Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dave Chase
720 followers -
Family Guy, Healthcare Entrepreneur, Mountain Athlete
Family Guy, Healthcare Entrepreneur, Mountain Athlete

720 followers
About
Dave's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Need advice? Give experts a call. Great UX & use of @Twilio Here's my profile as example https://clarity.fm/davechase

Post has attachment
New accelerators need to step up their game. I appreciate the spirit of letting a thousand flowers/accelerators bloom, however as a graduate of one and mentor in another, these accelerators are starting to seem like the 1000th photo sharing app -- i.e., questionable value proposition. $20k for 6% equity and no track record is going to set them up for failure.

We already have enough scorched earth in healthcare. Read the article by +jonah comstock in MobiHealth News. What would be your ideal accelerator attributes that would allow something like this S. Carolina accelerator to attract high quality companies and then, more importantly, have success? The top of my list would be ready buyers (providers, plans, life sciences, etc.) who have virtually published an RFP for a key gap they want filled and are ready to step up to a true partnership with a startup.  By far the most important thing for a startup is real customer traction. I'd like to see the accelerator put some skin in the game (beyond a pittance of $$) and align their interests more closely. For example, a real customer gets landed as a result of the accelerator. Then, and only then, the accelerator gets warrants. As a startup, that would be worth it. 

What's your take?

Post has shared content
New accelerators need to step up their game. I appreciate the spirit of letting a thousand flowers/accelerators bloom, however as a graduate of one and mentor in another, these accelerators are starting to seem like the 1000th photo sharing app -- i.e., questionable value proposition. $20k for 6% equity and no track record is going to set them up for failure.

We already have enough scorched earth in healthcare. Read the article by +Jonah Comstock in MobiHealth News. What would be your ideal accelerator attributes that would allow something like this S. Carolina accelerator to attract high quality companies and then, more importantly, have success? The top of my list would be ready buyers (providers, plans, life sciences, etc.) who have virtually published an RFP for a key gap they want filled and are ready to step up to a true partnership with a startup.  By far the most important thing for a startup is real customer traction. I'd like to see the accelerator put some skin in the game (beyond a pittance of $$) and align their interests more closely. For example, a real customer gets landed as a result of the accelerator. Then, and only then, the accelerator gets warrants. As a startup, that would be worth it. 

What's your take?

Post has attachment
Today is Opening Day of Boating Season in Seattle. One of Seattle's great events and we have a perfect 75 degree day in store for the 10s of thousands on the water and shore. I sometimes use the crew team metaphor to describe the organizations such as those I highlighted in The Hot Spotters Sequel: Population Health Heroes http://www.forbes.com/sites/davechase/2013/04/30/the-hot-spotters-sequel-population-health-heroes/. They are a great example of how a team of medical professionals can achieve great results when well synchronized. Unfortunately in most of healthcare we have strong, smart people working very hard but they aren't coordinated as outlined in "Healthcare's Dirty Little Secret" that I linked to in the piece above. 
Photo

Post has attachment
Onerous equity deal from unproven healthtech accelerator - 8% for $35k & 12 weeks. No thanks.

If this is reported accurately, I can't imagine anyone other than desperate entrepreneurs taking this "deal". There are boatloads of great MDs that will gladly mentor a startup for much longer than 12 weeks -- e.g., bring them on as long-term advisor/mentors. Perhaps there is an amazing track record that I'm missing. Until a new accelerator gets a real track record, they need to back off on the onerous terms IMHO.

The unfortunate thing is they'll get 2nd & 3rd tier companies applying and there will be another cohort of burned investors. There is already enough scorched earth on investing in healthtech -- we don't need more.

What do you think would be a fair deal? The model I'm looking for is one where health orgs would earn equity (via warrants) when they make a decision to use a product. Real world usage has demonstrable value that I'd be open to with the right situation. That's in stark contrast to giving up 8% with a promise of delivery. I'd pass on that in a moment. I hope this accelerator thinks like a startup and iterates on its model. 

Post has attachment
It's a credit to my team that we were able to get to this stage. Lots of work/fun ahead!

Post has attachment
Are EHR vendors open to partnering with multi-provider patient portal & relationship management systems in light of the ONC ruling that makes it a big advantage for providers to support multi-provider, EHR agnostic platforms such as Avado. I had bounced this off of +John Lynn (see article he wrote about it linked here) & looped in +Shahid Shah to get their POV. He gave me permission to pull in his comment in response to my perspective (see below - Shahid's comments are between the double lines). Fyi, we address the point regarding APIs, SDKs, SSO, etc. Do you agree with Shahid's POV below and John's POV in his piece? I was given the example of ePrescribing where EHR vendors have been open to 3rd party solutions that are the equivalent of Avado. 
=======
Dave, I think you're right that EHR engineering teams that are struggling with MU stage 2 and 3 should partner up to get all the help they need. The problem is that the patient portal and engagement tool providers don't make it easy to do integration using APIs, SDKs, single sign-on, platform-approach, open source, white labeling, brand protection, and related requirements.

If patient portal providers were more focused on EHR integration benefits on the engineering side and marketing it properly to product managers, etc. at EHR firms then they would do quite well.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Shahid.
========
My perspective that Shahid responded to:
Naturally, I am biased towards an EHR-neutral, multi-provider patient portal (since that's an element of Avado's patient relationship management system) so you can take my comments with that bias in mind. I'll be interested in your more objective view. 

The EHR companies have a choice. They can divert finite engineering resources to develop, at best, a me-too patient portal that perpetuates the silo-ization of healthcare or they can position their clients for success in the accountable/coordinated era by picking a best-of-breed EHR-agnostic, portable patient relationship management system that addresses traditional patient portal features, MU requirements, provides a Collaborative Health Record while also addressing the myriad new requirements in the No Outcome, No Income era. Not surprisingly, we think they are better off partnering with a company such as Avado. Thus, it's central to our strategy to partner with EHR vendors. There are over 300 that have had providers attest to Stage 1. A small number have "unlimited" resources and will likely further the "Wang model" but with the others, companies such as Avado are a natural partner. 

Naturally, we think the ONC is trying to usher in a new era that can lead to a wave of innovative new solutions. Avado is one example of what can be fostered. Much more important, it introduces more competition and choice for providers. This sort of thing coupled with efforts such as Automated Blue Button create the conditions for innovation in my opinion. 

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded