/*Accordion Page Settings*/

238 The Doctor That Third Party IVF Patients Switch To. Dr. Andrew Toledo

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Why do some IVF patients seek donor egg treatments at a different center than where they began? It could all come down to one simple question—one that our latest guest, Dr. Andy Toledo, CEO of Reproductive Biology Associates, frequently asks.

With over three decades in the field, Dr. Toledo shares his approach to counseling patients about donor eggs and third-party IVF without the hard sell.

Tune in as Dr. Toledo discusses:

  • The key question he uses to convert IVF patients.

  • How he counsels patients without being salesy.

  • The evolving role of REIs as automation becomes more prevalent.

  • Why pre-visit testing might not be as beneficial as it seems.

  • Discovering the untapped market in embryo preservation.

Reproductive Biology Associates
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram

Dr. Andrew Toledo
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Andrew Toledo: But my first question to them is, do you envision having more than this one child if you get pregnant with this? Because if I transfer this embryo into you and you get pregnant, it's great. Two years down the road when you're ready to make baby number two. If we don't have embryos stored, you're not going to be as reproductively successful.

And that's the couple that will then do more what we call embryo banking, so that they're good now, but they also know when they come back for later, they've got embryo that's set at that age. So they may be 39, 40, but that embryo is 37. 

[00:00:35] Griffin Jones: Then, Dr. Toledo talks about how he leverages My Egg Bank.

[00:00:40] Dr. Andrew Toledo:Learning to meet the needs of the people out there that are utilizing the bank. Listening to them. If you take the people that run our egg bank, Deb Mecerod has been around, she is the clinical person that really listens to these couples and what they need and what they want and works with the various centers.

[00:01:04] Griffin Jones: Why do IVF patients go through treatment at one center, here they need donor egg, and then go to a different fertility doctor for that donor egg IVF treatment? It might come down to the answers that stem from asking one question. I talk with Dr. Andy Toledo. He's been doing IVF since 1985 and is now the CEO and one of the principal partners at Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta.

Dr. Toledo has seen hundreds of patients for donor egg and third party IVF who had already sought treatment at other centers. He uses a variation of one question about family building goals to counsel patients on donor egg, gestational carrier, etc., without ever having to feel like he's selling them. In addition to sharing his process for converting so many donor IVF patients and his personal story about IVF, Dr.

Toledo describes what the REI's job will look like after the automation revolution. He makes a case against the increasingly popular view of having patients do their testing prior to first visit. And he points out a market for embryo preservation that, if obvious to you, has been largely untapped in marketing to the public.

If you're doing a lot to grow your donor and third party programs, you might be missing some really effective practices that are a lot more simple to implement. Enjoy this conversation with Dr. Andy Toledo, CEO of RBA. 

[00:02:15] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. 

[00:02:36] Griffin Jones: Dr. Toledo, Andy, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. Thank you for having me, Griffin. Great to be here. I'm told that there is a question that you ask patients, or maybe it's a series of questions.

What is that for the first time you see a patient, and how do you phrase it? Sure, 

[00:02:53] Dr. Andrew Toledo: a lot of times the question will be based on the history that I've taken from that patient or that couple. So for instance, if the couple are just coming in, doing a straight up infertility evaluation because they're not getting pregnant, then the questions would be, what have you done so far?

And what would you like to get accomplished? And do you have certain parameters which you will go to and not go to? For instance Some patients aren't going to do injectable medicine. Some patients aren't going to do IVF. Some patients aren't going to do any kind of donor or anything. That patient is the newbie or the new patient where you're just starting to know them.

Most of my patients, though, Griffith, have already done things. They've already been maybe to another center or they've already tried other treatments. So I'm getting them. At a different time, then that patient I can more directly say, you've done this, how do you feel about going to, let's say, egg donor treatment because your reproductive age and or your previous treatment with IVF has shown Poor results, or in the husband or partner, male partner's case, we haven't gotten good results with medications on you and your parameters are not very good.

Have you talked about, are you considering using anonymous or directed donor sperm? And then of course, if the couple have been through multiple failed treatments or the patient, the wife or female has issues with her uterus or with some kind of medical issue, Then the question is, how do you feel about using surrogacy as the mode to help y'all achieve a successful pregnancy?

It's a loaded question and it all starts with where have they been and what are they willing to do? 

[00:04:49] Griffin Jones: Why is it the case that you tend to see patients that have been through other treatments or other providers? Is it just because You've been doing this a while, and you've established a name for, here's the guy that we go to if we haven't had success elsewhere, or are there other things that you've built your practice that way?

[00:05:12] Dr. Andrew Toledo: That, what you just said is primarily the reason, because I've been doing this for almost 40 years, and I'm pretty established in the Atlanta metro and Georgia area, yes, and what I have noticed, especially of recent, is Not to get too far off subject, but most of the physicians that I started off with when I came to Atlanta in 1985 that would refer me patients have either retired or regrettably died.

Most of what I get now is by social media, word of mouth, and that's a very clear driver for me because those are patients who have had maybe failure in other clinics, centers, and they also know that I deal with the more difficult patient. That's a little older that has been told she wants, she should do something she doesn't want to do.

She'll come to me, they'll come to me as an alternative. 

[00:06:06] Griffin Jones: You said that you get their history in advance and take a look at that. Do you also have them do their labs and their tests in advance of meeting you? Do you, what's your view on that? Should it come before the first visit or should it come between the visit and follow up?

[00:06:21] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Usually I won't make them do tests before I see them. Usually I want to see what they've done, talk with them. Sometimes they've had recent tests that I don't want to repeat. And, of course, if I can get their records and review them beforehand, then I can give them some guidance. Before I see Jane Doe, let's repeat her AMH.

Let's get a day two, day three gonadotropin profile. Let's update her saline sodal Instagram. Or Jane Doe's partner, let's get his updated semen analysis. Rarely DNA integrity test because that's plus minus, but no, I'll usually get what I can, review, talk with the couple or the person. And then that sets the tone for what we're going to do next.

[00:07:07] Griffin Jones: I've heard some people say that they give the most value to patients when those patients have done tests ahead of time. You're seeing patients that have often gone through other courses of treatment. Why not have them do the tests ahead of time? 

[00:07:24] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Number one, I don't know if what they've done is recent, and they tend to not like to repeat things they've already done, especially if it's recent.

It tends to set them off, here we go again, especially if they've been through a lot of treatment. They tend to push back against that and feel like, for lack of a better term, I'm doing it just to generate income, generate more dollars in my pocket. The last thing I want to do, Griffin, is make couples or patients feel like I'm just trying to make more income off of what they've already suffered from.

So I tend to watch, certainly, if they haven't done anything recently, I help them to understand I think there's value to this. And even in some of the FDA testing, I know that some of the questions we're going to talk about today have to do with third party reproduction. Any IVF treatment requires Updated, what we call FDA labs, Federal Drug Administration requires updating the STD labs on a yearly basis.

Couples hate doing that, but we have to tell them, look, it's a requirement for our center. I don't want them to do other things. I know that sometimes we're going to have to repeat some of these things. I'm really after, what are you going to repeat for me? For instance, if they've never done day two, day three gonadotropin levels, there's value in that.

If they've never done a basal antral follicle count on day two or three with that lab, there's If they're reproductively more mature, i. e. older, then there's value to that. If their Mullerian Hormone level hasn't been done in over a year, there's value to that. And I will want them to try to get those things ahead of time if I can get them to.

But it's interesting how couples push back and patients push back. On a lot of these tests, when I've tried to do that, 

[00:09:12] Griffin Jones: there are those that paint a picture of the fertility center of the future where a patient might get all of their tests in advance. They might go through an online learning module and do all their informed consents.

They might see an advanced practice provider on the first visit. They might, any ultrasound they have is done by an ultrasound tech aided by artificial intelligence. Many of these different solutions we have in the market right now haven't quite come together in that ecosystem and in that world they paint the picture of the REI as someone who sees the complicated cases of people that haven't been able to get pregnant by doing other courses of treatment already.

Is the practice that you have. Today, what the practice of a fertility doctor, the average fertility doctor, might be in some years time? 

[00:10:12] Dr. Andrew Toledo: No I, we're definitely moving to a much more AI driven, patient, getting through a lot of the testing ahead of time, and as many of the mid level providers doing a lot of the legwork front end so that by the time someone like me gets it, we've already laid out, okay, here's where we're going.

And that's an efficiency model that says, we're going to move you very quickly to a Some aspect, usually, of IVF because, let's be honest, that is the most efficient and successful way to get most people to, to pregnancy. Now, it may be, ideally, it's usually the patient wants to use her own oocytes, her own eggs, and if she's got a male partner, his sperm, but in some cases, the patients that I've gotten have already been through multiple cycles, have had poor results.

And their best bet is to move to anonymous or directed egg donation, where we're already established, okay, you got to do this. Or in some cases, they've had multiple miscarriages or some kind of damage to the uterus, or they have some kind of medical complication that says to them, okay, we need to move to a surrogate.

And lastly, some of these patients have been genetically tested, because you know we're doing a lot of that now. And they need to have genetic testing of the embryos because they're carrying a a molecular defect like a cystic fibrosis mutation or spinal muscular atrophies. They're coming to me saying, I need to do genetic IVF with genetic testing to avoid having a child with one of these very significant abnormalities.

But to get back to your question, I think in the next couple of years, not too long from now, that's what we'll be doing. Now, again, I'm old school. I've been doing this for a long time. I still like the sit down, sit the person and that person in front of me right there in those seats. Although we do a lot of telemedicine post pandemic, but there's to me still nothing like that because it lends itself a level of person, of a personalness where when you do what you just described, there's not much attachment that I think the couple feels or the patient feels to the process.

And to me, I'm getting a lot of the patients that have felt that way. They're coming to me because they know that I'm somebody that likes to engage in the couple, and the person, and the patient, and take a more personal view. And I'm not saying mine's the right way. It works for a lot of patients but for the patient that's very boom, I just give them the answers.

I don't need a lot of hand holding. I don't need a lot of extra. I just want to get through the process. What you described is perfect, and I think we'll get there for the majority of patients. 

[00:12:57] Griffin Jones: And I don't think the boom replaces what you do. I think the boom replaces the several hundred thousand, millions of patients in North America that don't get treatment right now because it's not cost effective, it isn't accessible.

And I think there is a space for the personalness that you've described, especially For the populations that you're seeing, when you're seeing patient populations with so much past, are you able to talk about the future beyond just the next child, the next six months? Do you ask them at that point how many children they want to have total?

What they want their family to look like? At the end of the day, 

[00:13:41] Dr. Andrew Toledo: yeah, and it's especially important, two scenarios. Let's say I've got a younger couple or a younger patient, but a younger couple who unfortunately she's gone through premature ovarian failure or somehow lost her reproductive ovarian function early in her 30s.

And this couple are going to want more than one child, usually at least two. If that patient's going to go through, let's say, anonymous or non directed egg donor where they're going to choose an anonymous egg donor source, that's the couple when we talk we're talking about, okay, let's take MyEggBank, which I know you know about, has this source of eggs.

That's where I get most of my egg donor sources from. In the MyEggBank system, there's usually only the eggs are frozen as opposed to fresh eggs. And they're frozen in usually lots of six to eight. That works well when we're trying to get one. But in this couple, she and he are going to need maybe more than that.

So that's a push, the couple that I'm going to say, look, you're probably going to, if you want to keep the same egg donor source to keep genetics the same, then we need to make more embryo creation from this process, which means maybe we're taking an egg donor out of my egg, And she's going to run through a fresh cycle and you're going to, the patient doesn't need 30 or 40 eggs, but maybe she's going to need 12 to 18 instead of a lot of 6 to 8.

That's how we'll handle it. Whereas, let's say a patient comes in and now she's in her 40s, remarried, maybe never had kids, married late. Maybe the new partner has kids from a previous marriage. Maybe he doesn't, but they usually are looking at one. They know that because of age and just general time, they're probably going to want to go with one.

And so I try to feel that or tease that out when we're talking. And don't get me wrong. It doesn't mean that some of the older female patients aren't going to want to have two, but on, on average, I'm asking. What do you see your family size as? And most of the time, if the couple have never had a child, they're going to want at least two, sometimes more, but, and if they're older or, maybe there are kids on one side of the family, they're really shooting for just one.

[00:16:06] Griffin Jones: You talked about how the answer to that question can affect how you counsel patients on egg or sperm donation. How does it affect? Your approach to gestational carriers, if they're planning for multiple children and need a gestational carrier. 

[00:16:23] Dr. Andrew Toledo: And that's interesting. I thought about that question today because I currently, I talked with one of my patients today, and they have an ongoing pregnancy with the carrier.

And they have They're in the process of making more embryos with their own gametes. And they've already elicited a discussion with the carrier that when she's had the child, she's going to stay with them and do it again for them. But here's the problem, Griffin, with most gestational carrier situations.

As most gestational carriers are coming out of agencies, now some are not. Some are finding each other, the carrier and the intended pair. They are finding each other through the internet separately, but most carriers are working through agencies. So when the carrier has had the child, she tends to go back to the agency if she wants to continue to attempt pregnancy via this route.

And she may get tied up in another couple. What I try to do is I tell couples that are going to do this, Alright, talk with your carrier. They've usually established a pretty good relationship. In fact, I think that's one of the most important things to a gestational carrier, intended parent relationship is, Do you have a good relationship with this person?

Then you talk with them. I have them talk with the carrier. Not me talking to them. I'm going to take care of the carrier and the couple, but I can't tell the carrier, Hey, I want you to stick around and do this again for Jane Doe and her husband or partner. So it's usually done vis a vis the couple's talking to the carrier who then agrees, Yeah, I'll stick around and do this again for you.

And that's just a relationship kind of model. 

[00:18:08] Griffin Jones: Is there ever a sort of advance payment or a letter of intent to try to secure a gestational carrier's availability ahead of time? 

[00:18:20] Dr. Andrew Toledo: I don't think so, not to my knowledge. Now, let me be clear on how we work this. When we're dealing with these situations, of course there's a lot of, this is real third party.

Because This is where the FDA really steps in and says you have better dotted I's and crossed T's. All the appropriate labs have to be done. So when I tell couples that are doing this is here are the requirements. The FDA has a bunch of requirements that say that we've done everything to the gametes, the sperm egg embryo to protect the carrier, the gestational carrier from getting any kind of infectious disease or any kind of damage that could occur from this.

Because in essence, the FDA looks at this process like an organ donation. And so back in 2005, all of these New criteria got created by the FDA. And it's painful. That's one thing. Then, of course, they have to go through a psychological evaluation to make sure everyone's okay. They have to sign legal contracts.

We don't. And in the legal contracts is usually where the money is for who. And I stay out of it. We stay out of it. Our job is to make sure there is a legal contract to protect both the carrier and the surrogate. And there's psychological evaluations done that says, It's a lot crazier than anybody else in this world today.

It's a lot of crazy going on out there, particularly politically. And I won't get into that, but, make sure everyone's okay. And then it's, all right, let's make sure we're using the right protocol. And are you thinking about doing this again? If you want Nancy Smith here, the surrogate, to do this again, you should be talking.

They may create some kind of monetary or binding piece of paper, but we're not privy to it. 

[00:20:02] Griffin Jones: I didn't ask you about fresh versus frozen during these considerations. Does the number of children that they're anticipating, given their current state, affect how you counsel on fresh versus frozen? 

[00:20:13] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Especially if you're using egg donor.

If a couple are going to use their own eggs, or you're going to use a patient's eggs, IVF cycle on her, and there will be more. And you're going to just freeze the embryos because obviously you have to create embryos but for now and for when the carrier is going to come back and do this again for the couple.

When you're doing egg donor, as we talked about earlier, there's a situation where the couple envision having more than one child and they're also going to want to use the same surrogate if they can get her to do it again. You're going to do a fresh or some component of a fresh cycle in the egg donor so that you create more than maybe one.

What we have created via the MyEggBank system is, we know that if we use six eggs and fertilize them, partner spur, or donor spur, there's, if this is a single woman going through, or if the husband partner doesn't have his own spur ability, We know that out of that six, we're usually 70, 80 percent of the time, we're going to get one child from that.

But we may not have enough embryos left over, created baby number two. So in that situation, we're usually going to recommend a FRETCH cycle where the egg donor, in this case, anonymously, is going through. What she normally would do, but she'll get more of an allocation of those eggs. Say for instance, in the standard MyEggBank creation of eggs for use in the bank.

If, let's say, the egg donor produces just to keep it simple for Matt, 18 eggs, we'll have three lots of six, usually, in that. That means three different couples get to use those eggs at some point. Yeah. The donor, if the intended couple want more than one child, either she's going to buy more eggs of that lot, maybe she buys two lots instead of one lot.

Or, ideally, we'll take that same donor that they like, and we'll run that donor, or my egg bank will run that donor through a fresh cycle. And that patient, that couple will get a greater cohort, like 12 of the 18 eggs fresh. So fresh is good, especially when you're dealing with a couple like you're talking about, want more than one child.

Down, now, future, same thing with embryo preservation. This couple are doing embryo preservation or want to preserve or the patient comes in and says, my partner and I, we're not ready to have kids, but we really want to have kids down the road. And we know that when I'm 39, 40, I'm 35 now, but when we're ready to have kids at 39, 40, it's going to be more difficult.

They've already learned that or I've told them that. Then they're going to do embryo creation. Even before we put embryos back into uterus, and so there you're going to be doing some embryo creation using a fresh egg situation. 

[00:23:22] Griffin Jones: That's interesting because we don't talk about that a lot. We talk about egg freezing, but we, and for single women who want to defer for career reasons or finding a partner, we often don't talk about embryo preservation for couples who are partnered already.

They're just not ready to have children. How common is that? Is it becoming more common? Is it still a very small percentage of who you're seeing? 

[00:23:48] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Yeah, I think it's still small. It's certainly less than 10 percent of what I do, but I think, Griffin, it's starting to become more common. I'm seeing an upward trend in that because number one, women are much more aware of their future fertility or their liability and waiting longer.

They have now been taught by their OBGYNs, by people like you in the media that Make them aware of just data that says, Hey, you're, you, if you wait until this age, you're going to have a much lower chance of achieving success. So yes, we're seeing that. And a lot of couples as you are marrying later, they're getting through their careers.

They've already figured out, Hey, we should be front end on this, create the embryos so that when we're ready, we're not worried about process. 

[00:24:40] Griffin Jones: When you do see it, is it often that they're waiting for child number one, or they're coming to you for child number one, and you're educating them on embryo preservation for childs two and three, because without embryo preservation, there likely won't be a child two and three.

[00:24:56] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Both scenarios. I've seen couples come in, And they have not had any kids and they don't want to have kids yet because they're traveling in their jobs or they just got married. They want to have, they want to have a, they want to have a non kid or non children time their relationship before they settle into taking care of a family.

So I see that and we'll do embryo creation and in that situation, or the couple are coming in and they want to have a child now. But here's a scenario maybe you've alluded to, she's 37, so she's towards the end of the reproductive success zone, and they're getting ready to do IVF, or they've done IVF, and we've got a normal embryo, maybe just one.

But my first question to them is, do you envision having more than this one child if you get pregnant with this? Because if I transfer this embryo into you And you get pregnant. It's great. Two years down the road, when you're ready to make baby number two, if we don't have embryos stored, you're not going to be as reproductively successful.

And that's the couple that will then do More what we call embryo banking so that they're good now, but they also know when they come back for later, they've got embryo that's set at that age. So they may be 39, 40, but that embryo is 37 or the age of the egg is 37. 

[00:26:26] Griffin Jones: When I hear people ask, how do we increase our donor egg IVF volume or donor sperm IVF volume or our gestational carrier, third party volume?

I think a lot of those answers are based in the longer term planning, the thinking ahead that you're describing. I don't know how many people are doing that. I think many people are often concerned with the cycle in front of them. How do you balance the cycle that's in front of you right now while still making sure that they're thinking about that?

Because if they are at that 38 and if I transfer this one embryo, you'll have this one baby, Hey, but you also want them thinking so that they have opportunities that doors don't close. How do you weave those two together? 

[00:27:10] Dr. Andrew Toledo: It's straight up talk. It's without being pushy. And I think to me, that's where we have to be careful as good doctors that we're not trying to sell.

The last thing I ever want my couples or my patients to feel like is I'm trying to sell them. I will flatly tell them, what is your vision of what the size of your family? Do you envision having more than this one child that you're here for talking to me about helping you with? And if the answer to that is yes, I'll say, here's what we're going to do, but if we don't have more than what we need, then When you come back again, there'll be more of an issue.

Now, that's fine, and we can do whatever, but there is some benefit of creating more potential now because it's more favorable. We'll get more potential success, 35, 37 year old embryos, or eggs from embryos created from that age patient than when you come back at age 40. And they get it. They do get it. Now, if they're not interested, then okay, I've done my job, and it's the same thing when they ignore it.

I will have patients come in who've been through other centers, patients, I can't, I will tell you that I see now a huge number of patients who come to me and they're in their 40s. I am that doctor, fortunately, unfortunately, however you want to call it, that gets that patient and they've been told by other centers, you need to do egg donor.

Your chances of achieving pregnancy with your embryo, with your eggs is less than 2%. That's the true statistic. http: TheBusinessProfessor. com And what I will tell them is that is true, but if it's important for you to try, I'm not looking at my statistics as the reason we don't do this. We're going to try, and if I've been honest with you, and you know that I'll try some other things or some alternative protocols, as long as you know I'm not trying to sell you land in the Everglades.

I'm not, I can always go to sleep at night, Griffin, if I've been honest with couples or with patients. If I've tried to Selum snake oil, that's not going to make me sleep well at night. But I see more and more of that all the time, where a patient will come in and she says, I know I don't have much of a chance here, and I'm willing at some point to do EGDAR.

And look, I'll be real personal with you. I don't mind being personal, everybody knows my, maybe you don't know my story. You can see if you're looking around my office, I've got pictures of kids here. I have three kids from a first marriage that I had when my ex wife and I were in our late 20s. You know what?

I don't mind. It works well. And back then, that many years ago, that was the Tennessee. People had their kids earlier, but divorce, kids go off to college, meet my now wife, who's the love of my life. She's older. She knows I've been, I've had a vasectomy. I'm just being very blunt and truthful. And she says to me, when we start dating, if you're not interested in having kids, Don't waste my time, because although I'm older reproductively, and I won't tell you her age or she'll shoot me, but she basically said, this is what I'm going to try.

And I tell her as a reproductive endocrinologist, honey, there's a chance we may have to consider egg donor here because of your age, and she said, no, we're going to try this. We were fortunate. Now, it took us five cycles to do it, and every time she had a procedure, I had to be our wonderful urologist, Dr.

Witt. And I had to do testicular aspiration on me. We were both going through it, but the point is, when we started the fifth one, I told her, I said, we can't keep doing this. And she said, let me do it this one more time. And then I'm ready to do egg donor. Now thankfully it worked, and that's how I have my two girls from this wonderful marriage.

The point is, she had to work through a progression of, hell no, no way am I going to do that, to okay, now I'm ready. And that's what a lot. of women that I see feel like, I know that this will work for me and it makes sense from a statistical success rate, I just emotionally am not there. So for that patient, even though I know we're dealing with lesser numbers, it's important for them to try.

And of course, we're I'm going to do, as long as we're not doing anything illegal or unsafe, I don't have a problem with a patient trying that, as long as, at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, she knows, okay, we talked about this, and now I'm ready to do that. But I do think that as we progress, and as you mentioned even earlier in this interview, I do think that a lot of the couples coming out now are much more cut and dry.

I see, are much more willing to take on some of these things that we're talking about without as much of the emotionality to it. 

[00:31:57] Griffin Jones: How do you leverage my egg bank? I'm more interested in you as a physician at RBA, as a client than I am You, as one of the founders of My Egg Bank, you started it for a reason with your colleagues.

So that must have meant you wanted something specific from it. How do you use it? 

[00:32:16] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Let's take the history of My Egg Bank. My Egg Bank started because we, along with some other pioneers, figured out how to freeze eggs, right?

Egg freezing was terrible. You'd freeze eggs and maybe only 10 percent of the eggs would survive when you thawed them. Once we figured out, once my brilliant embryologist, Peter Nagy, figured out, along with some others, how to do this, how to do this vitrification process that now everybody does, we, as we were using this technology, my colleague, Nagy and said, you know what, I think we can make an egg bake here because we've got this technology and it's working.

The first iterations of this were just using frozen eggs and making sure that we were getting some pregnancies. Now, it's very, we've blown into this, blown up into this huge egg bank that's national, even international, because we get the egg donors coming from other parts of the world. And it's so great that I can tell a couple or a patient, look, you have multiple ways to use this egg bank.

You can use it standard, just a set of six eggs. Husband, partner, sperm donor, and we do it. Everything else we've talked about, which is, hey, we need to maybe pick more than one lot, or maybe we need to do a fresh cycle. All of those things can be done, and I don't have to sell the egg bank. I know it's there.

Again, that's the advantage of having an egg bank. In my practice, it's said, and again, there, there are other places that do some of this work. I think, I'm biased, I think we do it better than most because we were the originals. What do you 

[00:33:58] Griffin Jones: think the big differentiator is in egg banks today? Again, putting your physician hat on rather than your egg bank operator hat on.

What do you think the differentiator is today? Tactics in vitrification have caught up. Now what makes this difference? 

[00:34:14] Dr. Andrew Toledo: It gets being able to meet the needs of the people that need to use the bait, right? You have to be flexible and willing to say, no, we're just going to do this. This is the way we're going to do it.

For instance, some patients just want standard, just make me an embryo from this. And some people want, like I said, more opportunity to make more than one embryo. Some people want to genetically test the embryos. Theoretically, there's not as much benefit to genetically testing the embryos because these egg donors are all in their 20s.

The chances that the embryos created are going to be chromosomally abnormal are very low. But again, you can do that in this bag. I think the answer to that is learning to meet the needs of the people out there that are utilizing the Listen to me. If you take the people that run our egg bank, and I know maybe at some point you've interviewed Deb Messerad, but Deb Messerad has been around, she started here at RBA in, what, 97, and she's watched lots of centers develop, she's the clinical person that, that really listens to these couples and what they need and what they want and works with the various centers, including RBA, to say, we should be doing this.

I think it's a long answer, but the short answer is learning to listen to what people want and then finding a way to make the egg bank do that. Most of the time we can do that. 

[00:35:43] Griffin Jones: Is accommodating providers a part of that? What are some things that you, Dr. Toledo, needs that you have to have your egg bank accommodate you or it's not going to work?

[00:35:54] Dr. Andrew Toledo: The very first thing that I need, that everybody needs, is some variety. And some, clearly, even today. There's a greater need than there is supply. And that's because these young women that are considering egg donation or being egg donors know that they can go to multiple centers. And who's going to give me the best price?

They're capitalists, right? This isn't Europe or Spain where, women do it because they're compassionate and they want to be altruistic. No. These women are being courted for their qualities. One of the first things that I love about my egg because that we're very We're not good at going out there and finding these good donors.

And so for me as a provider who needs the egg bank, I'm saying, give me some individual. I need an Asian donor. I need an Indian Asian donor. I need something other than that because those are hard to find. We're not trying to find Ivy League scores perfect, that, we're not doing that. But we are trying to find very high quality.

Young ladies who are also committed to helping couples. So my ask to the egg bank is, find me the best donors, find me variety, or find me enough eggs for my couple that I can do this. And are they local? Are they going to be through the donors we find at RVA? Are they going to be at one of our satellite centers like NYU or Orlando?

Just find me that. And then it's, I need more than just this bunch, this little batch of six. To me, that's what I'm asking. I know my, I know the quality of these donors is going to be excellent because I know the people that are screening. So I know that, and that's what I tell couples all the time is, hey, you're going to get, you don't have to worry that donor X has not been vetted to the max.

She has been screened medically, psychologically, genetically, STD, drug, you name it. She's been screened. Those are my things, but I have to say the biggest problem I still have, Griffin, is Access, because patients will look at what we have and say, I don't see enough of what I'm looking for that looks like me or that I'm looking for in, in what this donor should be.

And then all I can say is, okay, keep looking because we're constantly replenishing. And I don't want it to sound like it's some meat market here. No, it's very base, it's based on good medicine. And just so you know, and again, this is the, my egg bank side that I'm putting on my head. When we. Take care of egg donors.

Let's say the donors that we take care of here at RVA, because those are the ones we're dealing with. We absolutely take care of those donors. We make sure that they understand, Hey, you're a patient in this practice. We're going to take care of you. If you have any issues, complications, we're going to take care of you.

We have a little program in the egg bank where if a donor does a certain number of collections, every certain number, we're going to put eggs away frozen for her. If, God forbid, she has an issue down the line, she's got fallback, because she was so good to help us with that. But to get back to your question, as the provider, I want lots of choice for my couple.

I want easy access to those eggs. If they're not here at RBA, how do I get them from whatever center to here? Do we have to send partner sperm to that center to do embryo creation? I want a lot of creativity. And what I really want, is I want high quality embryos that are going to lead to pregnancy.

Because if you create high quality grade A blast embryos, even if they haven't been genetically tested, we're going to see that 70 80 percent pregnancy rate. And then you want more embryos if that couple envision more than one child down the road. So all of those things have to be addressed. But in the end, it gets back to the very first question you asked me, which is, you have and this is where I think we have to be careful, because some of the new technologies may cut out some of the questions that you're asking me that I would ask the couple or the patient.

And that's where we don't want to go. We want to make sure that in the end, we got a, I've got a good handle on what Jane Doe and her partner herself wants. And I don't think you can sometimes get that with all these efficiencies that we're creating. That's my advice. 

[00:40:19] Griffin Jones: It's a tempering word of caution as we embrace into the benefits of technology that there are those human factors that we have to consider. Dr. Andy Toledo, it sounds like you built a heck of a practice there, especially with donor egg IVF and third party. Thank you so much for sharing a lot of what you do with our audience.

[00:40:39] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Thank you for having me, Griffin.

[00:40:41] Griffin Jones:Wait, what was that Dr. Toledo said about how he leverages My Egg Bank?

[00:40:45] Dr. Andrew Toledo: Learning to meet the needs of the people out there that are utilizing the bank, listening. If you take the people that run our egg bank, Deb Mecerod has been around, she is the clinical person that, that really listens to these couples and what they need and what they want and works with the various centers. 

[00:41:04] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

 
 

237 Three Independent Female REIs vs Private Equity with Dr. Crystal Chan

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


How the heck can independent REIs compete against private equity giants in the fierce bidding war for fertility clinics?

Dr. Crystal Chan, Co-Owner of Markham Fertility, explains how, shedding light on the competitive landscape of reproductive medicine and female entrepreneurship.

Key Takeaways this episode:

  • How she found her two business partners

  • The decision-making authority often lacking in academic REIs (Motivating her shift to private practice)

  • Her journey of female entrepreneurship (The unique challenges she’s had to overcome)

  • The disparities in fertility care access (How Markham Fertility plans to increase accessibility)

  • A peek into the private equity-owned market vs. the independently owned market (And the implications for patient care)

  • Why REIs owning equity is crucial for practice sustainability and patient-centered care.

Get your FREE list of over 450 independent fertility practices across the USA by clicking on the link below. Brought to you by MidCap Advisors.

Get Practice List


Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Crystal Chan: When you own equity, you're afraid and fear makes you work harder. So it's at every layer. So I used to have incentive when I worked at an epidemic site. And I'll give you an example. So let's say in that world, if a patient complained to me, Hey, Dr. Chan, I didn't like this about your clinic, even though I had incentive, I didn't have an ability to really.

Significantly make change in the institution. So I would say something along the lines of, I'm so sorry that was your experience. I'm gonna, take this feedback, send this feedback up the chain. And most of the time I felt like nothing would really happen. Versus when you own or co own a clinic, when a patient complains about something, I jump on it. I say, what was the issue? Who was the issue? I'm sorry you had that experience. I will change it. 

[00:00:46] Griffin Jones: How many independent fertility practices are there now? Thanks to support from MidCap Advisors, Inside Reproductive Health has done the work and compiled a list of over 450 fertility clinics across the USA indicating if they're independently owned, part of a fertility network, if so which, or part of an academic system View the full list by visiting:

⁠https://www.insidereproductivehealth.com/unitedstatesfertilitypracticeownershiplist2024

[00:01:31] Griffin Jones:How in the blue heck do three young female REIs compete against the private equity giants in this bidding war going on for fertility clinics? To outdo them and acquire a fertility clinic of their own. Dr. Crystal Chan explains how. She explains how she found her two partners. She explains what decision making authority academic REIs often lack and what particularly pushed her away from academics and into private practice. She shares her thoughts on female entrepreneurship, the disparity that she and her partners decided to tackle, and the challenges they faced in doing so. She talks about the private equity owned market versus the independently owned market. She talks about their vision for increasing access to care.

Hear what she has to say about remaining independently owned, and why it's so important that REIs own equity, and why owning equity is more effective than other types of incentives. I love it when audience members have hot takes and then become guests on the podcast. I hope that's you, and I hope you enjoy this conversation with Dr. Crystal Chan.

[00:02:30] Announcer:Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:02:50] Griffin Jones: Dr. Chan, Crystal, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. 

[00:02:54] Dr. Crystal Chan: Thank you. Thanks for the invite, Griffin. I'm a huge fan of your show. I listen to it on my drive to work every day. It gets me, inspired and ready to take on the day. So it's a real honor to be here and I'm excited to hear my own voice, on my drive to work one day.

[00:03:08] Griffin Jones: That is very kind of you. I appreciate when people in the audience become guests on this show and we have a few mutual friends, Dr. Nat being one of them, but we but I don't know a lot about you and I'm going to change that today. I know just a little bit about you and that you are an anomaly in this millennial REI world of purchasing a, an existing fertility practice independently owned by physicians there's very few that have done that in the U.S. and perhaps even fewer in Canada in recent years, and so I want to understand what's going on. What happened even prior to asking why? Your practice is Markham Fertility Center, and for those that aren't familiar with Markham, that's I guess now you would call it a first ring suburb since Toronto aided suburbs 25 years ago, so Markham is like a very large suburb. First ring suburb of the fifth or sixth largest metro in the continent and there was a practice there. You are now one of the owners. How did that happen? 

[00:04:18] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yeah, so that, that goes back to the, our origin story is the Modern Markham Fertility Center, MFC. So I personally started my career in academia. I was at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto in the core of Toronto as a clinician investigator and an academic REI or RE. So that, that had been my dream and I thought that I would live and die for that job. I, when I signed on as an academic RE, I never thought I would leave. All my mentors who I love dearly still work there and I did my fellowships there and I stayed on for a job.

So in total, I was probably at this academic facility for six to seven years as an attending, eight to nine years if you include fellowships. About five years in, I started to feel this itch, the five year itch, which is to leave and go private. And I think it started with this very simple notion of wanting more control over myself and my environment.

You hear that a lot from people that leave. There were a few triggers firstly is the idea of being your own boss. I think a lot of us naively go into medicine thinking, this is a job you do to be your own boss. And the greatest irony is that in academia, you discover very quickly that not only are you not your own boss, you actually don't only have one boss, you have many bosses, and lots of bosses that you are accountable to, for research, for committees.

Teaching. And I feel guilty a bit saying this because these mentors and the bosses I had I still very much, respect them and were mentored by them. But there's always this feeling of like publish or perish, do the teaching, do the committees and feeling of you're never doing enough. And so it got a little bit tiring and some of these tasks weren't bringing me that much joy so that there was this desire to go be my own boss. The second thing was COVID. I think that COVID illuminated a lot of cracks in the system. And COVID coincided with the entry of PE into the fertility space in Canada.

So COVID made me realize just how little control I had over my work environment. And I'll give you an example. So I was the lead physician at a satellite clinic of this academic practice. And I guess the hospital wanted to close down my site. Because of COVID to save money and fine. That's obviously a very smart business decision and now as a business owner, I probably have to do the same thing, but I wasn't consulted as the person that was the lead physician at the site, as the person that kind of built The site and the referral base and all that.

[00:06:50] Griffin Jones: So just timing wise, was this like at the height of the this is in March of 2020, or is this more like after 2021, something like that? 

[00:06:58] Dr. Crystal Chan: This was the summer of 2020. Summer of 2020. 

[00:07:01] Griffin Jones: Okay. 

[00:07:01] Dr. Crystal Chan: I only knew the site was done when they had packed up all my stuff in a box and say, hey, someone closed your office.

[00:07:08] Griffin Jones: And this was not a hiatus because of the pandemic. It was the office is closed. 

[00:07:12] Dr. Crystal Chan: It was after the hiatus, because of COVID, and an intentional decision of the business to close the office without consulting. 

[00:07:20] Griffin Jones: But the idea was that it was not coming back online.

[00:07:23] Dr. Crystal Chan: It was not coming back online. It hasn't come back online. It wasn't viable, I was just looking for an alternative. Where could I care for my patients, do the research at the pace I wanted to, and have some say over operations? And I wouldn't leave that cushy, secure, stable academic job in my mind to be an associate of a private clinic, particularly I was a little afraid of the reputation of PE backed clinics or networks, as I was just, I think physicians are raised to be wary Of big corporations and the prioritization of profits over patients, there was this fear of mine that if I joined as an associate somewhere PE backed, that I would be forced to see a certain number of patients at a certain frequency, that I would be incentivized or asked to, convert a certain number of patients to IVF, and then in my mind, that environment would be worse than academia.

So I knew my next step had to be MD owner of either a de novo clinic or what I like to call a turnkey clinic, which is what we are. And I knew from the type of person I am, I'm social and gregarious, I'm a bit of a socialist, that I couldn't be a sole proprietor. It's just not my style. I like to have friends and I like to trauma bond with friends, so I knew that I had to, go into a group partnership with other doctors and I had to find them.

So you know, Eduardo Harrington, who I'm sure we both adore. He did the podcast with you, many podcasts, and he talked about when you're looking for a practice, what to pick. And he said, try to pick a rocket ship going to the moon, not like the sinking Titanic, right? So you want a proven business, good track record of projections of success in this crazy marketplace.

So then I have to find the perfect partners, entrepreneurial REs to partner with me, find a turnkey rocket ship clinic. So easy, right? Really easy. And the other problem, as you know from, In the province of Ontario, there's a publicly funded IVF system, and only existing brick and mortar clinics get funding. If you build a de novo clinic, you can't get access to that funding as it currently stands. So we also have to find work. Add 

[00:09:22] Griffin Jones: that to item 93 of how confusing the Ontario funding for IVF is. 

[00:09:29] Dr. Crystal Chan: Exactly. So I had to find this perfect storm, and I think what I realized in life is it's better to be lucky than good.

And quite literally at that point, Merck and Fertility and my amazing partners, Dr. Mavis Garcia and Dr. Marta Wise fell into my lap. So the story was that MFC had been around for about 30 years. It, by volume, it's, in the country, it's probably the 10th or 11th biggest IVF clinic. It's the northernmost IVF clinic and lab in the greater Toronto area, in this metropolitan Toronto area.

So it has access to all the north smaller towns. It was started by Dr. Mike Vero, who was this larger than life character who had a waiting list of a year. Like one of these guys with the guru status, right? Cult following of nations. He started MFC as a sole proprietor and hired Dr. Garcia, Dr. Wais as his associates. Check them out on their podcast called My Fertility Podcast. So these women are influencers, they're superstars, and just incredible physicians. Lucky to work with them. 

[00:10:22] Griffin Jones: And so they were already working with Dr. Vero.

[00:10:24] Dr. Crystal Chan: They were exactly. Five years ago, they were trucking along, amazing business, and they thought naively before PE came in that one day if they worked hard enough, Dr.

Vera would be like, hey guys, I'm retiring. Here's the business. Peace out. I bestow you my business. But of course, that didn't happen. And what actually happened was his desire to retire that came around COVID time, he intersected with a feeding frenzy of PE acquiring Canadian clinics. He got multiple PE backed offers for MFC, and he was ready to retire.

So at the end of 2020, he came to Dr. Garcia and said, look, I'm sorry. I know you wanted to take over. I know you were preparing to take over. She was assistant medical director for years. But look, I got these insane PE backed offers and I'm sore. So at that point, Dr. Garcia, the phenomenal woman that she is, said, just give me one chance. And he's no way, doc, associates can't buy clinics at this level. You're, this is a different playing field. But he conceded and he let her tell, or they told Dr. Wais. 

[00:11:31] Griffin Jones: So was Dr. Garcia a partner at that time? Did she own equity in the practice? Neither Dr. Garcia nor Dr. Weiss owned any equity. Dr. Vera was 100 percent equity partner. 

[00:11:42] Dr. Crystal Chan: There were naysayers. So at the time, we were already aware of the multipliers that were involved and no independent physicians in Canada, to my knowledge, had ever acquired a clinic at those levels. And we had been brainwashed with that notion that it's impossible.

PE has too much money and leverage. They knew from the books that It was actually not that big a risk. The numbers made sense. The people made sense. The clinic made sense. The goodwill, the referral base, the public funding. And they approached me. This is the good thing about having friends. So we were friends.

So they approached me. I was not quite mid career, in that cusp of mid career with a good referral base myself and a good reputation. And the three of us women are immigrants, our first generation immigrants with just so much grit and like sheer will. That we just knew we could do it.

We were a bit scared, but we knew we could do it. So we bet on ourselves and found a bank that liked the numbers and shared the vision and we acquired the business. And no looking back. We just bet on ourselves and guaranteed the business to ourselves and now this is, here we are with the new MFC.

[00:12:46] Griffin Jones: So are the investment banks the same as the commercial banks in Canada for this purpose? You've got RBC, you've got Bank of Montreal, you've got Scotiabank. There's only a handful of options on the commercial side in Canada, generally speaking, isn't it? And so is there only, is there also only a handful of options? For did you go through a commercial bank or did you go through an investment bank? 

[00:13:08] Dr. Crystal Chan: We went through one of the big four commercial banks amazing, Scotiabank. We we have a banker there that is like a friend, an ally, and he and his team really saw the vision. There were other commercial banks that declined, but we found a, a banker and a bank that really saw the potential.

[00:13:28] Griffin Jones: I can't help but think about this, Chris, when you mentioned this, going into the interview, you mentioned that, you all had found a way to compete with the multiples that other clinics were, or excuse me, that other firms were paying for clinics. And I thought why would a multiple be so high for a single doc practice? And it's almost there's, Dr. Vero couldn't have gotten a multiple like that without having Dr. Garcia and Dr. Weiss work for him. So it's almost like, in that part it worked against you a little bit, didn't it? 

[00:14:00] Dr. Crystal Chan: So I obviously can't disclose the amount that we acquired the clinic for, you know as well as I do, it's not always about dollars and cents when you negotiate a deal, it's also what value you bring. We gave Dr. Vero huge value. He would have to pay his dues for, what, three to five years if he had sold to a PE backed network or a firm. He didn't have to do that with us. He worked three to six months. We were confident we had volumes and the trajectory that we would be okay once he left. I remember his last day, he wore bicycle shorts or, sorry, basketball shorts. And then he just peaced out. And it was a nice transition for him, I think. There were obviously, there's always, when you're negotiating such a big deal, there's tension. But I do think, I guess you could interview him, but I think it gave him that freedom. We also took care of his staff, his legacy, his patients.

He really cared about his patients and his staff. And that's the big thing. I think a lot of people that sell to PE they, they worry more about the succession, so we gave them other than just dollars and cents. And, I'm not going to get into details of the multiplier and this and that, but we gave them other type of value.

And I would say on an emotional level, Griffin, I, that's a good interpretation but I would say a good business is a good business and the numbers make sense and they still make sense and we're doing better than any projections. And so to have the opportunity. To have an established clinic, established personnel, very minimal turnover, public funding, reputation, geographic positioning in this metropolitan area, all those things, to me, have been more than worth the price. It's the best decision I've ever made. 

[00:15:43] Griffin Jones: I did not know Dr., I do not know Dr. Vero, I know of him and I knew of him, and I believe when I first became acquainted with him, he was a solo practitioner. Was he a solo practitioner prior to Dr. Garcia? 

[00:16:00] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yeah, he, lone wolf kind of guy, he's from the generation of sole proprietors.

I think that it's, I'm not sure of that. That era is gone, but yes, he was a sole proprietor from beginning to end. He had several iterations of MFC, starting at a smaller location for a smaller lab, and then finally, expanded to this whatever 10, 000 square feet or whatever it is that we have in the medical building now. But he was always on his own, with associates, with no equity. 

[00:16:26] Griffin Jones: Okay was Dr. Garcia the first associate or other, he had other associate RAIs over the years? 

[00:16:31] Dr. Crystal Chan: He had others, but she was probably the most tenacious, loyal, present, and highest volume partner, and he was, the only one he had ever designated as assistant medical director.

[00:16:43] Griffin Jones: And Dr. Garcia and Dr. Wais were the only associates at the time when he was retiring and selling? 

