponsible people
  Whenever i heard healthcare innovations I remember the story of William Bailey, he was a Hardvard dropout (sounds familiar?) that sold radiated water to a wealthy customer called Eben Myers, he suffered a horrible death for that and he was never charged for it, he died at 65 very wealthy from bladder cancer due to radiation exposure:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Byers
  Those times when quack doctors sold radiated things that poisoned people awfully:
  http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-drink-radiation
  Bayer sold heroin was marketed as a cough represant:
  http://www.timesunion.com/518life/article/Heroin-A-brief-history-of-unintended-consequences-5705610.php
  Quackery is a whole market segment
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine
  Think about it: What if the next health fad makes your or your kids lifespan shorter or could give you another expensive illness as a side-effect in the near future.
  Would you let a half-assed drop-out college kid mess with your life for a lots of money?
  We already have a problem with oversight, remember those peoples lives trashed by irresponsible companies like Pfizer, Bayer, etc:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
11. Re:Brilliant by known_coward_69 · 2017-06-05 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  So what happened when Vioxx was found to cause heart attacks? people said the regulators responsible should have been fired
12. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  This, and it's why we need more government control of health care. Bernie Sanders is right. Iron fisted control will ensure freedom. Now we are slaves to the medical carter and have to give them more money each month than we give to ourselves. They let children die in the streets if they don't have enough cash. That is how the medical cartel be, and Bernie can stop it.
13. Re:Brilliant by Kohath · 2017-06-05 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you complaining about a single drug approval from almost 20 years ago? Unless they reject every drug, they're going to make some errors by approving drugs they shouldn't approve sometimes. You want new drugs, it's never going to be risk free.
  And you are responding to a post where I say US regulators are bad at it. And your point is that ... they made a mistake once. Yes.
14. Re:Brilliant by MightyYar · 2017-06-05 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Regulations are good and necessary to a free market, but established players tend to get regulations which are not good or necessary for a free market tacked on. Governments get in on the action to try to extract money and craft perks for their special interests. Sometimes the unnecessary regulations are simply the result of well-meaning officials who think they are improving upon what a free market could deliver, but in reality have the effect of freezing the state of the art.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
15. Re:Brilliant by interkin3tic · 2017-06-05 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It is understandable in some respects, due to this being medicine...lives can be affected by errors, but the regulations aren't just targeted at direct patient interaction...but many other things.
  Just to be clear, interactions with the patient are only a tiny slice of what can kill a patient. Making sure a drug companies' formulation facilities are bacterial-free is pretty far removed from patient interactions.
  
  If you're making a test blood poisoning, that's never going to be put into a patient. You want to be sure the raw components are bacterial free though obviously or else the tests are going to be useless and doctors won't know if they're facing blood poisoning or something else. To make sure the raw components are bacterial free you want the facilities to be bacterial free. If you find bacteria, you need to shut down production while you sterilize everything. That's a huge cost.
  
  If you're trying to start selling a cheaper test and you get a report saying you need to shut down production for a week, any sane business is going to say "Hmm... that will kill us... is it REALLY necessary to shut down if we have three bacterial colonies on a single plate? Lets talk to the undergrad who reported the test, ask him if he really wants everyone to lose their jobs? 'Isn't it maybe possible you accidentally sneezed on the plate?'"
  
  Easy to justify: you know your facilities are clean, you spend a shit ton of money cleaning them. And that's just like the doors! That's not even the production vats! No way is the whole thing contaminated. Plus these aren't even going to go into people... You do testing of all the lots of blood tests, you'll know if they're compromised... And besides, any doctor worth his salt is going to be able to identify SEPSIS without a %100.00000000 accurate blood test, it's so common! Fire the kid and ship it.
  
  Regulations are necessary especially when it's not directly interacting with a patient. Yes they are huge barriers to efficiency, granted, but healthcare is simply not a place the free market works at any level. The end result is not sales, it's literally life or death. Society simply does not tolerate that. Investors who get into healthcare and deceive themselves into thinking it is a free market deserve to lose their money. Politicians and pundits who try to reform healthcare towards "free market" are deceiving themselves and or the public, and deserve to be thrown out of their jobs hard. If they try to exempt themselves from such "free market" solutions while subjecting everyone else to it, they deserve literal crucifixion even if they do claim it's just a reconciliation loophole they'll totally close later.
16. Re:Brilliant by SScorpio · 2017-06-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  A six pack of what? Curing cancer is great, but I might still think twice if I'm stuck with a six pack of natty light.
17. Re:Brilliant by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-05 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  All regulations do. The fact that we don't document every regulation stifles innovation (And spurs innovation in other areas), we don't know exactly where the wash is.
  Every regulation takes from production, and transfers it to compliance.
  FYI, this is neither "good" nor "bad", it just is. Some regulations are needed, others just get in the way, duplicate other regulations, run counter to others etc. The fact that we rarely look at the consequences for regulations, and make adjustment, enhancements, and revoke so very few ineffective ones is my actual frustration in the whole process.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
18. Re: Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  No, those regulations are there to protect established corporations from competition and have little to do with actually protecting anyone. Sure, in theory it sounds good, be extra safe to make sure no one is hurt. But this ignores a couple issues - one, not all consumers are interested or best served by this prioritization; many would be better off with quicker or cheaper access to products and services with a higher level of risk. And two, these clinical trials are somewhat meaningless as we've seen quite a few times like with Vioxx; patients are selected for these trials with as few comorbidities as they can find, and don't really represent the actual population all that well. While I'm certainly not suggesting such trials are not needed, I think they are given far too much credence and data collected during a wide market deployment would be much more useful. These trials are the main driving cost of any biotech product, and they are intended to be excessive under the guise of 'patient safety' to price out the smaller unestablished firms.
19. Re: Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Lol we Americans largely test our drugs in Europe and NZ first because the populations are similar (rich white folk) and there are MUCH lower barriers to entry. It is a lot cheaper and easier to bring a drug to market in one of these countries and harvest their data for later US approval. This is an industry standard, and just goes to show how ridiculous the FDA is.
20. Re: Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  They have made quite a few mistakes, Vioxx is just the biggest example. It also showed that the drug manufacturers are far more proactive and effective than the FDA at ensuring patient safety. Merck found the problem and pulled it from the market long before the FDA lifted a finger.
  You also don't see the lives that could have been saved by drugs that took too long to reach the market. You're also ignoring the lives lost by these regulatory costs pricing people out of the market. The assumption that the FDA does more good than harm is not entirely supported in the actual data.
21. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  And how many people died waiting for the 10+ years it takes a drug to make it through the expensive trial process? Or died waiting for drugs that will never be discovered or sold on the market because there aren't enough people with the condition to make back the billions it takes to get a drug approved.
  Taking any drug is a risk. What you're saying is that people are too stupid to decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to take and they need the government to make the decision for everyone. Well I have a serious problem with that, if I have a terminal or painful disease I might wan to take an experimental or unproven drug and frankly it's none of your fucking business what I put in my body. If you want to only take drugs that have gone through a multi billion dollar decade long approval process that's your business but wanting to force everyone else to do the same is wrong.
22. Re:Brilliant by jellomizer · 2017-06-05 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Changing Regulations are worse for innovation, than the number of existing ones. The problem is we got ACA, we can deal with this, then the Republicans want to dump it and replace it. So all the systems that have been made, tested and optimized for the old way, will need to be rethought, remade, and retested...
  As a Health Care IT Worker, I have a bunch of nice of haves that will actually lower cost and improve care that I have just started, if they are going to take such regulations away or change them. Then I will need to stop them and go back and fix what has been finally set for working.
  As for this article. Silicon Valley doesn't like to work on boring technology. Health Care technology is decades old, and it just needs some boring old redesign to more modern processes... What is needed will not look new and innovative to investors. It will be tough to get staff excited in doing this work. Especially in the west coast. In the East Coast is where the boring IT work is done.
  It isn't about easy path, but there are many 900 lbs guerrillas that needs to addressed, and not with a shiny new software, but by sitting down and doing the drudge work, or changing configurations, creating additional interfaces to other systems, cleaning up old data. Connecting relationships between data. And analysis of existing data.
  Giving Doctors a mobile app, will just give a shiny tool without fixing the fundamental problems.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
23. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  ... without even *basic* encryption ...
  Well we tried to save the patient, but we did not know the password to his medical device. He died while we were waiting for IT to reset it for us.
24. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I am mis-reading your comment but it seems to suggest that 'They' are the 'Silicon Valley Investors'.
  Having worked directly with 'Silicon Valley Investors' in the very specific niche that the article is talking about I can testify from at least 5+ years direct experience as a chief software architect that 'they' (if my assumption about the definition of 'they' is correct) are in no way pushing for regulations.
  Spend a little time actually trying to create a legitimate health care startup today (more than slapping a cheap code-only POC together) and I think you will find very quickly that the regulations are either a) already there or b) haven't been made up yet.
  They (the ones that make up regulations) are the FDA. The reason it is near-impossible to compete with established companies is because as suggested they are already established.
  So if you have an innovative health care product idea worthy of a start up your first real competition is yourself vs FDA.
  Silicon Valley startups and giants alike are all in the same shart creek you are, paddling up the same streams of FDA 'guidance'.
  So in summation and in correction, it is the FDA that is making it near-impossible to compete with establish companies and are hurting innovation.
25. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  It's not so much regulations. Health care needs regulations. It's that US regulators are notoriously bad at it. My friends in the medical device business do most of their work in places like Germany and other Northern European countries because the regulators are strict, but they do their jobs predictably and in a timely manner. They shun the US because the regulators are sloppier and everything takes forever in the US.
  Holy shit, it's a poilitical discussion on reddit that's actually productive. Notice how much better political conversations go when we don't refer to everything on a polar scale (conservative v. liberal, R v. D). I lean somewhat more libertarian than the average, but part of the reason I don't love the Libertarian Party is that they worship the idea of an unregulated market, even to the contradiction of the evidence! The is a general problem with the USA (and, personally, I think it plays right into the 0.1%/globalists playbook): regulation in the US is fucking terribly executed (I think "corrupt" is the right word), the general populated is indoctrinated to believe that they have to be either Democrat or Republican to have any political value (lol) and so most people choose (R) cut all regulation to the bone or (D) regulation is just innately ugly, but it's better than nothing.
  We know the solution, we just don't know how to get Washington to actually do it (maybe because they are hopelessly corrupt). We need robust, lean regulation. We don't need a corporate free-for-all with polluted rivers and 3rd world working conditions, and we don't need corrupt, thick regulation that's basically a handout to established industry. We need good, robust, lean regulation for a healthy free market. The medical industry is no exception (although, logically, medicine must be more regulated than most industries).
26. Re:Brilliant by Shark · 2017-06-05 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  You shall not infringe on the sacred subscription model of big pharma lest you be regulated out of existence. Curing people is a sin against the holy drain of capital. A life that goes on without buying the divine treatment is a life lost and crime against the revenue-stream gods.
  
  --
  Mind the frickin' laser...
27. Re:Brilliant by HiThere · 2017-06-05 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with your comment is that you are assuming the two used of "they" refer to the same groups of people (though there *is* overlap).
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
28. Re:Brilliant by virtualXTC · 2017-06-05 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I call BS!
  Some regulations actually encourage innovation (carbon credits). Moreover, without truth in advertising / some burden of proof that what you are putting out there in healthcare actually works, it's easy for a large company (l'll choose Merck since they seem to have no problem publishing fake data to this end) to claim they've made a drug that cures a particular disease causing funding in that field to evaporate.
  Similarly, since there are no non-profit pharmaceutical manufacturers (due to the sheer cost), the issuing of drug patents (a form of regulation) are they only way to incentive the huge finical risk that a large scale (burden of proof) trial entails, and subsequent manufacturing equipment costs. As a researcher I wish this wasn't the case, but it seems even generic drug makers won't enter the market for a patent-free without some idea of what the market capacity is.
29. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Again, I think you miss the original commenter's point.
  ALL regulations (that have an impact) move large, huge, or enormous amounts of work, from production to compliance.
  Occasionally, you find a regulation that on top of the enormous costs provide some benefits as well.
  More occasionally, you find a regulation where the benefits outweigh the costs.
  Or even less likely, a regulation where the ongoing benefits outweigh the ongoing costs once the costs of change have occurred.
  You are almost certainly right that SOME regulations are NET positive.
  But ALL regulations have a large negative cost of compliance in their balance sheet.
  Note...as a process engineer, I'm not just talking about government regulations...internal regulations on how a business develops software (Req's phase must be signed off before design starts) are just as costly, regardless their net value.
30. Re:Brilliant by guises · 2017-06-05 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  '"They" have figured out that the regulations "they're" always pushing for...' Who is "they"? That's a rhetorical question, this is obviously another smear on liberals. The great enemy.
  
  Setting aside the fact that "they" are not a monolithic entity, so "they" don't exist, there is another way to read the summary above: where it says that these startups don't pursue mainstream medical business opportunities because "it can take more than a decade to make a return" you could read that as an issue with the regulations in place - we should be doing more to accommodate the silicon valley get-rich-quick business model. Or, you could read that as an issue with their business model - if they want to make money where other peoples' lives are on the line, they should be adapting their business model to meet the regulations designed to protect those lives.
  
  In other words, maybe demanding massive returns in five years or less isn't the best way to approach every problem?
31. Re: Brilliant by jopsen · 2017-06-05 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  It also showed that the drug manufacturers are far more proactive and effective than the FDA at ensuring patient safety.
  As it should be... If someone sets your house on fire and the fire-alarm doesn't work, you first blame the guy who lit your house on fire... Rather than blaming the fire-alarm.
  
  On topic of regulations it makes no sense to argue that they are all bad, or they all stifle innovation or competition.. Lots of regulation have positive effects. It's just that Americans have a hard time seeing it as anything other than black/white.
  
  Sorry, the world doesn't reduce to good vs. bad.
  
  In field of medicine US regulations says new drugs must be better, EU regulations says they must be better or equal. This has pros/cons, you can bring newer drugs to market in the EU, even if they are just cheaper... In the US it's not enough to be cheaper your new drug must better.
  Obviously, the intention is to force development of better drugs. Granted the downsides is higher burden of proof.
32. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Regulations are good and necessary to a free market, but established players tend to get regulations which are not good or necessary for a free market tacked on. Governments get in on the action to try to extract money and craft perks for their special interests. Sometimes the unnecessary regulations are simply the result of well-meaning officials who think they are improving upon what a free market could deliver, but in reality have the effect of freezing the state of the art.
  Thanks captain obvious, for your keen observation "humans act like humans, how about that"
33. Re:Brilliant by MightyYar · 2017-06-05 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the statement that "regulations are good an necessary to a free market" is nearly as "obvious" to others as it is to you. Thanks for really adding to the discussion.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
34. Re:Brilliant by stephenmac7 · 2017-06-05 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  That may be true, but how many people die when the FDA fails to approve drugs on time? Why not just have incentives to avoid hurting people rather than telling them how to do it? If someone falsely advertises, they can be sued for fraud. If their drug has X side effect (maybe even death), they can be sued for all damages caused by their nondisclosure of said side effects. Federal regulation is not the most effective way to keep people safe. The problem is that we have an easy time imagining what would happen if the FDA doesn't exist -- "snake oil," unsafe drugs, etc -- but we fail to see what innovation didn't happen or what lives weren't saved because of the FDA.
  
  --
  "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
35. Re:Brilliant by ArmoredDragon · 2017-06-05 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, I think the FDA would benefit from making it easier to start a clinical trial, i.e. speed up its evaluation process, allow to skip animal testing, etc. But in exchange for that, counseling for informed consent must be much more rigorous, namely telling them that they risk loss of life, limb, eyesight, or other bodily functions, and that they will have limited legal recourse if anything goes wrong.
  Terminally ill patients could be encouraged to sign up for phase 1 trials, and so long as nothing goes horribly wrong they can quickly move to phase 2, then phase 3, and maybe a 4th phase to rule out any long-term effects, but make the 4th phase open to unlimited participants.
36. Re:Brilliant by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-06-05 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Capital costs exist in any industry. You need to own a mine to get into mining. You need to own land to farm. And you need to prove you're not selling rat poison in the pills. I don't see what the issue is.
  I mean, its possible that the regulations are overreaching. But it seems far more likely they are a reaction to something.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
37. Re: Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yet the EU has more regulations and we constantly denounce said regulations. How is it then they can usually get things out the door faster? I think OP nailed it: the EU enforces in a predictable manner. Regulations aren't bad, it is the enforcement of them that is absolute garbage.
the problem... INVESTORS.... by starblazer · 2017-06-05 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I bet you three fiddy that Silicon Valley wants to tackle these problems, but its the INVESTORS that control the pocketbooks of Silicon Valley that don't want to take the risk on. The long game, pfffft, what's that? Humanity? Pffft!
1. Re:the problem... INVESTORS.... by fustakrakich · 2017-06-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Really. This story even isn't about 'health care'. It's about investment risks and opportunities. And as soon as the subject of 'valuations' comes up, you should run for the hills.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:the problem... INVESTORS.... by jimbolauski · 2017-06-05 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  If the employees are good with going without a paycheck for a year or so while all the regulations are met then take a pay cut because they don't want to be accused of gouging their customers I'm sure investors would jump on board.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
3. Re:the problem... INVESTORS.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  These investors pump MILLIONS into these tech ventures, half of it wasted on real estate and furniture. They can not only afford to give them fair wages, they can also afford to wait for results.
4. Re:the problem... INVESTORS.... by Shatrat · 2017-06-05 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  I would take that bet. I've had the misfortune of supporting a major Silly Valley corp that was trying to 'innovate' an existing industry.There was an attitude that technology is magic and that they would be able to come in and in 18 months be better at that industry than companies which have existed for a century. The individual engineers and project managers are also not interested in anything that isn't 'disruptive', including hard work and studying their competitors. They didn't seem to grok the basic concept that if you don't understand something well enough to do it manually, you don't understand it well enough to automate it.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
5. Re:the problem... INVESTORS.... by jimbolauski · 2017-06-05 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You are awful generous with other people's money.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Brilliant by stephenmac7 · 2017-06-05 03:29 · Score: 0

They've figured out that regulations hurt innovation and make it difficult to compete with established businesses collecting economic rent.

--
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Hypocrites gotta by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:35 · Score: 0

hypocrite
F*ck the poor by mveloso · 2017-06-05 03:39 · Score: 2

Why sell to people with no money?
1. Re:F*ck the poor by i_ate_god · 2017-06-05 03:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because the US is a third world country.
  The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
2. Re:F*ck the poor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Because the US is a third world country.
  The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
  that's because these countries bought their health care software from American companies like Epic
3. Re:F*ck the poor by cayenne8 · 2017-06-05 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
  Why would anyone want to get into medicine, with all the headaches it involves...if they didn't stand to make a buck....in fact, a few of them considering all the insurance/litigation that comes with it, and if a Dr...all the years of study coupled with huge student debt bills to pay off, and shorter working life that most other careers.
  You certainly don't go into that career for only altruistic reasons....you don't get the best people that way.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
4. Re:F*ck the poor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  My Testicles are Sanctified!
5. Re:F*ck the poor by mveloso · 2017-06-05 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  "Modern countries" have their free healthcare paid for by high taxes and government redistribution. That's one way to do it, but not necessarily a better way.
6. Re:F*ck the poor by Kohath · 2017-06-05 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because the US is a third world country.
  The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
  That's some complaining. What do you want to do about it?
  And before you say "single payer", understand that single payer will be a lot more expensive than the current system because US health care workers get paid a lot and they probably won't just sit back and accept huge pay cuts. And they have enormous political clout in the US.
  Also, why should the US be like other countries when most people in the US want a more US-like system?
7. Re:F*ck the poor by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-06-05 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because the US is a third world country.
  Sorry, the US is still a first-world (NATO-aligned) country (although Trump might have changed that if the threat of the US dropping out hadn't caused the deadbeat members to start paying toward their share of the costs.)
  Of course if you're using the evolved meaning of "poor, economically peripheral" or "mass of underpaid or unemployed serfs under the domination of a Fearless Leader and/or an elite", the US is on the track to that, by replacing the lower class workers with cheap, illegal, immigrant labor and the middle class workers with H1-B effectively indentured servants.
  The modern countries on this planet provide health care instead of selling it.
  Actually, obtaining necessities via a market incentivizing their production and competition creating redundancy and driving down prices IS the "modern country" approach, dating from "Adam Smith" a couple centuries back.
  Having it provided to the serfs by the rulers is a legacy of noblesse oblige, where the royalty of Europe (and their predecessors), having confiscated all the wealth and productivity of the serfs, were obliged to provide them with enough health care to keep them healthy enough to keep producing more wealth. Just enough more to keep the nobles living "like kings" and able to hold off takeover of their serfs by their neighbors, of course. Not enough fo the serfs to live comfortably.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
8. Re:F*ck the poor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  >You certainly don't go into that career for only altruistic reasons....
  A lot of people most certainly do. Do you really want a doctor that is concerned about money more than taking care of you?
  > you don't get the best people that way.
  Doctors Without Borders, USAID, CDC, UNICEF all disagree with you.
9. Re:F*ck the poor by stabiesoft · 2017-06-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Single payer would be cheaper. Private insurance runs around a 20% admin overhead. Even if you do not believe the 1.5% admin rate quoted for medicare, I am pretty confident it is much less than private. And if single payer could get rid of the 7 figure hospital exec's which are not part of the insurance overhead, even better. So we would get rid of 2 non-participatory costs (insurance execs and hospital admins) who contribute zero to keeping people alive.
10. Re:F*ck the poor by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2017-06-05 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  Come on now. If it weren't' for those executives healthcare would be even more expensive. They try and cut costs as much as possible to ensure that every department shows a profit. Even the guys in maintenance. /sarcasm
  
  I wish I weren't joking but my father (biomedical repair technician) has had the joy of dealing with several managers like this over the years. One questioned why they had so many different spools of hosing and suggested that they order just what they need. The problem is that they basically do keep on hand what they need as that stuff has predefined replacement intervals so since they know they have X machines that take Y feet of Z hose N times a year they have a pretty good idea of how much hose they need. Same thing with other parts and components. That manager wanted to turn the bio meds into a profit center instead of a cost center. There were other cases where managers got into a pissing match over what repair should be done and who was going to pay for it. Like the one where if the device was sent back to the manufacturer it would be charged to the surgery department at like $5000 but if the bio meds opened the device and replaced the broken component it would only cost $700 but would be charged to the bio med department. That argument took a couple of weeks to resolve and required the intervention of a VP.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
11. Re:F*ck the poor by Kohath · 2017-06-05 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  So still super expensive then. Why should we switch to a system most people don't want to save a couple percent?
  
  ... 7 figure hospital exec's ...
  And added government worker pension costs will be many times that. Pensions don't provide patient care either.
12. Re:F*ck the poor by HuguesT · 2017-06-05 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Nice FUD, sir.
  Demonstrably socializing medicine is the better way, evidence is here.
  Best.
13. Re:F*ck the poor by HuguesT · 2017-06-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try quoting bloomberg, like they are a perfectly neutral observer there. *Just* getting rid of the overhead of having multiple inefficient systems competing with each other in an anti-competitive market would be a bonus. Then there is the matter of the single payer being able to negotiate better medicine practices and prices. This is what nearly every country in this world does. The champion is Japan. Notice they have a lot of centenarians there.
  
  Also, why should the US be like other countries when most people in the US want a more US-like system?
  Ignorance maybe ?
14. Re:F*ck the poor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  You certainly don't go into that career for only altruistic reasons....you don't get the best people that way.
  Or teaching?
  
  Why would anyone want to get into medicine, with all the headaches it involves...if they didn't stand to make a buck....in fact, a few of them considering all the insurance/litigation that comes with it, and if a Dr...all the years of study coupled with huge student debt bills to pay off, and shorter working life that most other careers.
  I've seen WAY too many who go into medicine only because they're greedy - they consider patients to be incidental at best.
15. Re:F*ck the poor by i_ate_god · 2017-06-05 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  > Of course if you're using the evolved meaning of "poor, economically peripheral" or "mass of underpaid or unemployed serfs under the domination of a Fearless Leader and/or an elite", the US is on the track to that, by replacing the lower class workers with cheap, illegal, immigrant labor and the middle class workers with H1-B effectively indentured servants.
  It was just an intentional insult.
  > Having it provided to the serfs by the rulers is a legacy of noblesse oblige, where the royalty of Europe (and their predecessors), having confiscated all the wealth and productivity of the serfs, were obliged to provide them with enough health care to keep them healthy enough to keep producing more wealth. Just enough more to keep the nobles living "like kings" and able to hold off takeover of their serfs by their neighbors, of course. Not enough fo the serfs to live comfortably.
  > Actually, obtaining necessities via a market incentivizing their production and competition creating redundancy and driving down prices IS the "modern country" approach, dating from "Adam Smith" a couple centuries back.
  Which explains why Americans pay more for their healthcare than Canadians do... wait, was that your point? I'm not sure.
  > Having it provided to the serfs by the rulers is a legacy of noblesse oblige, where the royalty of Europe (and their predecessors), having confiscated all the wealth and productivity of the serfs, were obliged to provide them with enough health care to keep them healthy enough to keep producing more wealth. Just enough more to keep the nobles living "like kings" and able to hold off takeover of their serfs by their neighbors, of course. Not enough fo the serfs to live comfortably.
  Well written FUD. If all my wealth was confiscated, then how did I buy this computer to write this message on?
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
16. Re:F*ck the poor by david_thornley · 2017-06-06 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Based on 2014 figures (the latest I found when I looked), US per capita health care is three thousand dollars more expensive than the next most expensive one (Switzerland). I think saving most of a trillion dollars a year does count as less expensive, and I think most people would want less expensive health care.
  Some people say we can't do what every other developed country in the world already does. I think those people are dishonest or spineless defeatists.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
17. Re:F*ck the poor by Kohath · 2017-06-06 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Based on 2014 figures (the latest I found when I looked), US per capita health care is three thousand dollars more expensive than the next most expensive one (Switzerland). I think saving most of a trillion dollars a year does count as less expensive, and I think most people would want less expensive health care.
  Some people say we can't do what every other developed country in the world already does. I think those people are dishonest or spineless defeatists.
  If you read the article, you will see that countries don't cut health care costs. They only have lower costs because they never got high to begin with. But going back in time isn't really an option.
  You can name-call anyone you want, as much as you want. Do you think that will get health care workers to say "yes" to large pay cuts? Do you think it will convince voters and politicians to listen to you instead of doctors and nurses?
18. Re:F*ck the poor by david_thornley · 2017-06-07 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  What I am saying is that every other country in the world has much lower health care costs, and that many of them have better health care results. I'm also saying that the US can accomplish pretty much anything any other country can accomplish. I didn't think those things were all that controversial.
  That's a Bloomberg editorial, and I haven't been impressed with them in the past. It also says it would be difficult to get lower health care costs, which is reasonable. It ignores many of the costs that other health care systems really don't have, such as immensely high prices for vital drugs and a massive insurance industry.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:F*ck the poor by Kohath · 2017-06-07 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  No country has significantly reduced health care costs.
  Yes, if the US could go back in time 100 years, perhaps we could keep health care costs from rising like other countries have succeeded in doing. But going back in time is not an option.
20. Re:F*ck the poor by david_thornley · 2017-06-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  If we were to streamline the health insurance industry, we'd save money on health care. If we had some sort of negotiation on drug prices like other countries do, we'd save money on health care. Doing these things would significantly reduce health care costs. It wouldn't get us anywhere near second place, but it would be significant savings.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
21. Re:F*ck the poor by Kohath · 2017-06-08 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Some money might be saved. There are probably some studies for how much. Drugs are less than 10% of the total health care cost, and if changes cause fewer therapeutic drugs to be developed you'd see other care costs rise as a result.
  Realistically, it would be hard to make the case for big changes based on a one time cost saving of 5% or so. That's about 1 year of health care inflation. Maybe 2 years.
  The main point is that there are no easy wins and no big wins. You can tell a story about much lower costs by making a few changes, but that's not going to happen in reality. We don't live in a story.
22. Re:F*ck the poor by david_thornley · 2017-06-09 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Health insurance administration is a big cost also.
  I'm not saying that it would be easy, but we could arrive at approximate parity with the second-most-expensive by reducing the increase in health care costs, which can't go up faster than total wealth indefinitely.
  I also really hate the idea that the US can't do something every other developed country does as a matter of course, so I'm going to look for ways to accomplish it.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
tech innovation causes chronic ills? by js290 · 2017-06-05 03:43 · Score: 0

Maybe it's tech innovation that's plaguing the poor? Primitive societies did not suffer from chronic diseases of civilization, and were usually healthier and long lived.

--
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
1. Re:tech innovation causes chronic ills? by roman_mir · 2017-06-05 04:00 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Maybe it's tech innovation that's plaguing the poor? Primitive societies did not suffer from chronic diseases of civilization, and were usually healthier and long lived.
  
  - do you really believe this?
  Primitive societies didn't suffer from chronic diseases? How do you know that and another point, to suffer from a chronic disease you need to have a large majority of the population survive to the age that allows you to get a chronic disease. If only the strongest make it to the age of 50 and above then you will have fewer chronic diseases in the older population compared to societies that allow just about anybody to reach that age.
  Sure, the primitive societies didn't have people suffer from diabetes and diseases related to prolonged sitting in a chair.... So if we are sitting in chairs for long periods of time because of technology (we are) then yes, the primitive societies didn't have that problem.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
2. Re:tech innovation causes chronic ills? by alvinrod · 2017-06-05 04:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Infant mortality rate was through the roof in primitive societies and as soon as humans moved from nomadic tribes and started building cities, the chronic diseases of civilization became widespread. Up until recently, diseases such as cholera, polio, small pox, measles, etc. were extremely common and were only made rare or eradicated through innovation. Sure back in primitive societies, if you didn't die early in your life you could certainly live to be 80 and I'll grant that people were on the whole healthier because almost all work involved physical labor and even if you had the equivalent of an office job, you still needed to walk to work. However, the chances of any person actually living to 80 was far, far lower. If the various diseases and lack of treatment didn't kill you, invading neighbors would probably do it quite well. So unless you're proposing we abandon civilization and go back to hunter-gatherer groups, your assertion is just wrong.
  
  Tech innovation has done more for the poor having healthcare than anything else. Even safety nets can't provide services to everyone that haven't been invented or are incredibly costly. Just look at the positive outcomes of Golden Rice in ensuring that some of the world's poorest don't suffer from conditions due to vitamin A deficiency.
  
  If you don't think its fast enough, you are free to start your own company to rectify the situation. Or is everything just someone else's problem?
3. Re:tech innovation causes chronic ills? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  In primitive societies, if you didn't die early, you'd probably survive in to your 40s, but probably not much further. The rich were the only ones who lived into what we today call old age.
4. Re:tech innovation causes chronic ills? by js290 · 2017-06-05 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect infant mortality factors into the average life expectancy calculation?
  
  --
  "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
5. Re:tech innovation causes chronic ills? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Live to 80? Very rare before antibiotics. A simple cut or a broken bone was a death sentence. As you get older, your ability to heal gets weaker and your bones more brittle. Hunter societies did not get very old.
The future is in offshore data processing by xtal · 2017-06-05 03:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

The current situtation in healthcare is stupid.
I sent my genome to a server in eastern europe to get a detailed health report because the FDA won't let 23andme present all of the information. Doctors are actively fighting this democratization of information. Fuck them.
AI and machine learning have done a better job at diagnosis than humans for decades, but aren't widely used. WHY?
Fuck the system. I will get the images, and the data - or sensors that I own will - and they will be processed outside of the reach of the FDA.
Procedures? Medical tourism is a thing.
Nobody has a more strongly vested interest in me being alive than..me.
The internet is coming for medicine, the same way it came for software "sales", music, movies, and retail.
What a time to be alive!

--
..don't panic
1. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  You've sent you genome to a country in Eastern Europe? That's really dumb. And I am an Eastern European.
2. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Which Eastern European company did you use? I've had a sort of interest in genome analysis for a while, but most of the sites for it just seem scammy.
3. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by jeff4747 · 2017-06-05 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I sent my genome to a server in eastern europe to get a detailed health report because the FDA won't let 23andme present all of the information.
  That's largely because the information 23andme wants to present has not been proven to be true.
  So....fuck the system for trying to prevent 23andme from lying to you, so that you don't go on a medical vacation to treat a disease you don't actually have.
  Makes perfect sense.
4. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by xtal · 2017-06-05 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Promethease, by the SNPedia guys. I'm not that worried about my dataset. I'm not that special, neither are you.
  
