Just to add to your points...
The FDA application will be for a doctor to use, so it can be in telehealth, emergency departments, or a doctor's surgery. Recently, I get the impression that emergency department use has risen to near equal priority with telehealth.
The TV news stories about Resapp show the nurse holding it a metre from the patient's face, and to the side, so there's no danger of infecting the phone. Also, Resapp will make diagnosis more accurate and healing faster, which will reduce the spread of diseases.
I agree that it could be charged from 50c to $10 per use depending on the country, and like you say, there are 700+ doctor visits for respiratory disease globally per year, so even if Resapp only gets 1% of the market in the first year at an average of $5, then it's $35m, and it will grow fast from there as more diseases get approved and it becomes standard practice.
Of course, we don't know the revenue model yet. It could be per use, or a flat annual fee per organisation, or a mix of both. It has been suggested that humanitarian organisation will be a flat $20m per year. My guess for 2017 is $20m from the humanitarian organisation, plus another $20m from emergency departments (per use fee structure), and telehealth companies (mix of up-front and per use fee structure). And, as we know, costs are extremely low.
But, as I keep mentioning, Resapp will have a global monopoly on the instant accurate diagnosis of coughs, so expect an early takeover battle. Such a battle will factor in the obvious fast future growth.
Expand