[00:16:49] Dr. Crystal Chan: Correct. Oh, I should add there were also two affiliates defined as people that had their independent practices and then plugged into the lab for their IVF. And they still, and those relationships still exist.

[00:17:01] Griffin Jones: But it was you that approached Dr. Wais and Dr. Garcia, not the other way around originally. They weren't looking, hey, let's get one more person to buy this with us. You were looking around at what might be a good oh no. 

[00:17:13] Dr. Crystal Chan: It was a perfect alignment. They were looking in a hurry, and I was open to the possibilities.

[00:17:23] Griffin Jones: You may have answered this, but how did that, how did, were you just always in these sort of conversations together? But how did you align so quickly? How did you come to find each other? 

[00:17:31] Dr. Crystal Chan: Dr. Wais was my favorite fellow ever. She did fellowship at my academic site. She was just a superstar fellow, and she went off to MSU, but the funny thing is I encouraged her to go there.

I said, hey, there's this clinic in the north. It's like a diamond in the rough, go there. So she what, we were friends. We were staff and fellow, but then we were actually friends. And then Dr. Garcia's husband is was friends, is friends with my ex husband. So it's a very small world. So there's a little bit of, pre-connection before all this happened. So we're all friends.

[00:18:03] Griffin Jones: So then you shop around at banks, you find one that is a good partner, you agree to a deal that worked for you, worked for Dr. Vero. And then you mentioned succession was a handful of months and he went out in basketball shorts. But tell me, how did succession go? Like from when the deal was inked to when Dr. Vero's out shooting hoops, like what happened in between then? 

[00:18:30] Dr. Crystal Chan: There's a funny story right after acquisition. So you know, 30 minutes into acquiring the business, the ink wasn't even dry. We get a phone call from a very reputable. And then we also have a very senior RE that works, with a big PE backed network, and he called us to congratulate us. And then he followed by saying, are you interested in partnership? So we were like 30 minutes into being, business owners and the first informal offer to merge or to be acquired came in.

So we tried to, put the blinders on to all that was happening with PE consolidation around us and we, the first hundred days of acquiring the practice was to understand the business and to amalgamate the business. Actually, the original organizational structure of MFC was Very archaic. How it was is that the MFC was actually Dr. Vero's practice, plus the lab, plus biochemistry. And then the other associate doctors ran their own practice. They ran their own HR, they ran their own management their own equipment, things like that. And then they would plug into the lab or pay MFC for the use of the IVF lab.

So that obviously was not a modern way or efficient way of functioning. So the first hundred days was the MFC. Nose to the grindstone, just transforming what we call old co MFC to the new co amalgamating everything under the same umbrella, everything under the same leadership, HR management, all of that. And it sounds like not a big deal, but it is a big deal. You have to renegotiate contracts basically as a new employer for, half the staff. You have to do this all while being very cognizant of people's feelings. They are grieving the loss of Dr. Barrow. Some of them went back with him for 20 years, right? So there's this transition and nobody likes change. We don't like change or the staff don't like change. So that was hard. Lots of tears, lots of stress. In that transition, but we did it. So tell me 

[00:20:28] Griffin Jones: more about the details of this transition. This is like switching payroll companies or HR software or your EMR or what else?

[00:20:36] Dr. Crystal Chan: Switching payrolls is switching your boss, your direct report. So for example, a nurse that reported only to Dr. Garcia, On Monday, now on Tuesday, is an employee of MFC and has to report to the HR department of MFC. Whatever you're used to, your culture, your, how you get things done in your little sphere, changes when you report, start reporting to somebody else. Yes. Payroll had to change direct reports had to change. We had to redo the whole organizational chart. 

[00:21:04] Griffin Jones: I'm talking with Dr. Chan about keeping independent practices thriving in this era of consolidation, but how do you know which fertility centers are still independently owned? Many of you have asked for a comprehensive list of fertility practices that shows who owns each of them.

We heard you. Thanks to support from MidCap Advisors, Inside Reproductive Health has done the work and compiled a list of over 450 fertility clinics across the USA, indicating if they're independently owned, part of a fertility network, or part of an academic or hospital system. If you're an independent practice owner that wants to find your people, if you're an industry side person that wants to map your customers, if you're a fertility network that wants to check your own list, You can download this list for free. View the full list at

https://www.insidereproductivehealth.com/unitedstatesfertilitypracticeownershiplist2024

[00:22:00] Griffin Jones:And what did you find to be the biggest challenge in doing that?

[00:22:07] Dr. Crystal Chan: People get comfortable in their roles and people get comfortable in what they can control and who they can control what they can't control. So there were a lot of growing pains and, a lot of, we spent a lot of time talking to staff, getting their feedback. The feedback almost always was, you guys are changing things too quickly.

It was fine. Why are we doing it different? And so just to draw people back to the, what the vision is, and we did a lot of visioning, and mission statement development with the staff. We actually had a retreat about that, to say, look, guys, we have old CO, out of necessity, from a business standpoint, we have to transition to new CO. Let's not make this about, this nurse versus that nurse or, don't be too granular. Let's talk about what the vision is for NICO. What is the vision as clinic and, we can talk about what we came up with as a vision, but let's focus on the vision and everything that we do. It's to get us closer to that, that, that goal, that mission. 

[00:23:04] Griffin Jones: And you are getting people to buy into the vision. Remind me of when the deal closed. Was that 21? 

[00:23:12] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yep. 22, mid 2021. Summer of 2021. 

[00:23:15] Griffin Jones: We're now recording in May of 24. And three years. So in the beginning, you had that sort of you, you're a lot changing quickly. 3 years later, is it still a lot changing quickly? 

[00:23:28] Dr. Crystal Chan: I think as a group of partners, we're always looking for what's next. We're very hardworking. We all strive to be the best. We really want to be the best. Excel in this marketplace. So yes, we're always looking for what's the next opportunity, what's the next project, how can we do better for our business, how can we do better for our patients, our staff.

But I would say the frenzy has settled down. I think that first 100 days was really the most difficult and now it's fun, Griffin. So I think when we first started, it felt a bit like we were David against Goliath. Goliath being the peep for as confident as we are. We were, there was a little bit of fear, can we compete, in the marketplace?

So in the past three years, not only have we survived the loss of the headliner, Dr. Biro, we have replaced him and we've grown 20 percent in volumes and referrals and in our socials and our reputation, our staff satisfaction score, our patient satisfaction scores. So we have really done really quite well in overcoming these challenges. So now that fear has been replaced. By excitement about what's next and this feeling that as an independent, privately owned, doctor owned clinic, we have more agility. And now I think of our independence and our, we don't have to report to investors. We just report to ourselves, our patients, and our staff. I think of it as a competitive advantage because it lets us be nimble and agile and You know, make a quick decision about what our next project is and just go for it. 

[00:25:03] Griffin Jones: Are you hiring doctors? 

[00:25:05] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yep. So we have a, we hired, we're able to get one more associate, the amazing, Dr. Kenji. That was a year and a half ago, and we are having, getting another one joining this summer. And yeah we're looking for more. We definitely have the referrals to accommodate at this point, probably five or six. 

[00:25:22] Griffin Jones: Do you have a partnership track for the new docs coming in? 

[00:25:26] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yep. So that's something we are developing. We, there isn't, I will say that's very early stages, but I do think, we, we've seen that when doctors have skin in the game, they perform better. I think that no matter what incentive plans don't work as well as actual true equity ownership. So that's something that we're looking into. And we have a really, We just really settled on a very strong leadership team. We have a gentleman named Mark Evans. He's our managing director. And we have a clinical director named Allison Gilmore.

Combined, the two of them have run four Canadian fertility clinics, essentially, with about 40 years of combined experience. With this current leadership, we're perfectly poised to think about recruitment and how we secure that next generation of doctors and partnership track and, partnership modeling is something we're looking into, but it's not refined yet.

[00:26:18] Griffin Jones: I think Mark and I correspond on LinkedIn sometimes, and I think it was him that I found out that Dr. Viro had retired and that you all had come, I think even before Dan had mentioned it to me and something you said that incentives don't work as well as actually owning equity, why is that the case?

[00:26:38] Dr. Crystal Chan: When you own equity, you're afraid, and fear makes you work harder. It's just, it's at every layer. I used to have incentive when I worked at an academic site. When, and I'll give you an example. Let's say in that world, if a patient complained to me, hey, Dr. Chan, I didn't like this about your clinic.

Even though I had incentive, I didn't have an ability to, to really, Significantly make change in the institution. So I would say something along the lines of I'm so sorry. That was your experience I'm gonna take this feedback send this feedback up the chain and most of the time I felt like nothing would really happen to be honest Versus when you own or co own a clinic when a patient complains about something I jump on it I say what was the issue?

Who was the issue? I'm sorry. You had that experience. I will change it it in my previous life, I had incentive, but it wasn't my mission to make the clinic the best possible place it could be for patients. In this life now, with equity and skin in the game, I feel like MFC is my baby. I can say for my partners, MFC is also their baby.

We share this baby, and we want the baby to be the best baby it can possibly be. And every single piece of staff feedback, Patient feedback resounds with us and we do want to make a difference for it. I think that's the difference and I'm not saying that incentivized associate doctors don't work hard. They do. They work hard for themselves, their patients, their families, but it's just different. We work hard not only for those Entities, but also to build up MFC to make it the best it can be. 

[00:28:13] Griffin Jones: Think of how cool of a t-shirt that would be. Crystal equity equals fear . I think I don't know if the doctor community would buy it so much, but the entrepreneurial community, they would eat that up. Equity equals fear. I can just see like value-tainment making those types of of t-shirts. But I, it, and you're right, it does. So I wanna talk about the. The percentage of equity and the percentage of fear, because I think that a lot of private equity back groups would say that is correct, equity does equal fear, and so if you own less equity, you have less fear.

You get that there's some sort of, maybe there's a J curve where there's a benefit to having a certain amount of equity and the right amount of fear, but after that, it's all stress. And so I'm interested in how you would respond to that, but I'm also interested in, I've thought about how much fear does, how much equity does someone have to have the appropriate amount of fear? And what we're really saying with that is responsibility, that they actually take that sort of ownership. Would they do it at 1%? Would they do it at 5%? Does it have to be 20 or greater? I it's, so talk about that, that, that percentage of equity and fear. 

[00:29:24] Dr. Crystal Chan: Okay, so I think there is a benefit that the three partners here are equal partners.

So I'm not sure if it's an exact percentage or just a feeling that you have an equal skin in the game and your friend and your sister is depending on you and you're depending on her and vice versa. So there's this real, again, here's the socialist in me, this equal partnership thing does breed that. So I really don't know if it's a numerical percentage. I think 100 percent is too much. I just, I'm not worthy. To all those sole proprietors of the path, I can only imagine, although back then it probably wasn't as competitive, but just to have that 100 percent of responsibility in yourself, that's a lot.

So I think that's too much for a lot of modern REs. I don't know anyone who really gets out of bed wanting to be, like, the 100 percent boss of a fertility clinic anymore, so I think equal partnership. With, I don't think it's two partners, three partners, four partners, five partners makes much of a difference, but I think that sense that you're in the game, you're playing as a team, it's I like to give this analogy that we're like a Super Bowl team, like the Kansas City Chiefs, like Dr. Garcia is the quarterback, I'm like the tight end, and I'm like, Because we're sharing, and we're in this team together, and we have the same vision to make it to the end, to get to the ghoul, she knows when she throws that ball, I'm going to be in the end zone, and I'm going to catch that ball. So I think, the socialist in me likes to say that maybe it's not so much the percentage but the Spirit.

[00:30:52] Griffin Jones: That analogy hurts as a Bills fan. You're from Toronto, Creslo. Toronto's supposed to back Buffalo. It dug a little bit deep, but unfortunately if you had used the Bills in that analogy, the analogy wouldn't work as well. I'm sorry to say. When you were musing on the areas for opportunity, the areas for growth, and you're reflecting on what are the biggest opportunities for the future, what answers did you come up with in those reflections? What are the biggest opportunities in the coming year or so? 

[00:31:22] Dr. Crystal Chan: It's very timely that you ask me this question. So we, I think like never before growth is on the agenda on the minds of, all fertility clinics at this point. We know it's a growing industry. We know that in North America, we're probably only 1 percent of people that need IVF are actually accessing IVF.

So we know there's a lot of opportunities for growth and also, advocacy for patients and access. So one thing that we really are. Working on or struggling with as independent owners right now is how do we grow and whether or not we build a new clinic and lap at a different in a different town, a different city. Do we grow by growing the capacity of our headquarters or do we grow by literally planting a flag in a different city or township? and building a new IVF lab. If you look at what the private equity backed clinics are doing, a lot of them, the de novo clinics, as well as established clinics, are doing that. And it's very interesting, and I think it comes from the fact that Moving to 

[00:32:31] Griffin Jones: a new city? You're saying moving to an entirely different province or state? 

[00:32:37] Dr. Crystal Chan: Or city, to build a different lab, just to spread their footprint. So if you look at PE, it's a short term agenda. For they're buying revenue streams, they're buying profit streams, and they're hoping to exit in a certain amount of time, pretty short term, usually about seven years, and with a margin to show for.

So I think there's much more of a mandate to improve the, increase the footprint and build clinics and amalgamate sites and just have more IVF labs, more IVF sites. But if you look at independent proprietors The interesting thing is the biggest clinic in the GTA, the highest volume clinic in the GTA, owned by a single proprietor, only has one lab, one site.

So the question is, if you don't have to show the investors what you did, is it better to build out your one site and do 2, 000 IVF cycles there? Or is it better to build another site and do 1, 000 and 1, 000? The second you leave your headquarters and you build another IVF lab, you have personnel to worry about, you have staffing, you have HR.

You have risk, you have all these operational costs that you have to multiply and compound. Again, when PE is coming in and they're endowing X number of millions of dollars to a group of physicians, they have to do something with that money, they have to have something to show for, investments to show for, but as a team, An independent clinic, we're not sure that's the right move. What we know we want to do is improve access to people in the north of Ontario. It is frankly unfair. So there are about 16, 17 clinics in the greater Toronto area, up and around, and there's nothing up north. And that's not fair. And our patients from the north have to drive nine hours to get here. It's absurd.

So this is definitely passion over profit here, as we figure out how to organically, sustainably expand And address that, that volume in the North, North of Ontario that needs to be serviced on reserve, off reserve, just, North Ontario. 

[00:34:39] Griffin Jones: And reserve refers to people, First Nations people, with, here, would either be called Native American reservations or Native American territory. And which is, Which there are multiple of in North Ontario and just very like rural areas and I don't know if rural is the right word. 

[00:34:56] Dr. Crystal Chan: That is the right word. Oh, 

[00:34:57] Griffin Jones: but it's farmland even disappears, like a hundred miles north of Toronto, it's like it's towns that are quite isolated even from each other and they're very low population centers. So you're thinking of putting an IVF lab? 

[00:35:11] Dr. Crystal Chan: No, definitely not worth thinking, but just improving access and hubs to, to people in the North, it's a necessity. It's a necessity. And if you look at where the PEBAC clinics are going, they're just going more core, more central, more business, metropolitan areas, right? Because that's where the volumes are. So they're not going to attend to sparsely populated areas. So again, this is still, This is where it's nice to be an independent. Yes, you have to make smart business decisions, but it is also, you want to be a good doctor and a good person first. And this gives us the opportunity to do that where we're situated, our, our geography, it all works.

[00:35:56] Griffin Jones: Are there technologies or other kind of partners that would help you do that, expand that type of access in North Ontario in a way that wouldn't have been possible five or ten years ago? 

[00:36:07] Dr. Crystal Chan: Yeah, for sure. Virtual clinics, virtual platforms, EMRs. And, as people develop whole ultrasound wands and things like that, I think the tough part is blood drawing phlebotomy services, but if you could figure out how to scale that up that would be great. And even before technology catches up, you can find partner clinics in the North. There are a lot of specialists in family medicine in the North that can help out with that. So it's just about having, you The desire to make it happen and this is a big project for Mark Evans. This is his true baby and his passion is to advocate for patients in rural areas to get access.

[00:36:44] Griffin Jones: Are there any of those technologies, apps that you mentioned that you particularly like? Like any companies or models that you feel strongly about? 

[00:36:52] Dr. Crystal Chan: We're just really in, in kind of discovery phase with them. So I really can't speak to any specific app that, that we're, looking at right now.

[00:37:00] Griffin Jones: There was a doctor in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, I believe he is since retired, but he used to see patients in the Dakotas and really rural areas and he had his own plane and he would fly to them. You see any of you getting your pilot's license? 

[00:37:15] Dr. Crystal Chan: I think, again, we're always looking for the next challenge. I'm not sure I want to be in like a doctor killer plane, but I 

[00:37:21] Griffin Jones: Yeah, they scare the hell out of me. I 

[00:37:23] Dr. Crystal Chan: do have, yeah, I do have a little bit of a, free spirit, where I think one day when MFC is like running and doesn't need me here all the time, I see not only myself, but Dr. Garcia and Dr. Weiser. I can see us doing a little bit of medical missions and things like that and, doing something a little bit outside the box.

[00:37:40] Griffin Jones: As larger networks and health systems continue to acquire fertility clinics, how many Dr. Crystal Chans are there on the U. S. side of the border? I don't have to guess. I know, I have a list, and I'm willing to let you have that list for a million dollars. But because of MidCap Advisors, I'm willing to let you have that list for free.

We've put together a comprehensive list of over 450 fertility practices across the United States, showing exactly who owns them. We think it's every fertility practice we've indicated if they're independent, if they're owned by a network, by which one. or if they're academic or health system, go to InsideReproductiveHealth.com, find the industry report section and then find the fertility practice ownership list. You've been asking for this list for a long time. It's been updated as of October, 2024. So don't wait, view the full list by visiting:

https://www.insidereproductivehealth.com/unitedstatesfertilitypracticeownershiplist2024

[00:39:01] Griffin Jones:With regard to Staying independent. Is that something that is part of the mission? On day one, you got a call you at least got a tire kicking call, and who knows, it could have been far more serious than that and I imagine you've gotten plenty since and you will get plenty more. How is, how important is it to stay independent? How open to it, or how open to merging or being acquired, are you? 

[00:39:06] Dr. Crystal Chan: So we're very young we're having a lot of fun. I always say to my partners, when this stops being fun, you let me know. Maybe we'll get out. But we're still having so much fun and I cannot envision a time at this moment where we will stop doing this or stop functioning as independents. That being said, we have to look around us. So if you don't mind, I'll talk about the Canadian landscape. 

[00:39:32] Griffin Jones: Yeah, please. 

[00:39:33] Dr. Crystal Chan: So I think of Canada as a microcosm. of the U. S. is about the industry is probably, 15 percent of what it is in the U. S., but the interesting thing about being a microcosm of the US is that when change happens, you feel it sooner because it's smaller. It's a smaller swimming pool. So there are about 40 IVF clinics in Canada, and five to ten years ago, the landscape was totally different. Out of those 40, about seven were hospital based academic centers, and now there's two, two or three academic centers.

Five, five to ten years ago, most of the clinics were independent physician owned, and in the last five years, it's completely inverted. So Mark and I looked at the data what we tried to Pull from the internet, what, talking to people, but by our calculation, by clinic, about 60 percent of Canadian fragile clinics are PE backed and controlled, and the minority, 40%, are now independent or public or hospital based.

That's by clinic, but if you do the calculation by number of REs that work at the clinics, actually 70 percent of the Canadian REs work in a PEBAC clinic or network. And where's that private capital coming from? It's both domestic and international, so 80 percent Canadian investors and, 20 percent international. So this consolidation has been happening, fast and furious around us, so we're not immune to it, Griffin. And like I said, that was just one offer, we've probably been approached like that. Why is this happening? I think, I'm sure you've talked about this with a lot of guests, it's that entrance of PE into the market, recognizing the revenue streams that we have.

And then number two is this, the original clinic proprietors reaching retirement age and wanting to sell. What is interesting is that you're seeing, and this, we're seeing our friends who are in their early 50s, Some people who traditionally would be too young to sell or contemplate retirement, some of these younger mid career doctors are also selling and I think, you know that, why is that? I can speculate because I think they know that they have to put five years in, after they quote unquote sell and they want a head start maybe on their retirement. And I think that, that's a trend that we're seeing. When the networks or the private equity base, this is not to vilify PE at all, but when they come, I think there's a little bit of gaslighting that says, hey, this is a competitive market.

You might want to work with us because you might need our HR to survive and, our recruiting abilities And, maybe we can help you, right? So what I'm seeing is not a lot of Canadian doctors are actually falling for that. I'm not sure in the States that they are. So in Canada, the main entry points of PE seem to be, number one, helping doctors start a de novo clinic while retaining control, or number two, buying from retiring doctors. We're not seeing a lot of Canadian Fertility Clinic owners at my age saying oh you're right I need you, I don't know how to run my own business, please help me, here's some of my equity. I don't think we've seen any sales like that, maybe I'm wrong, maybe one or two. I think that's the polarity of it.

If you can't start your own de novo clinic, you might need PE investors to help you, or if you're done or getting ready to be done, you need PE to help you get out. For I, we're in this kind of in the middle having fun, running our clinic, proud of our baby, love our staff love us, like we're there's no reason that I can foresee right now that I change, but I don't see any reason right now for us to be consolidated and I want to state very clearly. I am not here to vilify PE. There, it, life is not black and white, it exists in the grays. It's not like PE is bad and independents are good. In fact, there are many independent clinics that are really not good, and a lot of PE affiliated clinics that are fantastic. So this is not about that, but it's just. Right now, we're having a good time being independent and that's what we are for the foreseeable future. 

[00:43:34] Griffin Jones: In the U. S., it seems to me that you're number two reason I've, in my view, is the number one reason that you've got retiring docs and this is their way to cash out on what they've built. The problem with the, and the view of the middle in my in my view is that you have so many in, in, even in Canada, is that you have so many people that are in the middle, but they're with docs that were retiring.

So you have plenty of young middle partners, like 40 something year old partners that have plenty of fight left in them. But they have sold to private equity groups in Canada too, and lots of them. They were usually of partners of older docs who are retiring. And we don't know what the, for those 40 something year old docs, we don't know what their, will they run, will they take their urn out? They're probably, many of them are probably, Two years into a three year earnout, or three years into a five year earnout will they take that, do that, go golf for a year if they if non beats are enforceable in that way in both Canada and certain US states, and then come back and. start a competitor to their old practice. That could happen too. 

[00:44:46] Dr. Crystal Chan: I think that would be a great interview, Griffin, for the young retiree. I think that's a segment I don't think you've interviewed yet. I would be thrilled to hear from them. I think there's only a handful in Canada. I'm friends with some of them. There's a handful and it'd be interesting to see what they see for their future.

[00:45:02] Griffin Jones: I want to ask you what your view as of. Of the rising tide of female entrepreneurs or of what we should think about when we think of women owning businesses and women I want to skew this with my own thoughts, and I want to hear your thoughts, but very often when I hear female entrepreneurship, it's related to venture capital.

It's usually talking about going out and raising money and building large enterprises the VC way, as opposed to starting a small business and making a small, profitable business. And so very often when I hear many people in women's health say that the venture capital is just not there for women's health in the way it is in other industries and it's sexist and it all very well may be. And those all, Very well may be valid arguments. They're not arguments that resonate with me on a personal level because I started a business from nothing and I didn't go the VC route and I didn't ever try to raise money and I want other people doing that. I want other people doing that in general, both men and women, because I think that's what is the best of capitalism when Multiple people own different ventures that we have a really well balanced economy and society when that happens, and there's no gatekeeper there.

There's no person that says, yeah, I'll give you this amount of money or not. It's the marketplace. So you are maybe you haven't had The gatekeeper of venture capital, I would say the banks are probably somewhat of a gatekeeper and so what is your take on this though? Because you also did not buy something though where you're trying to raise money and scale, like you bought a business that you're trying to make profitable yourself and you're one of a few proprietors of it. How was your view on that landscape? 

[00:46:58] Dr. Crystal Chan: Those are interesting thoughts, but yeah, I would say when we presented to the banks, we had a little bit of that perceived just gonna use the word, sexism. There was one banker I can remember that was a bit like there, dearies, this seems like a big business for the three of you. And that bank decided to pass on us, but again, some banks have provision. On my comment on female entrepreneurship I guess I would say, do you know what the greatest lie ever told? 

[00:47:24] Griffin Jones: No. 

[00:47:25] Dr. Crystal Chan: Okay I think the greatest lie ever told was that women don't make good business people, and that we can't run businesses, and they don't, that women don't cut it as entrepreneurs as well as men do. So I guess I'm here, this is a very important mission of me being on the podcast to say that I think that's pure BS, and I think that's bias, and implicit bias, and I would posit that many women are good people. Business people. These are generalities, but women tend to be organized. Women tend to be multitaskers.

Women tend to be calculative. I know that word has a bad connotation, but I wouldn't want to go into business with partners that are, can't calculate. So we tend to be calculative. We're nurturers. We nurture our staff, our patients, our clients, our business, and we know how to share and work together as a team. So if you find yourself lucky enough as I have to find a group of female partners that not only get along, But can mute their egos and delegate to each other and step out up and step down relative to each other when, our strikes arise. That synergy can be amazing. And I think it's important to talk about female entrepreneurship because there's a lot of research right now about gender inequity.

My colleague at University of Toronto, Andrea Simpson, she publishes a lot about gender pay gap in medicine. But in RE, it's not only a pay gap, it's a position gap. So in Canada, of the 40 clinics that we have, only 1 to 2 of the 40 are female physician independently owned. It depends how you define independently owned. There's 1 to 2, like us. And there are 12 physician owned male proprietorship. But if you look at the graduating class, RE in the U. S. and Canada, I bet you that's majority female. I guess I don't know that. I don't, I'm not a fellowship director, but I feel that it's majority female. So what is it? Why are REs being, female REs being trained, but not in the positions of academic chair or, business owner or co owner or network?

Whatever owner. Is it lack of mentorship? Is it socialization? I don't think the answer is that women are bad at business. I just, I don't buy that. So we are female physician led and Owen, that is our brand. We are proud of it. We're out there internally, externally. Communications is very central to who we are. We're proud of it, we've leaned into it, we really do believe that female physicians know what patients go through, and that is a priority to serve that our patient and we want to inspire our staff, we always joke about it that since we took over, a lot of our staff have left us, not because they don't like working here, but to get the job done.

To advance their careers and education. I think as they see us in these positions of mentorship and they go and which we foster that. Love that. But we want to inspire young women in STEM to do, to see that you can do what you dream of doing. We are a Latina woman, an East Asian woman, and a daughter of a Polish immigrants. The three of us, again, We are feisty, we are gritty, and there's a part of us that wants to prove something, that we can do it together as female entrepreneurs. 

[00:50:27] Griffin Jones: It was important to you to start with other women as an entrepreneurial cohort to select as your first partners. Will it remain that important to you as you bring on future partners?

[00:50:39] Dr. Crystal Chan: It's a great question. So that was just more happenstance. It wasn't intentional oh, I want a team of females. It wasn't like that. It just happened that way. And I think that once that happened, it's that kind of That was who we are, but we're definitely not close to a male or other partner joining us, I definitely wouldn't say that, but what we're seeing is a reaction to this kind of how we present ourselves as female physician led and, oh, and I'm not sure if it's like post Barbie movie or something, but there's a certain clientele of patients and a certain cohort of staff or employees that are attracted to us and drawn to us because we're seen as female entrepreneurs and trailblazers.

Ironically, it's 2024, but we're still seen as trailblazers in this industry by being female entrepreneurs, so they're, out of ten consultations, there's gonna be one patient that says, Hey, I heard about you. I like how that you guys are running the business, not private equity. Some people know, people listen to Freakonomics, like they know, not everybody cares who owns their fertility clinic, but some people do, and some people come to us.

[00:51:42] Griffin Jones: I think part of the reason why, just in general, you're seeing less younger docs own practices, but you mentioned, there's 11 to, 11 or 12 independently, male owned, independently owned practices. There's one. You've been listening to two female independently owned practices in Canada. Why do you feel that I'm with you that I don't think that that there's any basis for suggesting that women make bad entrepreneurs and to the contrary, plenty of evidence that they make great entrepreneurs. Why aren't more women choosing to do what you did and or for those that are on the Maybe take it one step further for those that are on the fence Listening, what would you say that might nudge them?

[00:52:26] Dr. Crystal Chan: So I think and I oh, okay. I'm just gonna say it I think it's hard to be a mom and a business owner and a doctor and be present for everybody your kids I have three kids. So your kids your staff, you just have to nurture too many people. So it's, I think, I can't imagine again being a mom and a doctor and a sole proprietor. So you need to work in teams. No need to. I'm sure there are amazing female entrepreneurs who could build or buy a clinic on their own. But for me, for us, I think we work better in a team because If my kid gets sick, it's nice to know that Dr. Garcia can be at my meeting, see my patient. So I think one of the tips is you can do it because we did.

It was scary. It was hard, but if you work hard enough and everybody worked hard to get to the NRE, you can do it. But find partners. Find partners that you trust with your life. Find, I'm going to get emotional now, find partners that you love, that is like a sisterhood to you. And that's the only way I think you can be truly successful in this crazy, consolidating environment.

[00:53:40] Griffin Jones: So I think there's a play and endorsement for independently owned practice in there that may, maybe you didn't even, you live it, so you obviously realize it. But I too believe family first, career second. I know people want to say, oh, you can do both, you can have a book for, I'm saying for me, Griffin Jones. Family first, career second, and then everything else to me is is the thing that gets cut. My, my physical health would be third and community, all those things are important, but I've deliberately there's no fantasy football in my life. There's no there's very little Netflix.

It's maybe a Saturday movie with my wife, but I'm not watching YouTube. I'm not, Scrolling on social media, like all of that, the happy hours that people do, all of that is gone from my life. But it is family first, and, but I still do want to be financially free. I'm not trying to buy the biggest house in the community. I'm not trying to buy an infinite fleet of classic cars. But I do, being financially free is important to me, so career is a second. Because I own my business and I don't have investors behind me, I go at my pace. And if it's you know what, I'm not just, I'm just not going to do this at this time because I really want to spend time with my kids.

I really want to see my family. I want to be there with my grandparents when they're passing away, whatever it might be. I'm the one that decides, okay, that's just gonna be a little less money than I make. Now, it goes back to the fear earlier, you have to get to a certain place where you're comfortable doing that, and if you got loans against you, and, it is scary in the beginning, but once you get to a certain place then it's just, you know what, I don't have to do this just to get another multiple. I can go with this place and I can prioritize in this way, so I think that's a plug for owning one's own business. 

[00:55:33] Dr. Crystal Chan: And there will always be people like me. Someone called, I always quote this person, so an anonymous person said to me that you, Mavis and Marta are dinosaurs. Nobody will ever do this again. Associates just want a little incentive plan, guaranteed income, and they're fine. They don't want to run a business, they don't want to take on the stress, they want to care for their families. But I don't think so. I think we are not the first or last to be like this, programmed this way. There will always be people that will take a chance on themselves.

I think, we didn't really talk, I'm scientific director, but we didn't even talk about science or technology. Technology was supposed to improve access to IVF and drive down prices. Private equity was supposed to improve economies of scale get volume discounts and push down IVF price and improve access. That, that hasn't happened. That, we haven't seen move, PE or technology yet really move the needle on outcomes nor price. But eventually, Hopefully, with AI coming in, IVF in the box hopefully, you'll decrease barriers to entry for independent people to start their own clinics.

So I see, we've only been in this PE world for 5 10 years. In 10 years, everything we think we know now is going to be completely different. Some PE firms will be very successful and some won't. Some PE networks might have to sell out their clinics. Many crazy things will happen in the next decade, and so you're going to see probably a new wave of entrepreneurs coming in and doing it, and yeah my, my take home point is find people that you can work with and that you trust, and there's never any, I, it's, One third, one third, one third, between the three of us. There's, we don't fight about that, it is, we are in it together, and we are a team, and we're on a rocket ship to Mars, to Cotonou D'Ordo. 

[00:57:30] Griffin Jones: I can't wait to have you back on to hear about where that rocket ship is flying and orbiting in some years time, and to bring you back on to talk about why some of those technologies have not yet been able to make the field scale. But this has been such a great conversation. I'm glad that I've gotten the chance to know you more and I look forward to having you back. Dr. Crystal Chan, thank you so much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:57:57] Dr. Crystal Chan: Thank you, Griffin. 

[00:57:58] Griffin Jones: How many independent fertility practices are there now? Thanks to support from MidCap Advisors, Inside Reproductive Health has done the work and compiled a list of over 450 fertility clinics across the USA indicating if they're independently owned. Part of a fertility network, if so, which, or part of an academic system, visit InsideReproductiveHealth. com. View the full list by visiting:

https://www.insidereproductivehealth.com/unitedstatesfertilitypracticeownershiplist2024

[00:58:30] Announcer:Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

 

 
 

236 Diary of a Fertility Network CFO featuring JT Thompson, CFO, Inception Fertility

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Why do insurance companies often have a much bigger advantage over fertility clinics? How do fertility clinics close the data gap with insurance companies?

In this week’s episode, JT Thompson, CFO of Inception Fertility, shares his expertise on leveraging business acumen to optimize operations and navigate the complexities of fertility care.

Tune in as JT discusses:

  • Growth opportunities for fertility practices (And how to harness them)

  • Improving the efficiency of doctors' time

  • Negotiating with insurance companies to benefit your practice

  • Making long-term decisions for your practice that may be challenging to quantify

  • Forecasting projections that can waste time and resources

  • The dilemma of investing in quality and scale of care improvements that may not show immediate ROI

Inception Fertility
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram

JT Thompson
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] JT Thompson: The traditional insurers of the world have been underwriting hospital care forever. And if you're a single hospital provider or something smaller and you show up to a gunfight with a knife, you're in trouble. And so you want to be on an equal playing ground. I think what we, where we do in our business is.

We're educating the payers about fertility space. It's not an area they spend a ton of time in. They don't have a ton of history that's allowed them to create good or bad expectations about it. So it's, that's been a would say a fun if that's the right word to use, a welcome portion of these conversations is that they're very much collegial and cooperative. And not just negotiating over a nickel. 

[00:00:44] Griffin Jones: Patient finance is a big area for dropout at your practice and a big area for your negative online reviews. See how Bundle's multi cycle programs can make that experience seamless for your patients. Visit bundle, B U N D L, fertility. com.

What data and important business intel do you want to make big business decisions about your practice? What would you want if you had a chief financial officer like my guest today? He and I talk about opportunities for growth for practices, what he's looking at with regards to efficiency of doctor's time, talk about negotiating with insurance companies, how insurance companies often outdated practices, how practices can close that gap.

We talk about speculation. How do you make decisions that you think are really necessary for your practice in the long term, but are really hard to quantify in projections on a spreadsheet? Talk about erroneous forecasts, as in how do you avoid BS data that is just making projections for the sake of making projections and is a complete waste of everybody's time?

And then I asked JT, as the CFO of a private equity backed company, how do you think How do you approach this dilemma where there might be things that are really necessary for improving the quality and scale of care over the long term, but doesn't look like it's going to have an ROI within two years? Enjoy my conversation with JT Thompson.

[00:02:03] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:02:24] Griffin Jones: Mr. Thompson, JT, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. Good morning. Thanks for having me. You are the first chief financial officer to be on the show, at least that I can think of, and I'm worried that somebody's going to say, wait a minute, I came on a few years ago. I And If that's the case, I apologize to that person, but I do believe that you are the first CFO on this show and I think that is necessary because one, I know of the three core areas of business, sales and marketing, delivery operations and finance.

The last one is the one that I am weakest in and I think it's the one that many of our audience, certainly not all, we have a lot of MBAs listening and a lot of People with finance backgrounds. But we also have a lot of people that were able to get to a very successful position in life because they're just, they're good at doing something valuable that they can charge for.

And then they were able to keep costs low enough. But it wasn't really any kind of system. And as you and I were talking, one of the things that you mentioned is I'm not a middle of the fairway CFO of, just A traditional accountant, if I'm paraphrasing that correctly, rather you approach it from a business partner lens and and I wanted to know what that meant, but I wanted to hit record before you told me what that means.

Let's start off with what your approach to being a CFO is. Great. Sure. And appreciate the opportunity. And again, CFOs aren't normally trailblazers. So being the first at something is pretty cool. Hopefully I'll set up a low bar for the next guy to cross. Yeah, I am the CFO here at Inception Fertility, and and, in that capacity, I have responsibility for what you would expect to be the traditional finance roles, and we'll talk about those today, I'm sure but my career has been built around, being a strategic partner to talented executive teams and delivering information and support that allows whether it's our, any constituent, whether it's our executives our physician partners our patients, any constituent we have to try to facilitate success through the traditional delivery of what you'd expect in numbers and results and data but really from a strategic standpoint a bit around a number of.

[00:04:40] JT Thompson: A bit of high growth businesses like Inception is and the fertility space is and so bring a set of experiences around successful and efficient growth that I think are fun to deploy here in the fertility space. 

[00:04:52] Griffin Jones: What is unique about the fertility space that you've noticed, or what tends to be the same underlying principles no matter what industry you're in, and then what really is different when you move to a new sector?

[00:05:07] JT Thompson: That's a great question. The my, and I think it's a really I think through that lens around, what I learned in these other industries or other healthcare specialty sectors that you can apply here. And I think your question is really spot on and that there's a lot of things that it doesn't matter what business you're in.

People make the same mistakes. People don't measure the things that matter. People yeah. Don't I would say make a lot of the same mistakes, without the best, certainly with good intentions, but without the best, data and practices. Clearly there's things that, that we're doing here that were, that they were doing before I joined, that we're doing now, that you would do in any business from from a finance and support standpoint in terms of reporting and data and management and utilization of that.

What I like about the facility space relative to some of the other healthcare sectors is just the pure organic growth opportunity. The business is growing at such a tremendous pace. Access to care and access to our services is expanding, exponentially in a way that's exciting.

Not all healthcare, healthcare is obviously a fast growing part of the economy, fastest growing for years, will continue to be. Across all healthcare delivery services this is one that's growing faster than most. It's it's really fun to be part of it. 

[00:06:23] Griffin Jones: You said that some of the common mistakes tend to be universal where people don't measure the things that matter. What are the things that matter to measure? 

[00:06:33] JT Thompson: I think what I found is whether it's partnering with a physician or partnering with a other clinical partner or partnering with other executives, CEOs, COOs, the smart operators will tell you if you give me, This piece of information timely and accurately in a way that I can trust, that I can act on it, and I think that's probably been consistent across all of my experiences is trying to deliver timely, trustworthy data, and people will act.

I think one of the great things about really everybody across our spectrum, and you referenced it, a lot of people have a finance background or a business background, but then they're in a different role. Most everybody in our world in healthcare in general and certainly in the fertility space, whether it's our patient partners, whether it's our executives, all well educated all intelligent all want to succeed all want to perform at a high level and that can be done with data and with the right tools and knowing how to act.

[00:07:35] Griffin Jones: And so when you say getting that timely information, do you mean the operators, the other business leaders getting that from you, the CFO, or you getting certain indicators and metrics from them? 

[00:07:47] JT Thompson: Totally us delivering to the constituents the data that they want to see around the business. Whether again, whether it's an operator whether it's around how's my staffing look today?

 How are my supply expense is trending. How are my, in a position partners, how are my new patient consults? How are my how are these data points giving people, access to data they trust, they can act on? How did they? I typically trust the, whatever industry it's in and that I've been a chance to be a part of, I, I approach it with you tell me what you want to see.

[00:08:19] JT Thompson: You tell me what data you need to feel like you can really manage the business. Yeah, how do you deliver a baby? Better to the patients. It could be the marketing team. What sort of data will help you sort through the right kinds of leads. It could be the operators who need to worry about staffing and metrics around turnover. It could be revenue, revenue source related. How, what data do you need that would help you make decisions in managing the mesos? And we deliver that. That's our, always know 

[00:08:46] Griffin Jones: what they need or do they sometimes need you to tell them what to look for? 

[00:08:51] JT Thompson: I like to think it's a great partnership and we bring, ideas to the table of, hey, what about this?

Did you think about that? Here's some data that we're seeing and here's some trends that we're seeing. Let's interpret this together. Let's decide if that's something we should continue to report on and act on. Again, the best relationships among companies and teams is interactive.

You used a word earlier that's in my core mantra these days is really respecting curiosity. And I think the greatest leaders and the greatest operators are people who are analytically and intellectually curious and willing to listen to and be thoughtful about input even if it wasn't what they came to the table believing.

I think, the greatest, among the greatest things to see is to share data with someone. That tells them a story that's different than what they always believed, and they believe it. They trust it, and they then can act on it. I think people, again, it's human nature to have. An embedded assumption about, a piece of data or the way things are and be grounded in that in a way that you have to really be proven otherwise.

And I think that the great job of support systems that we provide on behalf of all of our clinic partners and company partners, whether it's through finance or HR or IT or any support system. Is that we give 'em data, they believe. 

[00:10:17] Griffin Jones: What are some of those things that clinic directors or practice managers or practice owners are coming to you looking for to get a better understanding of?

[00:10:27] JT Thompson: Sure. I think in this, in, in our space it's, data on how we can, how are we getting patients in the door? How are we can bury them into people who then proceed with us through their journey. It's it's how do we navigate the go forward world of not, this is a business, as you well know, that used to all be cash pay, self pay people.

The fantastic news is that there's a lot more benefit coverage for this service, and that expands into, you Not only traditional insurance but fertility benefit providers and helping our managers and leaders understand how to help patients navigate their own journey and their own access to benefits.

I think there's lots of ways we can help people deliver the best product. I would tell you our principle around all of this. is to allow, experts to focus on what they're experts in. So you want clinicians to be clinicians, you don't want them to be worried about, their paycheck or their expense reports or their administrative tasks that we can do on behalf of people and let people who are trained to be a physician, who are trained to be nurse practitioners, who are trained to be, whatever they're trained to be and whatever is their highest and best use. This is where we want people to spend their time and let us worry about producing support. 

[00:11:45] Griffin Jones: So how do they pull you in for support sometimes? Because clinicians very often do want to be clinicians, but in this world, sometimes they're pulled into many other different things, especially if they had been owning the practice.

But even if they're, managing or operating a practice within a network, they're starting to, Think about things that they may not have had to previously, our state used to be almost 100 percent cash pay and now it's less than half cash pay with all of the employers that are here and now we're noticing that these benefits companies pay us half what they used to and so they want to be They want to be clinicians, but they're finding themselves having to figure out how they're going to operate in a way that's much different than they used to. How do you advise them on those things or how do they approach you? 

[00:12:41] JT Thompson: I think it's a couple of questions in there that are really important and a couple of things. I would say that it needs to be our value proposition to Our partners and future partners, to your point, who used to own the business wholly or solely and spend a lot of time around things that the owner of a business would have to do and not just truly being a clinician.

Our, I think our value proposition and the other folks our peers in the space who are trying to support practices as they affiliate with practices. I think we all have the same. The same goals in mind and similar to other industries is to really allow them, allow the clinician in this case or the REI to be an REI and not worry about being the business person and have to handle all those things.

Being able to convince folks that we're going to deliver these services to them I call it table stakes, like we have to be able to do these things on your behalf so that you don't have to. You have to trust in us to do that. Your question was how do they access it? I find that there will always be some push information and some pull information, right?

We would love to always push data to people in a way that it shows up the way that they would like to see it on a timely basis that they would like to see it. But we're also, very interested in being asked and being asked for to look at something a certain way. So we'll, I want them to pull data from us as well or pull support from us as well.

Remind us where they need support or they'd always had to do something for us to do it for them. It needs to be interactive. So I think the delivery of it. Hopefully we'll always be push and pull but, again, I think our task is to have information at their fingertips.

[00:14:26] Griffin Jones: We're talking about negotiating with insurers, but what about an alternative approach to IVF insurance? Here's the reality. Seventy percent of IVF patients need more than one cycle and costs add up quickly, especially with medications. Bundle changes the game by offering patients a 100 percent refund.

Bundle covers the full cost of IUI or IVF, including optional medication add on packages so patients don't have to worry about unpredictable expenses. With Bundle, patients know their costs up front, giving them a clear path to achieving their dream of having a baby. If you want to learn more about how Bundle can help your patients have peace of mind so they stay with you and are happy with you, instead of just dropping out, visit Bundle, B U N D L, fertility. com.

That's Bundlfertility. com. They bring you in for that support. And when you said that, I thought of the old hockey enforcer. I don't know if you grew up watching much ice hockey, but especially back in the day, and probably still, but certainly back in the nineties, when I was watching a lot of ice hockey, there was a, it.

People's job who their only job was to come in and trounce somebody. And I'm not saying that's a CFO's only job, but there were also other guys that, maybe half of their job was to play the game well. And then the other half of their job was to come in, trounce somebody. And so do you find that sometimes you're in this role of I am here to negotiate that.