  --
  ..don't panic
5. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  you're a wacko.
6. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by tepples · 2017-06-05 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's largely because the information 23andme wants to present has not been proven to be true.
  Which in turn is because nobody has suggested an efficient way to fund said proof.
7. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Here is FDA regulation in a nutshell. If you say that your drug/device/diagnostic test does something, you have to prove it with a well-controlled study (using sound principles and statistics). If you can't, you can't make that claim about your drug/device/diagnostic test. The regulations keep companies and their marketing folks from lying/tricking people, buying stuff that at best, doesn't work, and at worst will hurt you.
8. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  You're a god-damned liar. They state right on their home page that nothing they provide should be used to treat any disease.
  https://www.23andme.com/
  
  The 23andMe PGS test uses qualitative genotyping to detect clinically relevant variants in the genomic DNA of adults from saliva collected using an FDA-cleared collection device (OrageneDX model OGD-500.001) for the purpose of reporting and interpreting genetic health risks and reporting carrier status. It is not intended to diagnose any disease. The relevance of each report varies based on ethnicity. Each genetic health risk report describes if a person has variants associated with a higher risk of developing a disease, but does not describe a person's overall risk of developing the disease. These reports are not intended to tell you anything about your current state of health, or to be used to make medical decisions, including whether or not you should take a medication or how much of a medication you should take. Our carrier status reports can be used to determine carrier status, but cannot determine if you have two copies of any genetic variant. These carrier reports are not intended to tell you anything about your risk for developing a disease in the future or anything about the health of your fetus, or your newborn child's risk of developing a particular disease later in life. For Gaucher Disease Type 1, we provide a single report that includes information on both carrier status and genetic health risk. The Parkinson's Disease genetic health risk report (i) is indicated for reporting of the G2019S variant in the LRRK2 gene, and the N370S variant in the GBA gene, (ii) describes if a person has variants associated with an increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease, and (iii) is most relevant for people of European, Ashkenazi Jewish, and North African Berber descent.
  So....fuck you for supporting rent-seeking policies that try to stop people getting medical care without the blessing(and billing) of various self-selected groups.
9. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's largely because the information 23andme wants to present has not been proven to be true.
  Which in turn is because nobody has suggested an efficient way to fund said proof.
  If you include insertions, then, in principle, there are an infinite number of possible genetic variants. But even if you just consider single nucleotide variants - and assume that the effect of each variant is completely independent of any other variant - there are roughly 3 billion positions, and each position can have 16 different combinations of the 4 nucleotides. So that gives about 50 billion variants where you would like to either be able to prove that the variant is benign or that the variant is pathogenic (or perhaps somewhere in between).
  At the moment, the FDA is basically taking the approach that there needs to be a separate clinical drug trial type of study for each variant. But, outside of the bureaucracy of Washington, that approach seems a bit unrealistic. :)
10. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  ...you have to prove it with a well-controlled study (using sound principles and statistics).
  OK, so, given that there are billions of possible genetic variants that could potentially affect a person's health, are you proposing that there need to be billions of these "well-controlled studies"? And how much is each of these well-controlled studies going to cost? And how long is each study going to take? Are you going to follow each study subject long enough to verify that there is no adult onset pathology?
11. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by real+gumby · 2017-06-05 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Typically life science startups use, you know, VC money to pay for such proof. 23&me just couldn't be bothered.
12. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  That's largely because the information 23andme wants to present has not been proven to be true.
  There's current scientific consensus "proof" and then there's (FDA required) pharmaceutical company drug-trial "proof". On one hand, drug-trials use more resources. On the other hand, the incentives for bias in a drug-trial study are much stronger.
  Anyway, the information that 23andMe was providing was current scientific consensus "proof" - which was potentially useful, even lifesaving, when used correctly.
13. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by jeff4747 · 2017-06-05 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so, given that there are billions of possible genetic variants that could potentially affect a person's health, are you proposing that there need to be billions of these "well-controlled studies"?
  Nope.
  What 23andme wants to claim is if you have genetic variant X, you are more likely to end up with disease Y. That only requires testing variant X. Not all other variants.
14. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by jeff4747 · 2017-06-05 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  They state right on their home page that nothing they provide should be used to treat any disease.
  So...they're admitting to fraud?
  If their tests are useless as claimed in their EULA, what exactly are they selling?
15. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by jeff4747 · 2017-06-05 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway, the information that 23andMe was providing was current scientific consensus "proof"
  Some of the information is. Some isn't. The FDA is requiring 23andMe to only provide the information with proof.
16. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by tepples · 2017-06-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, venture capitalists tend to be unwilling to fund clinical trials that don't result in a patent or other exclusive rights that keep free riders from unfairly benefiting from the VC's investment.
17. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by real+gumby · 2017-06-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, venture capitalists tend to be unwilling to fund clinical trials that don't result in a patent or other exclusive rights that keep free riders from unfairly benefiting from the VC's investment.
  Yep, that's how it works. And diagnostic companies manage to get funded and deal with this.
  There's a lot of art in the med field about how to structure things in a way that are protectable.
18. Re:The future is in offshore data processing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Promethease, by the SNPedia guys. I'm not that worried about my dataset. I'm not that special, neither are you.
  Well what do you know, Promethease has got a mention.
  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2016/01/some_personal_genetic_analysis_is_error_prone_and_dishonest.2.html
Most startups seem focused on weeding out the weak by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-06-05 03:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most of the "health" startups seem focused on weeding out the weak, as in "let X voluntarily track your activities and single you out for unaffordable health premiums if you aren't young/healthy/kid-free enough to meet our wearable device targets." So yes, if it seems that the chronically ill are being pushed off the map, well it's by design.
no, really by paiute · 2017-06-05 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

" promising to focus on more at-risk groups once they've nailed the product"

I totally believe you, pal.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
1. Re:no, really by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  At that point the company is nailed and technology sold to the bigger companies who remove it from existence out of fear of competition. Isn't this how it is done in the Silicon Valley in general?
realistic expectations by phantomfive · 2017-06-05 04:07 · Score: 1

"Silicon Valley" is going to do things that are profitable. Expecting anything else is unrealistic, as nice as it would be.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not sure why this is news.... by Drewdad · 2017-06-05 04:08 · Score: 1

Business wants easy way to make money. News at 11.
They just need to admit to themselves that it's about the money. Once they nail their "low hanging fruit," they're going to diversify... by finding more low-hanging fruit.
Try voting for someone that'll change stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:11 · Score: 0

You get the health care system you deserve.
we need to take the profit out of Health Care and by Joe_Dragon · 2017-06-05 04:12 · Score: 0

we need to take the profit out of Health Care and maybe cut doctors school time down by 2-4 years do they really need 4 years per med?? and we don't need the 500K loans.
Can we rename Silicon Valley? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 04:28 · Score: 0

