rlj my thoughts below.Looking at the model there are issues with...

rlj my thoughts below.
Looking at the model there are issues with the TAM, I think there is deficiencies in it, in regards to a lack of Formal Test Protocol. A risk to the model, as no one is using the LPP. Churn can also be associated with amount of testing but could also be a combined reimbursement and testing protocol issue.
Not as much testing and as you see in the publication below. possible 1 less test in year 1 and 50% less testing in years 2 & 3. You can take that as a minimum protocol but is subjective to each facility, refer to RV comments below, you would have to survey everyone asking what their protocol is if they do not take up LPP.
Thats why they said they are looking at the TAM and everything.


I re did my calcs for Michigan( that's the State with the best combined sources of info from IPD and ACS etc.) and the IPD numbers work IMO if you use the LPP. Less test as per above means less revenue for everyone. 40% discount to current TAM if using the panels recommended schedule above. Year 1 is still good, but LPP 5 tests is better than 4 tests.

Thats what I mean by the model (LPP) working.
Yes they want to be doing something about this. Compile another paper with the CMO and submit with existing research to show more testing is better.
I understand there was a study(ies) that indicated that doing more testing in the first year was even more beneficial.
Yes I did write a letter to them, re above and included sending any submission to the right panel and or other publications.

Management have indicated the issues, we are paying them to resolve the issues and to get the sales moving. Two poor sales quarters does not break the company and maybe our hope/expectations are off, there are 100k patients requiring first years testing and another 100K recent at risk patients that need a base line and follow up testing in the 10 key markets available now that were not available in the first half of 2024FY.

Standard of care or Best practice - I don't think these will ever be published as such, it's to subjective as every facility is different and its only relevant to what used at that facility. If they are using both tape and BIS or any other individual or combination then that's the standard for that facility, so how to you write that up. I don't think it is a concern that it does not state that for SOZO or any of the other options in any publication. The word recommendation may be the best we will get until other studies offer up conclusions that peers don't have any objection too, this will be the case for all devices. Remember when they do CTG they also thinking of cost, availability, time, space and a bunch of different things when making a recommendation. A recommendation does not come lightly.

Just to clarify, typically faculties will not take up new equipment even if it is better than Tape Measure if it does not pay for itself. SOZO covers both those bases. Agree money matters more than health in USA healthcare. Feel good moment is we are reducing overall burden by reducing $10B cost to say $4B.


BIS atm is best in class and thus recommended.

Apologies went on a bit long.
Acclivity