You've got different clinicians that have all run, certain practices, Part of our value proposition as an MSO is to be able to get more efficiencies at scale, which means that I'm negotiating on behalf of people. Do you feel in that role sometimes now I am here to negotiate a better deal for you? I'm here to be the pro negotiator. Is that ever the case? 

[00:16:12] JT Thompson: I grew up in and still live in Louisville, Kentucky, where there wasn't a lot of ice hockey. But I understand what you, I understand the the role, and I would tell you that certainly my approach in this capacity is far more carrot than stick.

I don't believe in, in, pounding the table and telling, our partners this is what I'm here to do, I'm here to enforce this or to do that. It has to be much more in a support way, but I do believe that we can deliver That are game changing and allow us to do things we can go be the person to negotiate contracts, whether it's with, payers or suppliers, we can take that lift off of our partners are used to have to do that and they can trust us to do it.

And if they want us to be the heavier business partner deliver of a message, happy to do it. But certainly not a, We'll never be in an environment where we're telling people how to run their business or how to be clinicians or how to do things. Our job is to learn from them, not to teach them.

[00:17:09] Griffin Jones: I know that you can't share specific details of any contract negotiation, but can you share, to the extent that you can share, can you think of a recent example where you employed some of that to get a better deal for the partners in your network?

[00:17:23] JT Thompson: Absolutely. I would say it's almost always because of really good data. It's almost always an education process. I think one of the interesting things about our space and the growing nature of it and the growing nature of companies who want to provide this service on behalf of their employee base and insurers who are responding to that by developing products, it is unique and they are, the, having been in other healthcare verticals, whether it was the hospital business or the long term care business or others where the insurance companies have the ability to outdating you and that's frustrating and doesn't necessarily give you a ton of leverage in our space at the moment we're educating payers, we're educating Thanks companies who want to offer this service around the journey and the outcomes and the possibilities.

And that's fun. And they believe it. And so I think showing up in a meeting with a payer where we're toe to toe with them on having, real data to share has been powerful and has helped us create products alongside of them that are good for everybody. 

[00:18:29] Griffin Jones: They have the ability to out data you, meaning like they have more information on other clinics and other providers, like what other kinds of data do they have?

[00:18:38] JT Thompson: Or even more than, even more about your own business, right? The traditional insurers of the world have been underwriting, hospital care forever. And if you're a single hospital provider or something smaller and you show up, to a gunfight with a knife, you're in trouble.

And so you want to be on equal playing ground. And I think what we, where we do in our business is we're educating the payers about fertility space. It's not an area they spend a ton of time in. They don't have a ton of history. That's allowed them to create good or bad expectations about it.

So that's been a would say a fun if that's the right word to use, a welcome portion of these conversations is that they're very much collegial and cooperative. And not just negotiating over a nickel. 

[00:19:25] Griffin Jones: How do you close the gap between that data powerhouse that they have and like you said, you, you've been able to meet them with a lot of data of your own. How do clinic owners close the gap with big insurance companies? 

[00:19:42] JT Thompson: I do think that's one of the value propositions that we bring as we try to expand our own, our own footprint is that we can do that on behalf of people. It would be very tough for, a single clinic owner or a much smaller business to, to walk into.

So I do think that's one of the things that the larger of us in the industry and one of the things that we do well, and we're doing it well not just on our own behalf, but on behalf of the industry. The really cool thing about this space is the untapped market. 

[00:20:13] Griffin Jones: I wanna ask about that negotiation of scale and get your opinion on a little difference of viewpoints that I've heard people express.

So the first time I had heard one side of the argument was a practice owner, an independent practice owner, and a. Quite a large market, a top 10 U. S. market a decent size practice more, you could count on more than one hand how many REIs they have. And this person's viewpoint was, the network doesn't really matter in terms of negotiation.

It matters how the market share you have in a particular market. Meaning if you've, if you're in LA and you've got just 5 percent of the market there, and then you're in Seattle, and you have 10 percent of the market there, that doesn't matter as much as having 42 percent of the market in Orlando.

And and then I had David Stern of Boston IVF on the show and he said, no, I don't think so because he said, I think even when you have smaller market share across the country. You have relationships with Blue Cross Blue Shield and you also have precedent like case study. And so I can see both sides to, to those viewpoint. Where do you fall on that? 

[00:21:28] JT Thompson: I would say I see both sides as well. To be clear, I think, if you look at our footprint we've certainly attended toward the former, which is, we're the largest provider. and Texas with a large supplier in Florida. There, there are we agree that affords you a seat in the table, whether it's a bigger seat or not.

Certainly it does, but I have to agree with David that across, being able to be in have experience in a number of different markets. helps. I mean learning and again very much appreciate my experience across healthcare service companies and this one's no different is that you know when you're in one market you're in one market.

Even you know Austin's different than San Antonio as close as they are. So you really do need to be tailored to market specific and have those experiences. They could absolutely inform the conversations and as it becomes a national, as we're certainly a national provider and others are as well.

I do think that helps relative to the conversations and just the credibility that we have with these payers and these providers that we do have experience in a number of places that certainly can't hurt. 

[00:22:34] Griffin Jones: Coming from other areas of healthcare, when you got to the fertility space, did you find that the insurance companies were doing things in the fertility space that, that you thought hang on, that's not, that's Fair, or just that's not how you do it in other areas, why are we being held to this standard or they were looking at things maybe more scrutinously or taking things that you were presenting at less of value than in other areas of medicine?

[00:23:01] JT Thompson: I don't think so. I don't think their behavior or method of operation is intentionally different across sectors. I just think this is newer. I think it's a smaller piece of the pie to them. And they don't have as much data to understand it. It's evolving. The way the business has evolved certainly it's a baby in and of itself compared to other industries. No, I don't think there's any intentional 

[00:23:24] Griffin Jones: no, not intentional, but to your point, because it's smaller, they look at it differently. I 

[00:23:28] JT Thompson: think it's, I think it's, I think it's just lack of, I think it's lack of data. I really do. And I think that's, what's been great to be partners with people is to share data and share outcomes and help design products that make sense on behalf of our patients.

[00:23:41] Griffin Jones: What questions do you wish doctors would ask you more frequently? 

[00:23:46] JT Thompson: That's a fair question, and I don't know that I have a great immediate response to it. I really I love the interaction with it. It's, again all of the Opportunities I've had across healthcare have really almost exclusively been about having a great relationship with physicians and physician partners and caregivers and clinicians.

And I think just developing their trust that we bring value to the table that helps them do their job better. If I'm having a conversation with a physician a partner, a physician or a clinician where the questions are about, financials or results or then they were probably missing the point, if we're not delivering stuff that they, that makes sense to them, then we've got to get better at it.

Now what are the fun conversations around how do you help us grow? How do you help us add to our existing practices? How do you help us get more efficient? What aren't we doing that we could be doing? Those are where the conversations are super productive, right? How do we grow together?

Again, I think this space has such enormous growth opportunity within existing footprints, right? Just the untapped market share within existing markets is super exciting and I would hope that our partners see that and get excited about it. I think those are the partners that, that, that match the best with us, are the ones who really wanna grow their practice.

[00:25:13] Griffin Jones: Those growth areas are another area where you're not gonna be able to share the specifics of what Inception's doing, but to the extent that you can share what should people be paying attention to, of here's areas that the average practice owner might not be paying attention to, of ways to grow their business.

[00:25:30] JT Thompson: I think it's probably really about how to be very efficient with their own time and their own schedule, I think what the inceptions of the world and the people like us should to do, and certainly what we think we do in our, and try to get better every day and get better, is delivering in a way for them to create efficiency, and I think what I find in this space versus others, is the ability to create more volume and more productivity with the same hours in the day.

That exist which isn't always the case, and I think demonstrating that we can help grow the patient base and the patient volume without necessarily having to add more clinicians is pretty powerful. Now, there's also, we obviously want to grow the businesses by, by, recruiting new partners into these practices and and growing the footprint that way. But I think the opportunity to grow the business With the existing set of resources, it's pretty powerful. 

[00:26:27] Griffin Jones: You view Net Promoter Score as a tool that the CFO should have in part of their presentation, argument, review of the data, because I have come to really see efficiency as not just, something that is over here in business operations.It really is.

And I think of a friend recently who told me about going to see a clinic that I know and was not pleased with that experience because her words were, it was archaic. She just felt like everything was archaic. inefficient, slow, unresponsive. And and then she went to another clinic in her city, who I also knew her provider and I know that company, and she was much happier.

So I'm giving all of this context because I wonder if when you're portraying things of, here's how you could be spending your time. Here's ways that you could be spending less time on this and more time on this that people might say, yeah, but I'm the doctor. I have to do this. And I wonder if the net promoter score is a tool that CFOs could use in that toolbox to show, okay, not only is it a efficient use of time, but it's clear that what you're perceiving as personalized care might not be.

[00:27:58] JT Thompson: I'm gonna, I'm gonna say, first of all, I'm a 100 percent believer in the net promoter score mostly because ours outweigh everybody else's industry, so we're the best. So I, I think the concept of it 100 percent makes sense. I've been in industries where I don't think it matters as much. To be honest, here, I know we do well.

Our industry does well. We do better than others. But yes, I think demonstrating that the customer feedback and sharing that is real is, again, very powerful. I think showing good scores and having good experiences and being able to report on it in a way that is actionable, I think is fantastic.

I think that's, again, all of our clinician partners want to do good. They want to deliver a great product. Our company is as TJ very well, founded on patient experience. The entire principle around everything that we do here is patient experience, whether it's in the clinics or any other ancillary businesses we have.

That's the fundamental premise of anything that we do each and every day is patient experience. I have to sit in this chair, CFO or otherwise, and tell you that we absolutely believe it matters. And so the net pro score is great. Ours scored very well. There's obviously other ways to measure it.

I think we've got phenomenal efforts from our, our, our marketing and customer experience efforts that we continue to create data and results that are supporting what we do and point to areas we can improve. So absolutely believe that. That not just the company or our corporate executive reading score can act on it, but it's delivering, tangible feedback that needs to be respected.

[00:29:41] Griffin Jones: As JT mentioned, fertility clinics are often at a disadvantage when negotiating with insurers, but there's a way to offer patients more certainty and peace of mind. 70% of IVF patients need more than one cycle, and with costs piling up, especially with medications. Bundle steps in to offer a guarantee.

Patients get coverage from multiple cycles, including optional add ons so they know exactly what their financial commitment is up front. By partnering with Bundle, fertility clinics can offer their patients not just a service but peace of mind. To learn more about how Bundle can help you support your patients with transparent, guaranteed pricing, head over to BundlFertility.com.

That's B U N D L Fertility. com and empower your practice to provide a better financial experience for your patients. patients and a more favorable experience for your clinic. As a CFO, how do you think about accurate forecasting and not forecasting for the sake of putting numbers in? An example that I have outside of this field is my first job out of college, I was radio ad sales, Clear Channel, I think it's called iHeartRadio now, but at the time they were the biggest radio company in the country and 100 percent commission only.

Sales, here's the phone book kid, go close a couple deals as a 21 year old, go figure out how to get this 55 year old business owner to give you some of his money. And that was their model and each radio station had probably 10 sales reps and a cluster in a big market would have five or six radio stations.

And so across the country, you had somebody at the top, Some CFO, JT, decided that we need forecasts for what we're going to sell this year. And in a model like that, it was just BS. It was just saying I have no idea how many deals I'm going to close because I'm knocking on doors.

I'm, column people and sometimes I get a whale and sometimes I don't but it was, it was making these projections so that somebody could present it to somebody in a board and it was all BS. So how do you approach forecasting so that, it's accurate? 

[00:31:53] JT Thompson: I'm going to give you an answer that that may make sense given what you just described. One of the lines that I use each and every time is that the second that I'm or anybody in our role is finished with a forecast or a budget, it's exactly what's not, what not is going to happen, right? It's just by its nature. We're going to be wrong, right? It's not going to be accurate.

That said I think the, it is important to have your pulse on the near and medium term expectations. I think it can absolutely help us manage our businesses efficiently. And I think about forecasting in the way not traditional CFO, here's the budget for next year, here's a five year forecast of our business.

Those are things that, in my role, I have to do for, lenders or boards or other constituents and for ourselves but the reality of a forecast that helps the business run is what's happening over the next month, the next three months, what do we see that's happening, and what does that mean for us?

What does that mean for staffing the business efficiently? Again, we're no different than a lot of healthcare businesses. We need to be really good about knowing who's coming to the door when. Whether it's the hospitality business where you have to staff a hotel based on volume that weekend we need to know, we need to have good visibility into what's, what are these full walls going to look like next week and next month and the next three months and that way we can help our businesses be efficient.

So I do believe strongly in, in the benefit of near and medium term forecasting and I get the traditional, longer range forecasting that we need to do as a business. They're very, very important just used differently I think. 

[00:33:28] Griffin Jones: How do you view the difference between what are actually key performance indicators and metrics?

 because I think people tend to mix things up and think that, any metric is a KPI and. In most departments, at most levels, there's probably not that many, right? There's probably four, five, six key performance indicators that are leading indicators that, that people really need to pay attention to.

And everything else is just a metric that if one of those KPIs is really off, then you dig into the metrics to see why that KPI is off. But really you're. The numbers that you're paying attention to, your scorecard, probably isn't that long of a list. What do you think are the key performance indicators for most providers in our field and what are metrics?

[00:34:19] JT Thompson: You're still in my stump speech. I think the my, my story as I put teams together and join firms like ours and partnerships is, it's not one thing that you need to see, and it's not 10. What are the three things that you really need to see, or the four things that you really need to see?

And you're spot on. There's a handful of things that matter. Volume metrics are important to our business. Obviously what, what does it look like to have, a retrieval or what does it have to ultimately have, A successful, pregnancy, all of these things are true.

I think in our case, we need to understand the types of services that we're doing for any particular patient along the journey because they can be different. And so there's a handful of things that I think are pure, I'll call them volume related that are important to me as a business every single day and delivering that, that information to our operators and our physician partners as regularly and as timely as we can helps understand, what's, how do we manage the business that we have in front of us?

What type of patient is it? For more information visit www. FEMA. gov what services are they looking for? So those are about it, there's a couple of metrics there. To your other point, without getting overly I'm also, while I really love data and I love to report on it and I love to stare at it and see what it's teaching me.

I don't want to look at 20 metrics every week or every month either but there are things that we can then look at a little bit retrospectively to learn from. I would tell you that in my chair and I know I share this with TJ and all of our executive team, you'd much rather be looking through the windshield than the rear view mirror.

I just think that's the way to run a business is to see what's ahead of you, not what was behind you. But you really do need a handful of things looking backwards to learn. We allow our monthly reporting that looks more like traditional, financial reporting with metrics to spot trends, to see things that can help us. But the real KPI activity is about looking at the windshield. 

[00:36:10] Griffin Jones: What do you view as it, it's a resource. Maybe if you can think of one like it, a book that you might recommend to people that are. I'm particularly thinking of young, the younger doctors that might be listening. I'm, I probably should just make this a default question that we send to our guests ahead of time so that I didn't give you a chance to think about it.

But I, when you think back, do you think of a couple of aha moments? That that were either from either mentors or maybe it was something you read or just, lessons that you carry on and go back to fairly frequently. 

[00:36:46] JT Thompson: I would tell you most of this conversation this morning, Griffin, is really bounded on a couple of aha moments early on in my career around measuring what matters being efficient.

I was in some businesses early on that struggled where you really had to batten down the hatches and understand what was important. I don't have a, I don't have a book that I would particularly point to, although I'm a reasonably I wouldn't call it voracious, but I do love to read business books and theory books and management books.

I don't have one that I would, that I hand out to my teams necessarily. I do think it's a, in my case, it's a cumulative set of experiences. But I'll, there are a couple points to your question where and my theme here of KPIs, important KPIs really came from an operating partner I had in a business where we were, we were fighting to make sure the business was going to work and he said, you got to give me, you have to give me these three things.

I have to trust it and you have to give it to me right early. And if you do, we can turn this business around. And we did. What were those three things? And so I just said. And in that case, it was a, it was a hospital business and it was staffing metrics and volume metrics and and how to manage that.

But again, it's a principle around, what is it that, what is it that matters? And I think so those are, there have been aha moments. I was lucky enough to start my career and spend most of my career in businesses that are all up and to the right which is, a finance guy wants to look at a, you want to look at a chart or graph.

Up to the traditional, CFO in the ear, you want everything to be going up and to the right. Growth is good. And I've been blessed to be in, in almost always businesses that are like that. But the couple of times you spend in businesses that are going, not the way you'd hope for whatever the reasons would be, you learn the most about yourself and the people around you when times are tough.

And you build from that. Those are just the, I would say the grounding couple of principles that, that keep me grounded and that I bring to each opportunity I get to be part 

[00:38:38] Griffin Jones: of. How do you think about assessing some things that are at least partly speculative? So I guess I'm I'm viewing as a CFO, you want to remove as much speculation as humanly possible.

I. I believe that there's probably some that you can't remove, and I think of, if we go to this office here, here's what we could project, or if we get time lapse imaging, here's what we could do, but there's always assumptions embedded, and I think Yeah, especially when you think of brand driven companies, especially when it comes to some things with the brand, there's a je that is hard to project. Do you, does any kind of quoi make a CFO's skin crawl? Or how do you think about future value that, maybe can't be 100 percent accurately reflected in projections? 

[00:39:38] JT Thompson: So this is where I'll another area where I'll deviate from the central casting CFO. I'm pretty comfortable in the speculative area. I'm pretty comfortable not, I don't want to use the word risk but I'm okay trusting conclusions that people collectively make that are built around assumptions we all agree on, even if we end up being wrong. And I think you can learn from me at RON. I'm not a so I'm not as, that doesn't scare me. It doesn't give me the shivers as you just described around, no, that's too speculative. We can't do that. I'm, I like to learn from most types of things. So I'm very comfortable in areas that aren't as cut and dried. I'm quite comfortable operating in, in an environment where.A bunch of smart people are making assumptions together and making decisions together based on that. And if we're wrong, we pivot quickly. 

[00:40:24] Griffin Jones: How do you view timeline in terms of when someone's saying, Hey, I think this will be really good for the return on investment, but maybe it's not. It's a little bit longer of a timeline than than makes sense for if you have investor obligations, that it's we've got to increase value, we have to be able to turn this thing around within a certain amount of time and you have people saying we definitely need this for the long term, doesn't, in the, at least in the, maybe 24 month forecast, it's, it doesn't, It's probably not going to work. How do you think about those types of dilemmas? 

[00:41:02] JT Thompson: Sure. I, what I would tell you, and this is probably in the in the vein of investors or partners or folks who are expecting timelines. I view that you make decisions about running and managing a business as if you're going to operate forever, as if you have a long timeline and those always lead to the best decisions.

I don't, I try never to be in a position where I'm We choose not to do something because we think this can take two years and we really need something that's going to work in six months. Now, they both types of projects exist and it's a little bit of nirvana probably for me to describe that, that you'd like to make all of the decisions that way.

But it's certainly where I start and where this team starts is, what's best for the long haul. What's best, this is the business that we're building. For a really long period of time and whether it's, one of the other ancillary service businesses we might get in or whether it's, changes to things that we do to help our practices be better we're not measuring it with it has to produce something in six months or it's a bad idea.

If we think it's, if we think it's the best investment and the best thing to do to build this business for the long haul, then. We're all gonna get behind it. I appreciate the nature of the question, which is, I don't, I, whether I had a a lender or investor or a shareholder who, had a different viewpoint I I wouldn't present everything as well. It's gonna take us 10 years, but let's do it. I think that's a little unrealistic. But I really try to make decisions that are independent of. Some artificial timeline. I 

[00:42:31] Griffin Jones: said I stole half of your stump speech, but I'll the other half is yours to conclude this show with however you'd like.

[00:42:38] JT Thompson: But look, I appreciate the time. As you and I talked about, and I'm happy to be the first in this role, hopefully of many. And I think there's a lot of I'm biased about my specific set of training and those like me who can be great partners to our executive teams and to our our operating partners across in our case a set of brands.

 My role and it's been a blast to play it here alongside of TJ and our great executive team at Inception and had, a handful of experiences like it where I think that's what I consider my toolkit around, businesses that are at this size and with this significant growth opportunity.

How to bring those experiences to bear. I think my favorite philosophy, if you will is experience sharing. I don't think you tell people what to do. I don't think you, you try hard not to. I try hard not to say, this is what we're going to do and this is how we're going to do it. What I like to fall back on is this is, I saw this before, I've seen this challenge before, this opportunity before, and here's how we did it, and it's changed.

I wonder if it'll work here. That's just a philosophy that I try to do, whether it's building the team or whether it's, presenting new opportunities. It's, how do you bring, how do you bring experience to bear? So probably my best partner philosophy I can have is at this stage with the set of experience I've got is how can I best utilize those and help people.

[00:43:55] Griffin Jones: BT Thompson, CFO of Inception Fertility. I look forward to having you back on. Thanks for coming on this time to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

[00:44:03] JT Thompson: Griffin, great being with you. Have a great day, man.

[00:44:04] Griffin Jones: Patient finance is a big area for dropout at your practice and a big area for your negative online reviews. See how Bundle's multi cycle programs can make that experience seamless for your patients. Visit Bundle, B U N D L, fertility. com. 

[00:44:21] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

 
 

235 The Fairness of Evidence Based Medicine in IVF with Professor Charles Kingsland

Today’s episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free, to you! Here, the Advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health.


How does shaking hands on transfer day, and the day the news broke about Princess Diana’s death have to do with evidence- based reproductive medicine?

Professor Charles Kingsland,the chief medical officer of Care Fertility in the United Kingdom, with over 40 years of experience, reviews the spectrum of standards for evidence based medicine, and draws the line on what he thinks is fair.

Kingsland shares his own blending of evidence-based practices with personal rituals.

Tune in as Professor Charles Kingsland explores:

  • The role and importance of evidence-based medicine in reproductive healthcare

  • His unique perspective on the necessity and limits of evidence-based practices

  • Personal superstitions and rituals he performs during IVF transfers

  • The interplay between nationalization and privatization in the field of IVF

  • The impact of daily news on his medical procedures

  • The balance between strict medical evidence demands and patient freedom

  • The ethical standard of "do no harm" and its relative interpretations

Listen here and now

Professor Charles Kingsland
LinkedIn

Care Fertility
LinkedIn
Instagram

Conceivable Life Sciences
LinkedIn
Instagram


Transcript

[00:00:00] Professor Charles Kingsland: I have to shake everybody's hand in that theatre. So I shake the nurse's hand, the embryologist's hand, the patient's hand, and the patient's partner's hand. Because if I do not shake their hands, they're not going to get pregnant. Now, you cannot tell me that that is impossible. Evidence based, but I, it's important to me.

