@AlCp I don't think you should be over-posting on a forum where you do not have a financial interest
Look I go to your RAP therapy sessions and give a couple of posts here and there to critique management and see where the company is heading. But, I don't bombard the thread as I know that some posters there actually know more about the financials and history of management execution. But unlike there, Painchek has cashflows from one segment of the overall business (Enterprise RAC), soo already we are not relying on hopes and dreams to justify the share price. Prime customer is the government hence the $1.25M grant for the next milestone followed by $0.985M targets. That's literally RAP cap raises when you think about it
Only difference is grants are revenues as aged cared customers is expected to adopt to our SaaS pricing model after the grant. We have the luxury of having the government pay us or once the customer (RAC in this instance) is comfortable they would start paying. Currently there is no churn and there are multiple customer testimonials backing the technology. I believe we had this conversation before
Soo where's the homework? Show me your understanding on how Painchek is deployed across RAC backing with a use case?
But since you have missed quite a bit on what happened, I will return the favor and answer your burning questions;
1. "
when have Painchek been clinically proven and regulatory approved to detect pain for delirium patients?" I believe this is regarding the hospital monitoring segment of the business (I refer it as enterprise hospital market), there's 2 parts to the question clinical and regulatory;
a) I am delighted to tell you that Painchek has begun working on a clinical study with Phillips to use our technology for delirium but to be used broadly for patient monitoring. Our target markets are new born babies and delirium patients. So we have already started the trial despite Covid as our solution can be deployed to the cloud and to the hardware monitoring systems that Phillips own. This is also going to be part of research study (so your technical questions will be answered in a research paper). Timeline (I honestly don't know, but management thinks by the end of this year or early next year). I think it would be next year but I am not worried about timelines, I would be more worried if the trial stops.
b) Regulatory I must admit is a really interesting question. The interesting thing here is that we are deploying our software to hardware owned by Phillips. Phillips is one of the biggest healthcare companies in the world and they have cleared many regulatory hurdles. My theory is that once we proved our tech in a clinical environment we can use Phillips as a back door to get regulatory clearance as we don't own hardware This unfortunately is speculation and I must disclose that. Have no clue exactly how they would end up getting it. But to answer your question, I feel regulatory clearance would be achieved once clinical trials are successfully completed.
2. "
If you are talking about these potential hospital beds, how much dementia patient stay in the bed at the hospital and how long will determine how much Philips pay for the use of Painchek, Painchek can't expect to be paid $1 a day for the bed when it isn't being used, that nearly 6x currently paid.
"
Umm let's say you got a Netflix subscription, and after one month Netflix doesn't renew your subscription. You complain to customer service saying why did you cancel my subscription? Netflix then replies "you didn't watch any TV/movies this month". I don't think we live in a society where that happens. Netflix doesn't care if you watch or not, you still pay the monthly fee. I can draw that analogy to here. There is no way of knowing the usage of a product that has not been commercialised. However, what management is saying is that for a pilot usage they would charge $1 per bed / day. The fee is very tiny compared to other daily costs hospitals make to embed new technologies. The market sizing is management estimates and should be used as a grain of salt. They have to make assumptions like that to see if the unit economics make sense to target a specific niche in the market. It doesn't mean they will achieve $10B or $4B etc...
3. "
The biggest resistance of using Painchek is that only the facial assessment is automated to remove subjectivity but the other 5 domains are still manual assessments so assessors that find manually performing the facial assessment difficult will want to continue to use it if they are in the majority at the RAC.
"
Give me 3 real world examples where manual pain assessments led to loss of a customer sale. If it is the biggest resistance, where is the resistance? Point me to aged care centres that refuse to use the product. Show me the evidence where an aged care centre refuse to continue using Painchek after trialling it.
The 5 manual part of the assessment takes 5-15mins and the assessors are given a wide library of training videos accessible through the website, app etc... Let's assume all the tests are subjective and there was a grave error in pain assessment. Natural follow up question would be what are the consequences? Well, misdiagnosis lead to further deterioration in mental wellbeing and the unnecessary use of drugs like delirium. This would therefore mean that Painchek did not help me (a RAC customer) treat pain and I would terminate the contract. Also, if over dosing on delirium cause the death of my resident and Painchek was used as a pain assessment, then there should be news articles all over the place. The theory unfortunately does not stack up to evidence. One number matter and that is churn. There is no churn. No customers have left. All customers need it especially in a covid safe world.