[Off topic] When I see the name Silicon Valley, I can't help but think the area does anything but manufacture Silicon Hardware. Now its the land of software and venture capitalists and start-ups. More of a vultures den.
Seems like the majority of "silicon" or hardware vendors moved to Texas.
1. Re:Can we rename Silicon Valley? by slew · 2017-06-05 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  [Off topic] When I see the name Silicon Valley, I can't help but think the area does anything but manufacture Silicon Hardware. Now its the land of software and venture capitalists and start-ups. More of a vultures den.
  Seems like the majority of "silicon" or hardware vendors moved to Texas.
  They can rename Silicon valley when they finally clean up all the toxic dumping sites they left behind...
2. Re:Can we rename Silicon Valley? by HiThere · 2017-06-05 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Most of them moved to Japan or Taiwan or South Korea. Texas got the residue. (But I hear that many of the early movers moved on to China, and a few of those have started looking at Indonesia.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Retail, social media and gigging. by hey! · 2017-06-05 04:32 · Score: 1

They aren't brain surgery. They aren't even primary care. All that model disruption business is about sweeping away old, inefficient systems that support simple and relatively discrete transactions: systems that sell me a book; give me a ride from A to B; or provide someone to mow my lawn for me. The entrepreneur in these scenarios focuses on achieving speed, scale and convenience rather than managing complex, ongoing and labor-intensive processes.
Healthcare services may be inefficient and mind-numbingly bureaucratic, but people are going to be intensely skeptical of anything that aims to shut down their local hospital or physical therapy clinic. The one core function that certainly could be constructively disrupted using the standard Silicon Valley model is prescriptions: drugs and medical devices. Those areas are fiercely defended by their respective industries, who have maximizing consumer expenditure down to a science.
The one success story in the article doesn't really fit the classic Silicon Valley creative destruction narrative. It amounts to what is called in other parts of the country "concierge medicine", but with some added high-tech frippery to appeal to well-heeled Bay Area clients. There are lots of gaps in the US health care coverage, but unfortunately they mostly center around under-serviced poor and rural populations. Lower cost services would be welcome in those segments, even if substandard.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Re:Retail, social media and gigging. by jopsen · 2017-06-05 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  One could also imagine 24x7 on-demand doctors appointments with emergency room like capabilities... But with some Uber-like must make an appointment to get around regulation that you have to accept everybody in an emergency room... Hence, effectively creating an emergency room service that is unavailable if you don't have insurance or ability to pay your co-pay.... there by lowering the cost of running the emergency room.
  
  Note: I kind of hope such startup doesn't happen... But some of the Silicon Valley style disruption like Uber, certain has a backside to it...
The long game's too risky by rsilvergun · 2017-06-05 04:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's an excellent chance we're going to move to single payer in the next 20 years. The big money isn't in care, it's in being a middle man that skims 10% off the top. A shift to single payer gets rid of most if not all of those middle men...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:The long game's too risky by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Getting rid of several layers of insurance companies and middlemen and hospital bureaucrats and you have a huge spike in their unemployment. Do you realize how many people a simple hospital visit has to go through to get you a bill and have you pay it?
Problem is lack of public beta by tepples · 2017-06-05 04:58 · Score: 1

One problem with snake oil is that not all snake species produce eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). This led some snake oil makers to end up producing ineffective products. So long as you can document that it's from a snake species whose oil is rich in EPA, I'll buy.
In areas where the Chinese water snake isn't available, producers switched to imitation snake oils with other ingredients, some of which have since been proven effective. Brands have included Stanley's (capsaicin/camphor), Vicks VapoRub (camphor/menthol), Capzasin (capsaicin), and ActivOn (menthol). The famous ruling against Stanley's in the Rhode Island District Court was mostly that it wasn't clearly marked as an imitation with different active ingredients.
But the other problem with snake oil is how regulations handle claims not yet proven. Silicon Valley relies on public beta before wide release. But currently a drug product can't reach the market until it's both safe and effective. There's a "supplement" marketing regime where safety is guaranteed and effectiveness is "as is," but there appears to be no "public beta" regime to sell something as a "supplement" between when it is proven safe and then switch to "drug" marketing once it is proven effective.
1. Re:Problem is lack of public beta by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  "Public beta" for software generally doesn't kill people.
  I don't know about you, but I'm not going to participate in a "public beta" for drugs or medical devices since there's an off chance that it's been developed by Dr. Mengele.
2. Re:Problem is lack of public beta by tepples · 2017-06-05 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  "Public beta" for software generally doesn't kill people.
  If your concern is safety, have a private trial for safety and a public trial for efficacy.
3. Re:Problem is lack of public beta by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  One problem with snake oil is that not all snake species produce eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA).
  Most of the stuff that I've read suggests it's the other Omega 3 oil, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) that may have some effect, if it works at all.
Privatized medicine is immoral and broken, duh by netsavior · 2017-06-05 05:03 · Score: 0

Investors require unreasonable short term profits.
Established medical research firms and patent owners are the only ones able to navigate arduous regulation
People's lives are in the balance

Result: The only way for-profit medical research and treatment can happen is to charge unreasonable and predatory amounts of money for already approved medications, in order to fuel future research AND pacify the insane greed of wall street.

Our system is not set up for innovation or disruption, it is set up for the time-tested approach of building wealth: Throw as much human death and suffering at it as you can get away with.

This government protected wealth-building kills human beings, tens of thousands per year by any measure. It is time to "provide for the common defense" regardless of campaign donation bribery.
What a nonsense article by real+gumby · 2017-06-05 05:23 · Score: 1

I have appeared before the FDA, discussing a testing protocol for a drug we were designing...when I was the CEO of a Silicon Valley VC-backed pharma company. The article even quotes a partner from NEA which is a life science investor in addition to being a tech investor.
Sure, some people try for easy wins...why not? Some people don't do their homework too -- and not just in the life sciences. And some people (looking at you, 23 & me), get the benefit of the FDA bending over backwards to try to allow them maximum freedom to experiment within the consrtraints of the law, and still don't do their homework, and cry victim when they finally have to deal with making no effort to prove the validity of their claims.
And then the article quotes one company that -- oops -- failed to do its homework.
1. Re:What a nonsense article by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  I have appeared before the FDA, discussing a testing protocol for a drug we were designing...
  Genetic variants are different from drugs. For one things, there are billions of genetic variants.
  Currently the FDA is trying to apply drug validation studies to genetic variants. That's like requiring cars to have proper horse shoes.
2. Re:What a nonsense article by real+gumby · 2017-06-05 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  Genetic variants are different from drugs. For one things, there are billions of genetic variants.
  Currently the FDA is trying to apply drug validation studies to genetic variants. That's like requiring cars to have proper horse shoes.
  So, umm, this is not the case. Do you have any idea how the non-ag side of the FDA actually operates?
  When you go for approval you define the criteria. "All" you have to show is that you will show statically valid evidence that your claims are plausible. Sometimes the Agency wants some specific proof (e.g. they may ask that you use a specific animal to verify a specific procedure or organ consequence) or may want an additional test because they know some classes of can compounds have characteristic issues. But in general they don't dictate anything. Oh yeah, for a treatment there are outcome criteria, but you are mostly the origin of those as well.
  Diagnostics are simpler to approve than devices, which tend to be simpler to approve than drugs, which to some degree are simpler than biologics. Each division has its own specialists. And the so-called "billions" of genetic cases are a red herring -- just consider the complex consequences of introducing organic compounds into the body.
  Disclaimer: I am not a geneticist, and have not gone for any diagnostic approval, though I am an advisor to a couple of companies that have. But apart from my own experience in the small molecule domain, I do know most of 23&me's regulatory team socially, and we do talk about work. So I know generally what issues they face.
Hype, appy apps, and perpetual beta by swb · 2017-06-05 05:28 · Score: 2

...doesn't cut it in the realm of health care.
Silicon Valley may be noodling around the margins, but it's probably less because of the "onerous regulation" than the empty product they peddle not being able to live up to the regulations and cope with the existing complexity.
They're not showing up to a business sector that has been moribund and antiquated for decades, they're showing up to a business sector that has been highly computerized for decades, so in some sense they're competing against their Silicon Valley neighbors, too.
And too much of Silicon Valley "innovation" is just empty bullshit, an appy app, perpetually in beta, and lots of hype. Regulation means following rules, audits to make sure you're doing that and actually delivering something of substance.
Theranos will save us! by Kludge · 2017-06-05 05:37 · Score: 1

That's largely because the information 23andme wants to present has not been proven to be true.

Details, details!
We need more startups like Theranos to save our healthcare system.
FDA fights medical break throughs by micahraleigh · 2017-06-05 05:57 · Score: 1

If you want to distribute a new life-saving medical breakthrough it has to go through (on average) 20 years of trials.

Which YOU pay for out of your pocket.

IF it succeeds you get to use it for (on average) 5 years before it goes to your competitors. They get access FOR FREE.

So WHY would anyone ever come up with a new break through?

People are dying because the federal government via the FDA PUNISHES success and helping people.

I hear the FDA is corrupt, but even if it isn't, disbanding it would save many, many lives.
1. Re:FDA fights medical break throughs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  To do away with the 20 years of trials, you'd need to eliminate civil liability shields. That would cost trillions $$ more, and many more lives, but you're welcome to try it.
Just do Single Payer by WillAffleckUW · 2017-06-05 05:59 · Score: 1

Single Payer Healthcare works.
It's cheaper.
It's Medicare For All.
The vast majority of democracies with good GDP do it.
We should too.
And it's way way way cheaper.
Did I mention the cheaper part?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:Just do Single Payer by russotto · 2017-06-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah, absolutely. It's the government I think of when I want something inexpensive and high quality.
2. Re:Just do Single Payer by WillAffleckUW · 2017-06-05 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike you, I've worked in both sides. Private is more expensive.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3. Re:Just do Single Payer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'd rather drive to FedEx and spend $4.45 mailing a letter which FedEx will hand off to USPS for last mile delivery than walk to my mailbox to insert the same letter but with a 49 cent stamp on it. Gotta love the government's low quality postal system.
4. Re:Just do Single Payer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-06 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike you, I've worked in both sides. Private is more expensive.
  Not true. Nations such as Holland and Switzerland do not have single-payer public health care, while nations like France do have it.
  Taking total spending on health care as a fraction of GDP, Holland is less expensive, France is in the middle, and Switzerland is slightly more expensive. They're all around 10-11% of GDP.
  The USA is at 17% of GDP.
  In short, while public health care is not necessarily cheaper than private, what the USA is doing is a lot more expensive then either approach when compared to reasonably well run systems (and for the majority of the population produces inferior results).
  A lot of people don't trust the ability of the US government to run public healthcare. Bureaucracy in the US tends to be viewed as a cancer. Worse, the existing government run systems (Medi-Care and VA) are perceived as being a disaster and there's little reason to think that going bigger would work better. So going single payer has always been an especially difficult battle.
  If Obama had been smart, he would have pushed for adopting the Swiss or Dutch systems verbatim. They've already worked out how to do this, and there wouldn't have been any objections regarding socialism. It would have simply come down to beating the lobbying dollars from the health insurance industry, the drug industry, the medical profession (and not all of them), and the lawyers. A tough battle, but an easier one than fighting everybody on the anti-socialism gig as well as those special interest groups.
  Unfortunately, he wasn't that smart. No surprise there: arrogance and hubris seem to go with the job.
Re:Most startups seem focused on weeding out the w by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 06:17 · Score: 0

It's all about "increase revenue" or "lower costs".
One startup figures out marketing, or how to charge more for insurance or drug... that's "increase revenue" aspect. Other startups use data mining to minimize hospital stays, substitute procedures for cheaper alternatives, etc., that's all "lower costs" aspect.
There are hundreds of "startups" in both of these areas. And most of them aren't good for "the consumer" (a/k/a: the patient).
Snake oil actually works... by mha · 2017-06-05 07:54 · Score: 1

Just found this today on HN: "Snake oil can be beneficial for arthritis and other conditions (2007)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
The article being discussed is
https://www.scientificamerican...
> Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something
> Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression
Snake oil actually works... by mha · 2017-06-05 07:58 · Score: 1

...for arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression:
https://www.scientificamerican...
> Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something
> Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression
Never know when it ends by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 09:25 · Score: 0

Many of the left coast liberals are pushing for the GOVERNMENT to take over medical with single payer. This makes ALL medical service people, government employees. It means that you would only get Medicare\VA payment rates. You won't make startup money back that way.
IF/When it happens, the US will cease to be the innovation leader as all the smart people will flee the medical industry.
1. Re:Never know when it ends by russotto · 2017-06-05 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  IF/When it happens, the US will cease to be the innovation leader as all the smart people will flee the medical industry.
  When that happens, it's the end of medical innovation full stop. Who else is going to do it? Europe? Africa? The Middle East? Russia or China?
Re:Brilliant - American Legal System by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 09:32 · Score: 0

American tort law adds many more layers to this. American want god like perfection of outcomes, and will sue when they don't get it. The regulations are there to protect the doctors. They followed the regulations, they have a defense.
Most of those jobs would become government jobs by rsilvergun · 2017-06-05 12:17 · Score: 1

It's single _payer_. We're not nationalizing care and it's not a government take over of health care (whatever Rush & Hannity tells ya). We're just changing who pays the bills. The bills still get paid. Those jobs go from being crap jobs with shit benefits and no job security to government jobs with all the benefits and protections therein.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Everyone complains about regulations by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-05 15:14 · Score: 0

But everytime I see them complain, I remember this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...