[00:00:20] Griffin Jones: You know who brought this rich conversation with Professor Charles Kingsland to you for free? Asian Egg Bank. Listen to the name, Asian Egg Bank. You know your patient populations. You know their needs. So you probably know you're going to need Asian Egg Bank. You might want to start that relationship now if you haven't already.

To learn more about Asian Egg Bank and the benefits of their frozen egg donation process, head to asianeggbank.com/for-professionals. That's asianeggbank.com/for-professionals. 

[00:00:52] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you.

But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:17] Griffin Jones: Do you practice evidence-based medicine? Are you sure? How much of it should you be practicing? All the way to the extent that every treatment or therapy has an unequivocal benefit to the patient? Or is there room for, nay a need for, the fringes of medicine, provided that the measure in question does no harm?

I wax philosophical on this topic with my guest, Professor Charles Kingsland. He's a reproductive endocrinologist and the chief medical officer of care fertility in the United Kingdom. He's been at this for a wee bit, 40 years. He worked with Dr. Robert Edwards. He saw the early days, saw privatization, saw nationalization, and the mix of those two in IVF.

Charles talks about the different grades of evidence. He talks about his own superstitious practices, which I find pretty hilarious. He does this after or before every transfer. And why the big news story of the day matters to him when he's doing transfers. Why he still does these little rituals even though he knows it's superstition and nothing based in evidence.

And what demands of evidence based medicine he feels are necessary, and which demands are unfair to the patient's consumer freedom. We talk about the standard of do no harm and the relativity of the range of harm. Charles was a fun guest. You're gonna like him. He's an engaging guy to have a conversation with.

And there's a lot more that I wasn't able to get to this time, but I will have him back on for a future episode for, and I alluded to that theme at the end of this conversation. Now have at it. Enjoy this interview with Professor Charles Kingsland. 

Professor Kingsland, Charles, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

Professor Charles Kingsland: Yeah, thank you very much, Griffin. It's great to be here. 

Griffin Jones: You're now the third guest from CARE Fertility that I've had on the show. I've had Professor Campbell twice. I've had the CEO, Dave Burford, on once. People are going to think that I don't give any other representation to any other UK clinics. It's partly because CARE is so big and so there's different roles of folks to talk to.

It's also because I've gotten to know some of you over the course of the years. I am amenable to having other UK guests on, so if there are other UK CEOs and clinicians, you're welcome on the show. Just drop me an email. Charles, you and I, I believe, have only met in person once. We met very briefly at a dinner hosted by our mutual friends, Joshua and Alan, but I understand that you've been in the space for not a short while now.

And you may have seen some changes over the years. And I want to talk about those changes. I want to talk about that within the context as the ventures that you're involved in expand to different geographies. But maybe you could set the scene of just your initial foray into this space and, and give us the summary of how it's developed.

Yeah, 

[00:04:02] Professor Charles Kingsland: well, I, you know, after the show, Griffin, I can give you some names of, of of other colleagues in the UK. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to to join you. 

[00:04:11] Griffin Jones: Of people that don't work for you?

[00:04:11] Professor Charles Kingsland: Yeah. And getting Alison Campbell twice. Wow. That's yeah, I that's that's some some feat. So, yeah, well, you know, I, I actually became a a fertility doctor by accident in oh gosh, in the late eighties when I was a trainee registrar.

It was tradition then that. Once you've done your basic training, you spent a bit of time specializing and, and I felt the need, having been trained in and around Liverpool, we always had to spend, felt the need to spend some time in London. So, I applied for any job that was going in London and there was a gynecological ultrasound post at King's College and I went down there for the interview, and all the, in those days, it was all very sort of, basic, all the candidates sat outside, we went in one after another we came out and sat outside, and the door would open after a period of time, and the professor would come out and call one name, and And the rest of us would go home.

On this particular occasion we, we all went in and had our interviews and my name wasn't called out. However an elderly gentleman came out and said, Dr. Kingsland you were, you were not successful this time, we gave the job to the local candidate, but I I have a research fellowship coming up in a couple of weeks time, would you be interested in, in my research fellowship?

And I said, well, yeah, I would, but who are you? And the guy was Professor Howard Jacobs I didn't know at the time, but he's a world renowned reproductive endocrinologist. Reproductive endocrinology is basically reproductive hormones. And so I, I took the job and part of my role, I, I joined a world class team of, of researchers and part of my role was to look into a particular hormone and its role in IVF, IVF with Just taken off then, the first IVF baby was, was just about 10 years old.

There were only about three or four IVF units in the country, but I was asked to go and train for a period of time at Bourne Hall, and Bourne Hall was going through a transition. Patrick Steptoe, the founder, the guy, the ecologist, had recently died, and Robert Edwards was now On his own, the first set of researchers that had moved off ironically one of those junior doctor, junior doctor.

Scientist at the time was a chap called Simon Fishel, who went on to found CARE, for whom I work with now and his lead embryologist was Robert Edwards, who was to anybody who knows about IVF, was the founder, the first, he was the, the, the founding scientist who, who was responsible for the birth of the first IVF baby in the world, Louise Brown.

And I didn't realize at the time what an amazing opportunity was for me because we'd be there seeing patients, he'd be in the laboratory, I'd be doing the gynecological bit, collecting eggs, and in those days it was a bit like the Wild West, you know, we, we finding eggs, human eggs was, was no mean feat and we'd be there in the laboratory and I would send over the the fluid from from the patient's ovary and Robert Edwards would be looking for the looking for the eggs and he'd say no egg no egg got granulosa cells great and then I'd send over some more fluid and he'd shout I've got the egg I've got the egg and he'd come out and he literally you Wave his arms around him.

The thing that I remember about Robert was that he was Incredibly enthusiastic, but not only that and as you know, he went on to win the Nobel Prize He had, like many Nobel Prize winners that I've met over the last 40 years, this incredible ability to make his Subject appear not only really interesting, but very straightforward and simple.

That was a mantra that I've taken with me over the last 40 years that, and it just serves to, to to underpin the fact that what we do now in IVF is actually not that complicated. It's, you know, it has this aura and mystique about it, which in fact we have been partly responsible for creating that ourselves.

The first IVF baby was born in the UK. In Oldham, which is a little town outside Manchester, the reason why The baby was born in Oldham was that Patrick Steptoe, the gynecologist was a guy, was a consultant in Oldham and he'd learned, he'd gone over in the early 60s to, to America and learned a technique called laparoscopy and it was where a telescope would put it, you could put a telescope into your abdomen and see the contents of the abdomen.

Really like through a little tiny keyhole and Robert Edwards heard about this guy and recognized that this was the way that you could collect eggs. Before that, the only way you could collect human eggs was to make a cut in the in the patient's abdomen, but now using laparoscopy, you could actually do it through a keyhole.

So Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe met and Edwards took his laboratory up to Oldham, where Steptoe worked, and that's where the final experiments were done on humans, and it was actually The 106th patient that they, that they did IVF on that got pregnant, that woman was Carol Brown now when the first baby was born in 1978, there was a huge outcry from the National Health Service about this great new world, babies being grown in test tubes, to the point that the, the two of them were actually made to leave the National Health Service in Britain.

The demand had been created, so they moved and bought an old Jaffa Beat Hall, which was 15 miles from Robert Edwards Laboratory in Cambridge, and that was the start of Bourne Hall, the world's first IVF unit. But, that, that where it cre that was where the first myths were created about IVF, because it was shunned, the divided opinion, everybody has an opinion on fertility treatment and it was, it, it divided opinion amongst the population.

The National Health Service was just not ready for this concept of growing babies. In test tubes, and so the, it, it had to grow up in the private sector and patients had to pay for their treatment because the NHS wouldn't recognize or wouldn't mandate insurance for it. And it was only in the early to mid 80s when the National Health Service started Buy IVF back.

Firstly at King's College Hospital in London, then in Manchester, and then two or three years later, I left London and moved back to Liverpool, and that's where I started my first IVF unit. I had this idea though, this strong commitment that IVF should be available on the National Health Service. So I lobbied healthcare, I lobbied patients and worked have together with the, with the patient support group and my nursing and staffy scientific colleagues.

We managed to get funding for the National Health Services IVF treatments, so that I was very proud of the fact that anybody was under the age of 35. Who, um, had a body mass index under 30, who nobody on the planet called mummy or daddy. They were entitled to two attempts at IVF on the National Health Service.

And it was and we grew. The first year we did 90 cycles. And then in we grew to 200, 300, and when I left the National Health Service in 2017, the Hewitt Center was, which was the, the unit where, that I founded. was the largest unit in, in the UK offering NHS treatment and we were doing about 3,000 cycles and around Liverpool.

And that, at that point I felt that it was time for a change and that's when I joined Care Fertility, which were, which are the largest independent group within the United Kingdom. And we have about 15, I think it's 15 laboratories, 25 facilities. Clinics, and we do about 12,000 cycles of IVF, of which about 35 percent is funded by the National Health Service.

[00:12:50] Griffin Jones: So from public to private to back to some public. From a few cycles in the era of the idea of test tube babies to 12,000 cycles a year, one of the things that you said was that, well, it turns out it's not that complicated, but you also said that it's no easy feat to find an egg, so reconcile those two notions for me.

[00:13:20] Professor Charles Kingsland: In the early years we, we, we could only collect eggs through laparoscopy, so it needed an operation and a general anesthetic for the woman. Collecting sperm was a lot easier and techniques have not changed for collecting sperm over the last 20, 30, 40 thousand years. But one of the great breakthroughs in, in IVF was the advent of ultrasound.

This is where you could, you could put ultrasound waves through an abdomen and you could see ultrasonically where the ovaries were. And therefore, By guided ultrasound, you could then put a needle through the abdomen without recourse to an operation, and then put it straight under ultrasound guidance into the ovary.

Now, in the early days, we could only do it through the abdomen, and you could only ultrasound waves. So the patient needed a full bladder, and we would sedate the patient and put the needle into her abdomen, in through the front of the bladder, out of the back of the bladder, and into the ovary. Now, that was quite un, un, it could be quite unpleasant and painful although we did, we did most of those procedures.

Under local anesthetic, so they were tolerated, but it was, it was a bit Heath Robinson, and then in the early to mid 1980s, we developed vaginal sound, so that you, instead of putting the abdomen, the probe onto the abdomen, you could put it Transvagina, into the vagina and get a very, very close look at the ovaries, which are actually just on top of the vagina.

So you could, so you could actually put a needle, a very fine needle, through the top of the vagina and straight into the ovary, which made seeing the ovaries and collecting eggs from the ovaries infinitely more easy. And now the vast majority of All patients will have their eggs collected transvaginally and it only takes about 10 minutes to do.

It can be done quite successfully under general anesthetic, under local anesthetic. Very few times do you need a general anesthetic. Takes about 10 minutes, patient has a cup of tea and then goes home. And it's so it's, so really the technique of collecting eggs has not changed.

[00:15:45] Griffin Jones: When it comes to certain things like meat, fresh, never frozen is a selling point, but in terms of fertility, that's not necessarily the case anymore. Asian Egg Bank believes frozen egg donation has come a long way and the protocols and results are only getting better and better. The industry went through a change over the last couple of decades and it started with egg vitrification.

Cryogenic techniques for sperm banking have been around since the 1970s, but the vitrification protocol first came along in 1999. Then we started to see the shift from the traditional matched egg donation system to the frozen egg donation system, including a variety of benefits to the latter. One advantage to frozen egg donation is efficiency.

Frozen donor eggs are available immediately. With fresh donor eggs, patients are matched with the donor and that process can take two to four months. Also, fresh egg donation results in a lot of additional embryos and is inherently more expensive. Then what to do with those extra embryos is an increasingly sensitive topic, considering recent court rulings in places like Alabama.

More good news, research Research shows that frozen egg donation resulting in live births are roughly on par with fresh eggs. And with improvements in protocols, any gap that exists is closing. At Asian Egg Bank, they're researching and reviewing the current process of oocyte vitrification and warming, and this work is showing very promising results.

There will always be a time and place for fresh egg donation, but frozen egg donation makes the fertility treatment process more efficient, more affordable, and less wasteful overall. This message has been provided by Asian Egg Bank. Discover the benefits of frozen egg donation from Asian Egg Bank. Visit AsianEggBank.com/for-professionals. To learn more, that's AsianEggBank.com/for-professionals. I didn't realize that it wasn't, that retrievals weren't done transvaginally in the beginning. I didn't know that. And Oh, gosh, no. So, of all of these changes over the years, what is your view of evidence-based medicine and seeing some techniques develop that have likely been positive, but as you mentioned, there are some other things, like perhaps the technique of retrieval, that have changed very, very little.

So what Yeah. Are you seeing has been the fruit of evidence based medicine, and what do you see creeping in that you don't feel is supported by the evidence? Evidence based medicine 

[00:17:56] Professor Charles Kingsland: is a, is a concept of the 90s, 90, the 90s. It was developed it was first described in the early 90s. 

[00:18:03] Griffin Jones: What were people talking about before the 90s?

[00:18:08] Professor Charles Kingsland: Well, you see this is the thing that actually makes me smile about evidence-based medicine. The, i, the concept of evidence-based medicine is that, that you provide a treatment or a therapy which is of unequivocal benefit to the patient. Okay? So, for example. An enlightened patient should say to the doctor or nurse who's prescribing medication for her, what scientific evidence have you got that this is unequivocally going to do me good?

So if I said to a patient who wants to get a, who wants to get pregnant, take your folic acid, for example. She could then say to me, well, what evidence have you got that this is going to do me good? Well, I could lead her to the library and show her I have unequivocal, scientifically proven facts that if you take folic acid you've got a better chance of having a healthy baby than if you don't take it.

Same with smoking, stop smoking. Why do you want me to stop smoking, Doctor? Well, I have unequivocal scientific Scientifically proven evidence that if you stop smoking, you have a better chance of getting pregnant. Oh, but my next door neighbor, she smokes 60 cigarettes a day and she's got five children.

Well, that doesn't matter because she may have a higher fertility to start off with, but her fertility has been damaged by smoking. But the thing is, I have had many contracts from many hospitals and never Have I been asked, as a doctor, to do the patient, to do a patient good? In fact, when we get, when we get when we qualify medical school, we have to sign something called the Hippocratic Oath, named after the Greek medic Hippocrates.

And the first rule of medicine is number one, don't do any harm, okay? So I'm okay, I'm in the clear, as is any doctor, as long as we don't harm anybody. And that has been the basis of medicine throughout the ages. So before evidence based medicine, obviously we had, there were therapies that were of benefit, but not many.

And most of, most of medicine was based on Non evidence based, myths, legends, suppositions stories, and why is that? Because, you know, humans love a good story. We love a good legend. I mean, I'm from Nottingham. For me, Robin Hood was one of, he's one of my heroes. I have no evidence that he ever existed.

He wasn't particularly harmful. And even nowadays, most of our medicine that we do is based. on legend. So, for example let's take acupuncture. If, if an acupuncturist said to me, if I went in with a bad back I'm going to put the, this is a, this is a scientific procedure, and I'm going to stick needles in your back, and it's going to make you better.

Or if it's going to improve your sperm count, if I want to, well, that's not true. Because there's no evidence to suggest that that's of any benefit. However, if the acupuncturist said, look, you know, there's very little scientific evidence that this is going to unequivocally improve things. However, it won't harm you.

It may make you feel a bit better, it may make you feel as though it's benefiting you, and in the whole scheme of things, that's fine. So you walk into, you know, I, I can remember just recently walking down fifth Avenue, walking into a, a herbal shop. And there's, there's, there's shells full of all these herbs, vitamins and minerals, and purporting to do this, that and the other.

But there's no evidence to suggest. That they, you know, by taking alpha, beta, gamma, glutamyl, placental transferase, it's going to improve your chance of having a baby. If you, if you're taking something that is non evidence based and you happen to get pregnant in my specialty, the IVF. Like for example, I don't know vitamin D or oxycodone 10, you know, or some medication and, or you're getting pregnant, you're desperate to get pregnant and you have reflexology.

And then you get pregnant. That is called coincidence. It's not cause and effect, it's coincidence. It's a happy coincidence, and, but there's no scientific, you know, I can remember patient said to me once. Oh, no, he went on, on the internet and said, Professor Kingsland has magical powers. We only saw him once.

We've been trying for a baby for five years. We only saw him once, and I'm now three months pregnant. I'll take that all day long. I'll take it all day long. But that is coincidence. She was gonna get pregnant anyway. And Voltaire said The best doctors are those who intervene when nature was going to take, was going to cure the patient.

That's the, that's the, one of the skills of being a doctor. We've taken it to the nth degree. Now I, I think evidence based medicine is the best. is great. Well, wouldn't 

[00:23:34] Griffin Jones: the lack of evidence, Charles, then be evidence to the contrary, almost? So you talked about the herbal shop. Well, if it seems that in an era of evidence-based medicine, that if they don't have evidence for it means that, well, why didn't they run randomized controlled trials or, or, because it either means they did and it didn't work.

They didn't produce any conclusive results, or they didn't, and then the question is, well, why didn't they? So, in an era of evidence-based medicine, is not having evidence, evidence to the contrary? 

[00:24:10] Professor Charles Kingsland: Well, yeah, but in medicine, and in IVF or fertility, in particular, particularly in the UK, we are very heavily regulated.

The practice of medicine is heavily regulated, which is not the same in many other areas. Spheres of, of of pharmaceuticals or or food products. So, if you often look I remember, you know, sometimes you're driving home from work and you'll, you'll be in a traffic jam and there'll be a bus in, in Liverpool and I'll be on, on the back of the bus, there'll be an advert and there'll be this, this you know, bright tooth, glowing guy, good looking fellow and he'll say, are you tired?

Are you listless? You need Ferro Biotin F, and you'll go, I'll look at that thinking, yeah, I'm tired, I'm listless, I need some of that, I want to look like you, and then if you drive a little bit closer to the bus, it'll say, 75 of 89 patients who were asked, Said they felt better. Well that actually means nothing.

It doesn't mean a thing. You might as well leave it alone. However, anybody who doesn't know about statistics will, will Well, they'd think, well, you know, if it's good enough for those 79 patients, it's good enough for me. Now, in medicine, if I said, oh, you want to take my fertility mint, for example because I've done a trial and 75 of 90 patients improved their sperm count.

That's, that is a, Poorly conducted, non regulated, non statistically significant trial, which I would be pilloried for, but though in other areas, that's fine. I mean, you know, during COVID here's me a professor. I, I, I remember there's a stage of IVF where we have to put embryos back. It's called, we create the embryo, back into the uterus.

an embryo transfer. And it's a very straightforward procedure, takes about 10 minutes. There is a technique, some people do it better than others but most people can do, do well. Now, one of the things many years ago it was the 31st of August, 1997 I think it was, it was a Sunday morning, and I did 8 embryo transfers on that Sunday morning, and all 8 patients got pregnant, and I went home that morning and switched the television on, And Lady Diana had been killed in a car crash.

And ever since that day, one of the things that I do to patients when I put an embryo, trans do an embryo transfer, I say, now you must think what's happened in the news today That's significant because this is the day you'll get pregnant. And when you will say, I got pregnant on the day that, and if I can't find a piece of news.

I get anxious. Similarly, I have to shake everybody's hand in that theater. So I shake the nurse's hand, the embryologist's hand, the patient's hand, and the patient's partner's hand. Because if I do not shake their hands, they're not going to get pregnant. Now, you cannot tell me that that is evidence based, but I, it's important.

Do you really do it though? 

[00:27:46] Griffin Jones: You've done it all these years? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, still. Every transfer, every 

[00:27:50] Professor Charles Kingsland: retrieval? Every transfer you can, you, you can ask any of the scientists because I have a deep seated suspicion and there's, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And this is one this is one of the facts where I, I think it's very important that we include non evidence based medicine.

into our treatments. What we have to do though, what we have a duty to do, is to advise the patient. This is not evidence based, there is no scientific data, however, this is the risks, these are the benefits, but importantly, These are the costs because I feel very strongly that you can financially harm a patient by offering them non evidence based medicine.

But, similarly, just in the same way that, you know, my wife will buy a handbag if she wants to feel better. If it's a health issue and you want to spend money on your health, Provided you are fully informed that this is a little evidence based base, as long as it's not harmful, then you're free to do whatever you want.

What you should be allowed, you know, free to do. I remember a few years ago I was working in Cares Clinic in London and I did an embryo transfer on a patient and she wanted some additional treatments to help her through. And I said, you don't need to do that. You don't need that. No, it's not gonna benefit you.

And she complained, and she said Professor, the complaint, the formal complaint was, Professor Kingsland wouldn't allow me to spend my money. I wanted to spend my money on my health. He told me what I could do, what I shouldn't do, but he didn't give me the choice. And I think that was a very salutary lesson for me, that, you know, if patients, you want to spend money on their health, provided they're informed about the risks to the benefits that should be allowed.

And we have this, I'm not, you know, in, in IVF, certainly in the UK, our regulatory authority, the Human Fertilization Embryology Authority, have a traffic light system for evidence-based medicine, and they have treatments which they regulate by, Saying that they're green, amber or red, green is unequivocal benefit evidence-based amber is the jury is out.

Neither benefit nor harm and red is, it is of no benefit or maybe harmful. Now, there are one or two things that that, that the HFEA have regulated, have. They are RED RATED and therefore it's bad medicine. I have to disagree because it shows a, you know, in many cases it shows a fundamental lack of the meds, medical process and how humans want to be treated.

And so And provided we are, obviously it shouldn't be harmful, it shouldn't be expensively harmful, but we should be allowed to choose, and if we want to use vitamins and minerals of a nature of doubtful benefit, or if we want to have acupuncture, or, or, or complementary therapy, that's absolute, if we want counseling, that's absolute.

That's absolutely fine, and that's where I think, just so happens, because money is involved with IVF, we seem to hit that interface harder than anywhere else, because, you know, there are, there are hospitals in, in the UK that are, that are Endorsed by the Royal Family, the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, the Royal Homeop Well, homeopathy, it's great for, for, for many people, many people strongly support and want to be treated by homeopathy.

And that's fine, but there's very little scientific evidence that it's of any benefit. 

[00:32:02] Griffin Jones: So I want to see if we can find a case for some of these things that are, are not harmful, but to, for, allow for medicine that isn't evidence based beyond the, beyond the idea of consumer freedom, beyond the positive association of other events that happened around the untimely death of positive monarchs.

Is there, is there another benefit to So, allowing for non evidence based medicine as long as it isn't harmful because there's something there about advan that that that the fringes of medicine advances. One example that you mentioned you you talked about, you know, Vitamin D and and there not being a A lot of evidence in that supporting fertility outcomes perhaps, but I have had an REI tell me that the number one thing that he recommends for men is vitamin D.

That for, for malvarility in the case of fertility, if you can lay outside under the sun with your testicles out. So this is a clinician that feels very strongly about vitamin D. Do you feel that That that it very, perhaps the evidence says that there isn't the evidence to support that. But is there something about having the the barriers to evidence based stay at At doing no harm, that allows the fringes of medicine to actually produce more evidence.

[00:33:36] Professor Charles Kingsland: Oh yeah, well that's the whole basis of, of progression, advance, advancing technologies and, and, and medical science. So using vitamin D as an example. There, I, there is a body of evidence now that suggests that vitamin D is more than a vitamin. It might, it may, it may have some enzymatic actions on health and general well being and fertility.

It's certainly not harmful, and there is some evidence, although it hasn't reached an evidence base, to appear in learned journals or learned textbooks, that you must take vitamin D. Vitamin D. I would not be as, as strongly supportive as vitamin D as as your your colleague, but there are There are, for example, firm, evidence based facts about improving your sperm count, you know, keeping your testicles cool, having a good diet, not taking not taking steroids, not smoking.

There was a time when we all, when we advocated vitamin E. Now, the basis of vitamin E and male virility and sperm counts was based on rat studies. If you feed vitamin E to rats, they go wild. And it, it improves, it increases their libido massively, and we extrapolated that to humans. But, vitamin E, again, is one of these things, that is not necessarily harmful, there is very little evidence to suggest taking vitamin E will unequivocally be a benefit.

Now, there are more recently, going back to your advancement of science and, and using fringe subjects and looking at them more critically, there is some evidence that vitamin, vitamin E actually might be harmful. in some patients. So going back to what you said I think it is really important that we take these fringe well I call them fringe loosely but complementary therapies or therapies that have not reached evidence based.

And look at them more critically, but subject them to scientific rigor, to the proper randomized trials, and then we can say, yes, they are a benefit, or no, they ain't a benefit, and that's it. Look elsewhere. 

[00:35:55] Griffin Jones: Delineate, for me, the difference between some evidence base versus being truly evidence base. So you mentioned there's some things that have a base of evidence, but that's not the same as being, like, really evidence based.

Is the difference RCTs, is it publications in journals? 

[00:36:13] Professor Charles Kingsland: Tell me about that. So, so we have, we have a grading of evidence. So we have grade A. B, C. Grade A evidence is evidence that has been created by randomized, prospective, well powered trials. So these are the highest quality clinical trials that you can do.

And they have reached a particular strength that you can say, these actually, we're, we're Our results and our facts smoking in pregnancy folic acid, which I've used as an example before. You have, then you have Grade B evidence. Grade B is the second tier of strength of evidence. This is where the evidence has been gathered, not necessarily by randomized prospective trials, but by retrospective trials trials that have looked back at Data that's already been created by case reports, by meta analyses where lots of retrospective trials have been put together with big numbers, and data Or, some say yes, it's better, some say no, but, but, it's, it's equivocal.

Grade C evidence is the poorest grade of evidence, and it's down to, you know, my Auntie Bessie took folic acid in, or she took vitamin B C and she got better that the, the, that that's the, the grade C evidence. And we, we actually in the UK publish NICE guidelines. Well, they used to be called nice.

They're now called NIHC, national Institute of Clinical Excellence. Looks at a particular subject in medicine. And we'll rigorously appraise that subject and give a list of recommendations based on grade A, B, and C evidence. So if you look at grade A evidence, for example in my specialty, fertility, ICSI, this is where a male has got poor sperm and it's, and so what we do, we, With, with his sperm, we will inject a single sperm into the egg as opposed to incubating the egg with a hundred thousand sperm.

Sometimes a male may not produce a hundred thousand. He may only produce four or five sperm. So we take one sperm and inject it into the egg. That is unequivocally of benefit. IVF, IVF works. If that, if that guy didn't have IVF, he wouldn't father a child. So that's the, that is grade A evidence. It's the strongest particular evidence you can get.

I'm trying to think of grade Bs. So, going back to acupuncture, that would be grade, that would be grade B. Some trials show its benefit, other trials don't show its benefit, but no trial will show it to be harmful. So these, they're, they're the sort of grades. And then, as I said before, provided you Get that information from your doctor or practitioner, then it's fine.

You're free to choose. The problem comes when you're, when you are subjected to huge fees for, for treatment that is not necessarily going to be of any benefit. And that is where the difficulty lies for patients. Just getting that, the information that they need to make an informed choice. Is the degree of harm, or the range of harm, is it relative, Charles?

[00:40:00] Griffin Jones: Let me give you an example to explain what I'm trying to ask here. There's a nephrologist in Toronto named Dr. Jason Fung who feels very strongly about prolonged fasting and its benefit in increasing longevity, in reducing chronic disease in decreasing the risk of amputation and decreasing the risk of other bad things that happen after amputation, particularly in diabetics.

But he admits that there's not a lot of randomized controls. It's hard to do randomized controls on anything having to do with longevity, for example, human longevity. Yeah. But There could also be some harm in prolonged fasting that you could bring back out for some people, there might be other complications that happen if you go on a six day fast, but I listened to him talk about that sort of protocol shortly before her.

An elderly relative of mine who was obese and had diabetes had an amputation and then died, you know, within a few months of that amputation. And I had thought about, after listening to that, telling this elderly relative, why don't you just not eat for four days and see what, and, and see what happens.

Now that could be harmful. It could be harmful. But if you're, If you're elderly, if you're at, if you have diabetes, if you're at these risk of certain things, what I'm asking is, is the range of harm relative based on the condition that, that someone is in? 

[00:41:40] Professor Charles Kingsland: Yeah, the range of harm is always relative. We talk about precision medicine.

This is another one of my Bugbears, you know, we, we have these fashions in medicine that come along and, and certain clinics will say, oh, we are advocates of precision medicine. Well, the implication is that the other clinics are not precise. The whole idea of medicine, it is a very precise, Specialty, but we can generalize to a certain extent, but there are some people where you have to individualize their risks and benefits of a particular therapy.

And this is a case in point, you know, the, the 70, 75 year old obese, diabetic may be safer on a a calorie restricting diet over a number of days. I certainly wouldn't, you know, a 20 year old who's growing and developing and needs all the protein they get and they need all the energy they get, well that's not so prevalent in a 70 or 80 year old.

So, it's horses for courses. A liver, one of my friends who's a liver transplant surgeon said to me, you know, it's like saying I'm an alcoholic and I'm not alcoholic. It's very difficult. Some people will damage their liver. with small doses of alcohol. Others could drink bucket loads of the stuff and not get a, you know, not, not get any damage whatsoever.

And it's, it's who you are that counts, not not where you go. I often say this about you know, success rates in fertility clinics. In my experience over 40 years, The vast majority of fertility clinics have very similar outcomes. Okay, there are some that are excellent and there are some that are not so good.

But the majority of clinics are pretty damn good. It's the same as, you know, in, in, I keep using the UK as an example. You know, you go, you go in with a, with a routine problem to a National Health Service hospital. You'll be okay. You know, you'll be fine. But there are, there, it's not where you go for your treatment.

It's who you are. And the skill of the clinician or the doctor or the fertility doctor, whatever your, whatever your disease or disability. Is, it's picking out who you are and what you need. Now, fortunately, the majority of us all fall into a, a basket. It doesn't matter what, you know, if you're a, if you've got a pain in your tummy and, and it looks like an appendix and you need an appendix operation, 90% of the time it will be absolutely routine.

But every so often there will be. A problem where, you know, which is usually predictable, and if you've predicted that problem, then it makes the outcome so much easier, and that is the, that is my point about individualizing your treatment and precision medicine. It's all, it should all be precision medicine.

It shouldn't we should all be treated as individuals, but most of the individuals will be, will, will come within a category of what we would say the normal range. 

[00:44:58] Griffin Jones: Speaking of where you are, you have practiced in the UK, you're now part of, you've been part of CARE Fertility for many years, served as their Chief Medical Officer, you're doing a lot of advising now, but CARE has expanded I know into the U.S., into North Carolina, presumably planning further expansion in the U. S. Do you all have a presence on continental Europe as well, or just U. K. and Ireland? 

[00:45:21] Professor Charles Kingsland: We now have clinics in Spain as well, so we have clinics in U. K., U Spain, and now the U. S. How did the schools of thought 

[00:45:30] Griffin Jones: on evidence-based medicine differ between the U.K. and continental Europe and the United States? For more UN videos visit www.un.org 

[00:45:38] Professor Charles Kingsland: Very similar. We're, we're, we're all very similar. The, the, the, the, the ma the majority of the medicine is, the vast majority of the medicine is very similar. And just using fertility therapy as a, as a, as an example is formulaic.

Most of it is, is the same wherever you go. The way that it differs is, is in how it's how it's perceived. In the US, for example, you know, it, it is most of the clinics are owned by private equity, is far more business orientated, and the doctors need far more business acumen, I would say, than doctors, equivalent doctors in the UK, who have, who have had a far more well, governmental NHS education, so for example, in the u uk a in the US a clinic has to be owned by a doctor.

You cannot practice IVF fertility therapy in the UK, in, in the US in a clinic that is not owned by a doctor, whereas that's just not the case in Spain. Or or the UK, but the way that the clinics are run in terms of the medicine, they are very, very similar. Most of it is, as I say, formulaic and irrespective of, of where you go whether it be, you know, Uh, you know, Boston or San Francisco or Carolina or Texas.

For, for the standard patient, the outcomes are the same. It's only when you are out of that standard, you're, you know, out of the normal range where your chances of success are probably different in different clinics. But you will experience. You know, it's the duty of any practitioner, healthcare practitioner to be able to pick out the good prognosis patients, the less good prognosis patients, and manage them or refer them on accordingly.

[00:47:54] Griffin Jones: I want to ask you about your views on the REI's role in in top of license, what the REI needs to do versus what Other practitioners, either generalists trained OB-GYNs or even advanced practice providers or nurses should be able to do, but I know that's, that's gonna have to save for another day. I'm gonna have to invite you back on for that.

I want to give you the concluding floor of how you'd like to conclude about what it's been like. over the years to see this sort of development, to see this focus on evidence-based medicine, the changes that you've seen in the field from the days of what it was like to work with Dr. Edwards, that is.

I'll let you conclude how you see fit. 

[00:48:45] Professor Charles Kingsland: The biggest breakthroughs that have occurred in the last 30, 40 years are in the laboratory, without question. What when we started we, we weren't able to assess embryos very well. We weren't able to grow embryos very well. We used to have to put embryos back when they were 48 hours old, because we didn't have the, the culture media, the complexity of the culture medium to have, to be able to grow embryos.

To three, four, five days. And because we couldn't grade embryos, we used to put more than one back in the hope that the more embryos you put back, the better chance you had of achieving a pregnancy. The risk of course, was multiple pregnancy. And although couples who have been desperate for a baby for years would like to have the thought of having twins and triplets, for OB-GYN it's a nightmare because for every healthy set of twins that are pregnant, Being pushed around the local supermarket, patients don't see the dead dying or miscarried twins.

So nowadays we grow embryos. We can assess embryos very well. We grow them up to five days old and we only have to pull one back. So have as many bees as you want, as long as it's wanted at a time. So they're the big advances as far as the gynecology is concerned. Very little has changed. There are things that come along every five years that alter how we practice medicine.

But what we have to do is to deliver the best quality egg and the best quality sperm we can to the laboratory. And then hopefully get a, a good embryo and a good result at the end. The big issue that we still have is accessibility and scalability in IBF. Only the WHO recently published a paper that only 2 percent of the population in the world that needs Fertility therapy can have, get access to it because the, the rate limiting step is access to fertility units and then once you're in the, in the fertility unit, it's, The scalability, we can only do so many with the manpower.

So I think that we have, so I think the future, the next generation, we are going to be looking at robotics, artificial inseminate artificial intelligence, which is going to, you know, We have revolutionized the way we deliver IVF, and I think at this particular stage, we're at that level of technology when accessibility and scalability is going to is going to come to the fore, and that is an exciting time, and that's why I'm still going, because the end product is, you know, the The job satisfaction that I get is like unsurpassed to see couples who, who achieve a parenthood after many years of lack of success is, it's so rewarding.

I don't tell Kev, but I do, I do this for nothing now as a hobby because it's, it, it is. And so I, I just see the next, you know, five, 10 years as being a real revolution. in IVF Scalability, Accessibility, AI. Robotics, it's, it's gonna be, it's gonna be great, it's gonna be great, and so that's what I would and it's gonna be not only great for, for our specialty, it's gonna be great for patients and, and great for the population.

[00:52:16] Griffin Jones: The next conversation I want to have with you is about that revolution and what standards of of evidence based or difference between the clinical care and for operations and engineering. That will have to be in the next conversation, but I am looking forward to having it already. It's been a pleasure to have you on the show, Charles.

I really look forward to having you back on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:52:39] Professor Charles Kingsland: Thanks a lot, Griffith. See you soon. 

[00:52:41] Griffin Jones: You know who brought this rich conversation with Professor Charles Kingsland to you for free Asian Egg Bank. Listen to the name Asian Egg Bank. You know your patient populations, you know their needs, so you probably know you're going to need Asian Egg Bank.

You might wanna start that relationship now if you haven't already. To learn more about Asian Egg Bank and the benefits of their frozen egg donation process, head to Asian Egg Bank. Dot com slash for dash professionals. That's asianeggbank.com/for-professionals. 

[00:53:14] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

 
 

234 Costly Mistakes to Avoid When Selling Your Fertility Practice with Dr. Brijinder S. Minhas and Robert Goodman

Today’s episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free, to you! Here, the Advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health.


In today's episode, we delve into the crucial aspects of selling a fertility practice, egg bank, surrogacy agency, or pharmacy with two industry experts: Dr. Brijinder Minhas and Robert Goodman from MidCap Advisors. MidCap Advisors is a leading middle-market investment bank specializing in the sale and acquisition of fertility centers and other businesses.

Dr. Minhas, a former fertility practice owner and lab director, and Robert Goodman, a seasoned health systems administrator, share their extensive experience in facilitating successful transactions. They provide valuable insights into what buyers are looking for in today’s market and common pitfalls that can impact a sale.

What You’ll Learn:

  • What buyers seek from fertility businesses in the 2024-2025 landscape.

  • Essential preparations and potential oversights for practice owners before selling.

  • An example from Dr. Minhas's own practice sale, highlighting an overlooked issue with accounts receivable/deferred revenue .

  • Strategies that sellers might inadvertently overlook, which could weaken their negotiation position.

Please note that this episode does not constitute legal advice or establish a consulting relationship. These insights are shared by seasoned professionals who have helped numerous practice owners navigate the complexities of selling their businesses.

Listen or read here.

Griffin

P.S. If you’re going to ASRM and think you might sell your practice, this is someone you want to talk to. Here’s Bob’s email.

MidCap Advisors
LinkedIn
Facebook

Dr. Brijinder S. Minhas
LinkedIn

Robert Goodman
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Robert Goodman: Because you're giving up leverage. You have no leverage in that case. You're competing against yourself. You're leaving money on the table. You're leaving deal structure on the table. You're not going to have a good outcome 

[00:00:08] Announcer: Today's episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free to you. Here, the advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health.

[00:00:26] Griffin Jones: Millions of dollars and your legacy with your patients and employees are on the line if you're thinking of selling your fertility practice or your egg bank or your surrogacy agency or your pharmacy. So I brought on two people that have helped many practice owners sell their practice, many business owners sell their businesses, and one of them was a fertility practice owner and sold his own.

He was a lab director and practice owner for decades.

The other was a practice administrator, health systems administrator for many decades.

They're Dr. Brijinder Minhas and Robert Goodman from MidCap Advisors. MidCap is a middle market investment bank that services fertility centers and other businesses on the sell side of a merger or acquisition.

Brijinder gives us an idea of what buyers are looking for from fertility businesses in a 2024 2025 world. Each of them get into specifics about what practices have to have in order before they sell, and where practice owners might think they're prepared, but something's been overlooked.

Brijinder gives an example of something that he thought that he had on lock, an example from the sale of his own practice.

That turned into something that his advisors help him catch.

An example coming from accounts payable.

Bob shares examples of strategies that sellers overlook that give their negotiation leverage away.

Nothing in this episode is legal advice.

Nothing is consulting that establishes a business relationship.

These are just insights from two seasoned experts.

I take conflicts of interest very seriously, so you should know that I have a financial relationship with MidCap Advisors. Part of the reason I like their model is because they have skin in the game. They do not charge any fee until and when a transaction is completed.

You might take advantage of that. If you're not going to ASRM or if you're listening to this episode after ASRM 2024, you might reach out to Bob and Brijinder for a chat. If you are going to ASRM 2024, take advantage of the timing. We'll link to Bob and Brijinder emails and put buttons in the places where this podcast episode is delivered.

Or go to midcapadvisors. com or find Bob and Brijinder on LinkedIn or just ask me and I'll make the introduction.

But my suggestion, whatever you do, do not sell your fertility practice or any fertility business without first talking to these guys.

The upside could be massive.

And the downside is 20 minutes gone at ASRM.

Enjoy this conversation about mistakes to avoid when selling a fertility practice or any fertility business with Dr. Brijinder Minhas and Robert Goodman from MidCap Advisors.

 

[00:02:46] Griffin Jones: Dr. Minhas, Brijinder, Mr. Goodman, Bob, welcome to each of you to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

[00:02:53] Robert Goodman: Thanks, Griffin. It's great to see you.

[00:02:55] Brijinder S Minhas: Thank you, Griffin. Wonderful being here. 

[00:02:58] Griffin Jones: You have both seen a lot of deals in the fertility space, both working in them and observing the market over the past few years. Let's start from just what's happening in the market. What's happened in the last year or so that might be different from previous years? What's the state of the marketplace in terms of fertility business transaction?

[00:03:21] Brijinder S Minhas: There's been a lot of consolidation in the fertility industry. Number of deals done in the last year are pretty much on track compared to the previous year. Consolidation has been not only in the clinical arena, but it's also happening in the suppliers of equipment and disposables utilized in the fertility industry. I think Griffin, you've been highlighting that as well with your IVF heroes. , if we take a broader perspective, the fertility clinic is a fully boiled machine that performs really only as good as the various contributors, namely the REIs, the embryologists, the nurses, the medical assistants and the admin. visit a fertility clinic. With the goal of walking out with a healthy baby, hopefully sooner than later, nine months, nine months to a year. IVF really is the most effective therapy that leads to a baby And IVF therapy is expensive.

There is a shortage of REIs and embryologists. Demand of services is greater than supply. And hence, this makes it a very fertile ground for private equity interest. 

[00:04:43] Griffin Jones: We haven't seen consolidation slow down. I would have thought that after 2022 or 2023, maybe we would have seen less mergers and acquisitions because fewer, bigger practices to buy, but is that not been the case?

[00:05:01] Robert Goodman: I think what we've seen, Griffin, is that a lot of the larger practices, yes, have been acquired, been merged. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And I think there's been a lot of attention paid to some of the smaller practices. That's some areas of interest for us. We think that's, for the large part, where some of the new opportunities are, and so we focused a little bit of our attention in that arena, where it's one doc, two docs, three doc kinds of practices, and I think what we've seen with respect to the buyers, provided equity back platform companies, is that some of them have opened their eyes to that as a market for future growth as well, and whether they look at them as add ons to, existing practices they might have in the general area, or they look at them as, new geographies for growth opportunities.

It falls into both of those categories.

[00:05:58] Griffin Jones: What's going on the buyer side? Are they being more selective? Are they going back on LOIs ever? Are they revising deal estimates. What's happening to them? 

 

[00:06:09] Robert Goodman: The buyers are, being cautious, I think everybody's being cautious. The interest rates, although we've recently heard from the Fed that, that the rates are going to maybe start coming down that has had an impact on, borrowing power and that sort of thing.

So that's helped to slow a few things down but that's starting to loosen up. There's definitely still a lot of dry powder out there and, one of the things that we try to do is present as all humanly possible on our end, a clean practice that can withstand the rigors of due diligence so that when we have an LOI that we think on behalf of our client is a solid one, that it can stand up to, again, the rigors of due diligence, and that shouldn't change theoretically. That shouldn't change the terms of the deal. , obviously, that's not going to always be the case and so we have to remain diligent in how we manage expectations of our clients and of the buyers.

[00:07:10] Griffin Jones: Tell me about what it is that you two guys do. 

 

 

[00:07:13] Robert Goodman: I'm both involved on the 

Client acquisition side of it, as well as the relationship development on a continuing and ongoing basis. Play that role, I always have, because life is about relationships and I enjoy that. For the most part that's where I sit at the outset with respect to going through the process of getting a deal done, there's a lot of relationship and hand holding and other kinds of things that take place and we both tend to do that sort of thing. 

[00:07:47] Brijinder S Minhas: We both have been operators all our lives, operators, owners so I think my role is again on the relationship side as well as having a deeper knowledge of the, and inner workings of a fertility practice, having been a partner for 20 plus years that I can walk through a practice and fairly get a good idea of, what's what, what's really going on. Bob and I don't get too deep into the number crunching. We leave that to the quants in our group who are much better at that, but we're a team of four professionals that are operating in the fertility space. 

[00:08:38] Robert Goodman: Brijinder. He is being modest. He's been in the fertility industry a long time. He knows a lot of people and his ability to open doors and make connections and that sort of thing because of that experience is extraordinary. And let alone the credibility that he gives us.

As investment bankers, to having someone with his qualifications on our team those are great attributes. 

[00:09:04] Griffin Jones: Brijinder, you owned a practice, didn't you? You 

were an owner in a practice 

as the lab director, is that right? 

[00:09:11] Brijinder S Minhas: Yes I was owner, I was lab director and chief operating officer. In a partnership, with my partner, and for a long time. Covered the science, the clinical, and the operation and the business side of things as well keen eye to the P&L, to make sure that we were on the right track.

[00:09:32] Griffin Jones: You know what those things in the P& L really mean, because that was your P& L for a long time. 

[00:09:41] Brijinder S Minhas: Absolutely. Yeah. 

[00:09:42] Griffin Jones: Can you give me some examples of common mistakes that practice owners make when they're getting ready to sell? 

[00:09:50] Robert Goodman: First of all, you need to have your house in order. And not having it in order, and I'll describe what that means in a second, I think that's a common mistake, and having your house in order means that you know your numbers, you know what your expenses are, you know how money's being spent you know your clinical data.

And that whole plethora of things, you understand it and it's not just left to some administrative person on your staff and an accountant who you talk to once a year. So I think that's really important and a sometimes a common mistake. And I think more true probably in smaller practices because capturing new patients, you're working with new patients, you're doing all the cycles and retrievals, etc.,

etc., and you're trying to run the business at the same time. Very difficult to do. Doctors haven't traditionally been trained in business and in being entrepreneurs, which is what these practice owners are.

So you can't blame them for that. I think some of the other things is that you need to be realistic.

About a whole variety of things, some of which you don't necessarily fully understand and can often manifest itself in when we start to talk about earnings before taxes and interest to taxes, depreciation, amortization, EBITDA, the phrase that everyone knows, and that's The the value of a practice.

And then how that dovetails with the multiples that are being paid by what the market dictates. And there are a lot of folks that don't understand completely what those things mean and how they interact with one another, and that's our role, is to help them understand all that. And to help them become realistic about what their expectations are.

And sometimes they're way out of whack from what the reality is, and sometimes, most of the time they're not. Most of the time they're really looking to really understand better what they're talking about. But also, we've run into a lot of physicians who have been through this process a couple of times, had failed circumstances for any one of a number of reasons but they do know what EBITDA is, they do know how multiples work And that sort of thing 

[00:12:04] Griffin Jones: Meaning they

had tried to do for their current business and they hadn't gone through? 

[00:12:09] Robert Goodman: Yeah, that's happened, I think along the lines of common mistakes, is that, going this alone without an advisor that really understands these deal structures and how to make these things work, I think that's one of the issues, and why.

Deals fall apart. Not the only reason. But that's certainly one of the reasons. And you don't maximize your value. You're leaving something on the table because you don't have any leverage, 

[00:12:35] Griffin Jones: And

Is that when these deals fall apart? That someone thinks that they have something in order that shows a higher valuation for the practice and then the buyer sees it a different way? Is that what's happening when the deals don't end up going through after an LOI is signed?

[00:12:55] Brijinder S Minhas: Yeah, The age old saying is that you can't always control your revenue, but you can always control your expenses. Revenue minus expenses gives you your profitability, which leads to everything else. It leads to your EBITDA and to , what turns you're going to get and what the enterprise value is going to look like. To add one more thing to what Bob said is having a realistic expectation of what your worth is, in the marketplace is very important because differences between expectations and reality can cause some heartache, it is our role, it is our job to bridge that gap and, bring the client clinic closer to reality. Not just closer, but to reality, and execute on the deal. 

[00:13:57] Griffin Jones: I want to ask about what having one's house in order really looks like, because just phrased that way, most practice owners would say, of course my house is in order. So specifically, what do you mean by that? 

[00:14:10] Brijinder S Minhas: Practices that have strong, Quality control programs and constantly are monitoring their expenses, their revenue, the employee satisfaction, and provide patient centric care with excellent clinical outcomes are much easier to get ready for sale. They're basically ready, if those things lacking? It takes a lot of work to get them to that point, someone who hasn't focused on their outcomes on a constant basis, constant improvement, getting that implantation rate up, up, you you want to be in the , top 5 percent in the country, and in reality, what we see is that folks that are doing really well clinically. The reason they're doing that clinically is because it's the intense focus. And if they have that focus on the clinical outcomes, there usually is focus on other aspects of it. Just for an example, you cannot run a practice with good outcomes, good patient satisfaction, and have unhappy employees, come through. It just won't work. So you see how these monitoring of all these things really is the key metric that one needs 

[00:15:41] Griffin Jones: did you discover? I imagine that when you sold your practice that there were things that you thought you really had a handle on, but when you got to the process, there might have been something you discovered that, no, this is something we need to improve or get a much better handle on. If I'm not assuming too much, what was that?

[00:16:02] Brijinder S Minhas: In our own experience, the biggest shock. Was when we finally came to the true up and everything, there were balances out there 50, 75, 100, When, after due diligence came out, that was owed to patients, or owed to the insurance company back.

And suddenly coming up with a big chunk of money was a rude awakening and embarrassing, think you're really on top of things, but that due diligence is a tough process, and that's our job at MidCap is to make sure that we find this stuff ahead of time and it's not once the deal is coming to, close that the other side's due diligence finds it.

[00:16:52] Griffin Jones: Who helped you find that?

[00:16:55] Brijinder S Minhas: Scott, our managing director, he's, really the one who, Cape, looked at that and then it was sorted out. It was sorted out, 

[00:17:05] Griffin Jones: I don't know if we established this earlier in the conversation, but when you sold your practice, you did not work for MidCap Advisors at the time. 

[00:17:12] Brijinder S Minhas: Scott Yoder and Bob Goodman were our investment bankers. After we sold Scott and Bob came to me and said what do you want to do now? And I said, I haven't figured that out yet. So they said we're going to turn you into an investment banker. So that was it. And so it's been, two, two and a half years now. So a new career for me after being on the bench for, 35 years, making thousands and thousands of babies.

[00:17:43] Griffin Jones: And as an example of something that even though you had a lot of experience and you thought that was something that you had locked down, something that someone else can help you find if they know what they're looking for Tell me more about what buyers are looking for now, Bob.

What things are they looking for in terms of key financial metrics? What do they walk away from?

[00:18:05] Robert Goodman: I think they really look at the key clinical metrics. Success rates and things like that, I think that's a big part of it, even up front, even though you think they're always finance, they're always looking at the financials, they're not. 

With respect to the financial KPIs, it runs the gamut of, , cash collections and, maintaining certain benchmarks with respect to that charge capture clean claim and denial rates when we're talking about third party payers, and especially in the states, days outstanding and receivables bad debt bad debt rate benchmarks and things like that pretty traditional kinds of things that you would see in any sort of practice. 

[00:18:49] Brijinder S Minhas: The other thing that the buyers are really looking for is an upward growth trajectory, your performance. In all aspects it's going up, you're seeing more new patients, you're doing more procedures, there's a growth trend. They're always looking for a growth trend. 

[00:19:08] Robert Goodman: Yeah, and when we were doing this post, during COVID, primarily post COVID, we, we'd want to say, all right, let us see what were your numbers before, through 2019. Let's somewhat ignore 2020. And what's it look like 2021 2022, and did you recover from, if you will having been closed in many instances for a period of time?

Did you recover from that and where are the projections going? , we're past all that now, to a large extent but that was certainly a factor, and we also factored in those days too the PPP money and that sort of thing, but,

[00:19:50] Griffin Jones: has been had on this show before if people should be continuing to make sure that, new patient numbers are still going 

up or if they should take their foot off the gas a little bit more because it's too late to make those investments.

 how do you view it?

[00:20:05] Brijinder S Minhas: No, I think the upward trajectory is important because it really shows the buyer that, you've kept your eye on everything. And you're working hard. the desire is to work hard. You're seeing more patients, you're doing more procedures, and then think of it. The buyer can come in with a larger infrastructure with more capital and can help you grow further. That's the best side of it.

[00:20:36] Robert Goodman: usually better marketing and being able to reach to a broader audience, perhaps, and that sort of thing, or come up with some unique maybe financing strategies for patients who are paying cash. Those kinds of things can come out of that sort of, the think tank of the buyer, so to speak.

And best practices, when you start to have conversations with, whether it's REIs at the other practices, or your practice manager with the other practice managers, they all face the same kinds of things, and some have overcome a lot of those things and have got some great and unique stories about how to make that stuff work.

[00:21:12] Griffin Jones: If

people aren't going to ASRM 2024, or if they are listening to this episode after ASRM 2024, then they could always do a phone call or a video meeting with you both, but If people are listening to this and going to ASRM before it happens this year, then maybe they could meet with you for a little bit of time. What do you usually talk about when you meet with someone for the very first time? Is it just getting to know you? what's that conversation usually like?

[00:21:47] Robert Goodman: It's definitely getting to know you because again, as we said earlier, this is very much a relationship based kind of thing, and so you need to try to establish a relationship. You look for things in common, people in common, perhaps certain other experiences perhaps in common and then we want to know , why are you talking to us?

What is it you're looking for? What are your goals? What are your objectives? And if there are things that we can help them with, that's great. So maybe there's opportunity. , and we do talk about , the reality of things, the house in order kinds of things.

And if it's more than a one physician or one REI practice. We want to make sure that all the REIs have the same mindset about what the next direction is. Because the worst thing that can happen, and we had this happen not in a fertility transaction, but in another one, and there were four owners, and everybody was on the same page, allegedly, up front.

And as we were getting closer and closer to close, one of them just went haywire and it almost cratered the deal. And there were a couple of tweaks that were made, and that person was satisfied, I guess is a good word, and so we were able to get the deal closed. So having everybody on the same page is important , as well.

[00:23:13] Griffin Jones: So that helps to engage early because it takes a while to get people on the same page sometimes. Are those conversations really only fruitful if someone is dead sure that they're going to sell their practice? Is it a waste of time if they're on the fence or they're thinking, maybe that's something I do three years out, four or five years out?

[00:23:36] Robert Goodman: No it's never a waste of time from our perspective. We're patient bankers. And so all that means is , we need to stay in touch. We need to keep involved. We need to understand, what are their hot buttons?

at what point When they reach, what kinds of milestones for themselves might they be ready to do it? And so we continue to stay in, in touch with them and maybe educate them to some degree. The way we work by the way, is we only get paid when a transaction closes.

We don't charge upfront retainers. We don't charge monthly fees. And so it becomes very important to us that we have very committed people to a transaction who at the end of the day makes it worthwhile for us to do this, because we do this work for free, so to speak 

[00:24:31] Griffin Jones: And that's

not the case for everyone, is it? Because I had one practice owner tell me that they had some sell side representation from an investment banker that they were not particularly happy with and felt that they had paid that person quite a bit already and that there was a sunk cost.

So that isn't the case that people are only paid upon a successful sale Is it? 

[00:24:56] Robert Goodman: that's correct. We've seen other deals presented by, common competitors of ours, where there's an upfront retainer, there's monthly fees, and then there's a success fee on top of that. And in a couple of instances, some businesses, those upfront fees and monthly fees get credited towards the ultimate success fee.

And others, it's, you add them all together. And but that's just not how we work. MidCap Advisors has been around for close to 25 years. We've done five, six billion dollars worth of business. Healthcare is just one of our verticals. Maybe not the newest, but close to it. That's just been the company philosophy.

[00:25:40] Griffin Jones: Tell me about some more of the lessons that you've learned doing these process. Brijinder gave the example of his own practice. Bob, you gave an example of someone that was outside of the sector but could have just as easily been in the fertility space. What are some other lessons that you've learned either from doing deals in the fertility space or they are similar enough that could have Just as easily happened in the fertility space that each of you have learned over the years. 

[00:26:12] Robert Goodman: It was a surgery center in this case and they were doing very poorly, and I was brought in by an attorney who I knew, who represented me in a company that I was a part owner of and we had just sold it, and, and I said, thank you to me, He got me involved with this and what we found was that the partners, in one case it was a management company, in another case it was the doctors, they couldn't get along at all and it was going downhill fast and I worked with a lawyer who was a workout attorney, bankruptcy attorney. Doctor said it was the management company's fault, the management company said it was the doctor's fault, and then within the doctor group, they were fighting among each other, and they were, they broke up, and whatever. It was just a mess. Can that happen here? Yeah, it could. It certainly could. 

[00:27:05] Griffin Jones: What's the moral of the story, Bob? What's the lesson learned there?

[00:27:09] Robert Goodman: The lesson learned is that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. 

[00:27:14] Brijinder S Minhas: I think balanced expectations and an understanding of how life is going to change post transaction is really important and it is necessary to prepare someone for a smooth transaction. From being an owner to becoming an employee. It's a mindset change.

It's a philosophical change, and you have to be ready for that, 

[00:27:40] Griffin Jones: how did you prepare for that? 

[00:27:42] Brijinder S Minhas: I did not have much trauma thanks to Bob and Scott because the day I walked out. I was working with Bob and Scott doing deals. 

[00:27:54] Griffin Jones: To think about what you want to do next? Is that part of preparing for the transition? 

[00:28:00] Brijinder S Minhas: Absolutely. Being the boss and calling the shots is very different than someone telling you what to do, one's got to then keep one's ego in check when you join a much bigger group and someone's going to tell you, hey, this is the direction we're going to take. 

[00:28:17] Robert Goodman: I think another element to this is when you're in a larger group and you've got older physicians and younger physicians, the older physicians, tend to view this as an exit strategy and the buyers want to understand how much time are you willing to commit to this in transition. Until we have to find another REI or whatever it might be.

And then on the younger physician's side, and they don't have to be part of the same transaction, I think there's just a comment about the younger ones are saying I'm not looking at this as an exit strategy, I'm only 48 years old or whatever and so the dynamic is different in terms of what they're looking for and they say to themselves, is this a company that I can grow with in some way, shape, or form?

Do I want to? And, what do I want? You begin to rethink what your career goals are, if you will. And I think that's always important. And we try to spend time with everybody. To understand those things, because at the end of the day, we've got a deal, everybody's agreed to the terms and we're in the documentation stage and the lawyers are working and creating documents, we're in the middle of that as well, not only helping to review the documents from a business standpoint and a consistency with the letter of intent but we're also involved with negotiating the employment agreements 

The spirit of those terms , that our doctors are looking for getting those codified in these agreements. And so that's, important for us. 'cause a doctor who's 65, who's gonna stick around for five more years his or her agreement is gonna look a little different than the guy that's 48 and .

Their career is not ending in five years as an REI or someone involved in the fertility industry.

[00:29:57] Griffin Jones: What strategies for improving practice evaluation, particular ones, do you find are often overlooked?

[00:30:06] Robert Goodman: I'm going to answer that in a self serving way. you use an advisor, and there have been studies done on this, so this isn't us making this up. If you use an advisor, you have the advantage of making it a competitive process so that you, by yourself, aren't negotiating with just one potential buyer.

Because you're giving up leverage. You have no leverage in that case. You're competing against yourself. You're leaving money on the table. You're leaving deal structure on the table. You're not going to have a good outcome. and working with folks like us that represent you and based on our compensation arrangement where we don't get paid until the end, until the deal closes, our interests are completely aligned where the more money you get, the more money we make and, it's not just about money because we want to make sure that as best we can that the right operators that are buying your practice, if you will are the ones you can get along the best with.

And you talked a little bit about this before Griffin one of the things that we do is we hold management meetings and we do our best and insist that the people who are going to be helping , you, To run your practice, not necessarily a day-to-Day person on site. 'cause that's usually someone that stays in place.

But someone who's your day-to-day regional manager, for example. Or we have those people involved and we make sure that we marry those two together, the practice owners with those people so that they know who they're getting and so they can see who they're gonna work with on day one for the transition and everything else.

 We're going to work with you to hone your your profitability, to hone your EBITDA, and to work through a process such that we're going to, in all likelihood, improve your true tradable EBITDA.

And it's been shown in studies that working with advisors like us, and I don't mean business brokers, I'm talking about real investment bankers like us, is that we can increase your EBITDA by as much as 25 percent by working with us there are certain expenses that buyers aren't going to get, or there are certain, you may be compensating yourself dramatically, and it's way over market, and so we pull that back And that gets into the bottom line and improves the EBITDA.

The other thing we do because of the competitive process where we're, at least at the outset talking to five, six, seven, eight different buyers, we're often in a position to, at the end of the day, compare and contrast one versus another. And sometimes, and many times, the multiples, instead of being an eight or a nine, might 8 1/2 or 9 1/2 or even 10.

And so we improve on that. Again, there have been studies that show that. 

[00:33:02] Griffin Jones: What would you add as strategies that are often overlooked?

[00:33:06] Brijinder S Minhas: I buyers come in different flavors, and when I say different flavors, not every platform, not every buyer has the same sort of modus operandi or how intrusive they're going to be in your practice, how much they're going to want to change. One thing that they all want to change, basically, is they want to get their network on the same EMR. And the reason for that is Data so if they've got 20 clinics on the platform, then they can easily co mingle that data and with, this is the age of AI, big data that can lead to a lot of improvement.

 There is no perfect EMR, We, as practitioners, we all have struggled, until you get really comfortable and fluent with the EMR. And the very thought that, here you're going to do a transaction and, you're going to, six months down the road, you're going to have a new EMR that usually does cause a hit to productivity, because it slows you down, and then some other platforms, want other changes or more intrusive changes. So it's very important that the seller and the buyer have a fairly good idea of what those changes post transaction are going to look like, you may not want to go with, just because someone is offering you more money, But, once it totally remodel your life, practice is your life, it's going to remodel your life, you may not want to do that. And that's also where we come in and say, hey, from our experience, this is the trademark of this organization and this is the way they go are you comfortable with 

[00:34:56] Griffin Jones: Not having an advisor during a process like this. This sounds like trying to sell a house without a real estate agent or trying to defend yourself in court without a defense attorney. It sounds and we know how well each of those examples go. I will say with regard to you. The relationship building is, now that we are engaged, not in selling my business, but just through the marketing that we do on Inside Reproductive Health, that didn't happen overnight either, and I think both of you were very good at building a relationship. We've known each other for At least a year, maybe closer to two, I don't know exactly 

how long, but it's always been about building the relationship, I never felt like you were trying to sell me, I never felt like you were trying to convince me of things just, you're both good at it. I'm not at actually investing in a relationship and it cost me nothing to say that. If people want to meet with you at ASRM or if they're not going ASRM or they're listening to this afterward and they want to get on a call or a Zoom with you, are you okay with me sharing your E mail addresses in, in the page that this goes out, in the e mails that this goes out.

Are you okay with me doing it? People can always also ask me to make an introduction, and I will if they're more comfortable with that, but would you be alright with that, with people reaching out to you?

[00:36:18] Robert Goodman: yes yeah, Email addresses and cell phone numbers are fine. 

[00:36:22] Brijinder S Minhas: cell phones.

[00:36:24] Robert Goodman: And you have both of our cell phone numbers too.

[00:36:30] Griffin Jones: so if people want those, they can get a hold of me, but Bob and Brijinder, I hope people take advantage of that. It makes a lot of sense, too. And there's no downside to it especially if they're going to ASRM, or it's about that time.

I look forward to having both of you back on the program and digging into some of these topics even more. Thank you both for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:36:55] Robert Goodman: Thank you,Griffin. 

[00:36:57] Announcer: Today's episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free to you. Here, the advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health. 

 
 

233 Pay For Baby. A Complete Overhaul of IVF Payment with Nader AlSalim

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


PAY. FOR. BABY.

Fertility specialists sell a vital service that no one truly desires to purchase—a grueling IVF cycle—yet it's essential for achieving what patients desperately want: a baby. 

Nader AlSalim introduces an innovative model where patients pay only after successfully having a child, shifting the financial risk away from them. 

This episode is a must-listen for CEOs, practice owners, and revenue cycle managers looking to embrace this transformative approach.

Key Takeaways:

  • Understanding the true need behind fertility services: patients want a baby, not an IVF cycle.

  • The ethical dilemma: balancing risk between patients and providers.

  • Introduction to Gaia’s model, where patients pay only upon successful outcomes.

  • Insight into how innovation in fertility services should extend beyond the IVF lab.

  • Practical advice for revenue cycle managers on implementing this model efficiently...

Enjoy this insightful conversation with Nader AlSalim and explore how your practice can adopt these innovative strategies.
Griffin

P.S. My suggestion--try to meet with Gaia at ASRM. Or Email them here.

Nader AlSalim
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Nader AlSalim: On a simple, basic, fundamental human right, do you think it is right that the difference between me having a child or you not having one is how much money I had? And if you want to distill it to that fairness, and I personally get accused of finding that David and Goliath story all the time, but that's just deeply unfair, it's just wrong on so many levels

[00:00:18] Announcer: Today's episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free to you. Here, the advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health.

[00:00:36] Griffin Jones: Fertility doctors, you sell something that no one wants. You sell and perform something that people very much need, but think of it in those terms. No one wants to buy an IVF cycle. They want a baby. The risk of what you do in the case of most patients is placed on them.

Is that fair? Heck no. Is it fair for that risk to just be transferred to you? I don't think that's fair either.

Someone else needs to de risk this process for each of you. Someone with an exceptional model. 

I'm going to introduce you to Nader AlSalim. He's the founder of a company called Gaia. I had dinner with him last ASRM and the whole time I was thinking, this is someone you're going to want to talk to.

CEOs and practice owners, he talks about how innovation needs to stop being isolated to the IVF lab, innovating so that after a protection fee, patients only pay for a baby.

But how do you incentivize your revenue cycle managers to implement?

What do revenue cycle managers really want? Revenue cycle managers, the latter part of this episode is for you. The fastest payer on the market, no prior auths and everything done in three clicks. Listen up.

We're putting contact links and buttons to reach out to Gaia everywhere this podcast is distributed. If you're in the car driving and you can't click on anything, Gaia is spelled G A I A. Find their contact info on their website. But if you're listening to this prior to ASRM 2024, try to get on that or schedule.

Talk to him about one of these topics. Challenge him if you want, but have these conversations now or be an instrument of an unfair past.

Enjoy this conversation with Nader AlSalim, founder and CEO of Gaia.

 

[00:02:07] Griffin Jones: Mr. AlSalim, AlSalim, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast.

[00:02:11] Nader AlSalim: Thank you, Griffin. Thank you for having me. Great to be here.

[00:02:14] Griffin Jones: Be agnostic for a moment. Be a Vulcan from the Star Trek world who, this logical race that isn't from this world, that doesn't have emotion, they only think in logic. You come to the planet Earth and you see how IVF is paid for, is sold, you have to report that back to the Vulcans in a completely passionless way. Logical manner. in your report?

 

[00:02:43] Nader AlSalim: You wouldn't believe I came down to earth and there is this industry that have seen explosive growth by selling something that people don't want. Imagine they start selling something that people want.

[00:02:52] Griffin Jones: Tell me about that. What do you mean by that?

[00:02:55] Nader AlSalim: Let's say I went down and a bunch of excellent doctors and excellent providers That are selling people cycles of IVF. They may or may not lead the result that they want, but people want to buy babies, but people are buying cycles, and there's this crazy mismatch between what people want to buy and people, what providers are selling, and that created such a misalignment of incentives, then we structured the whole economics of that model On what I want to buy and what you want to sell, and given that it's the only time in healthcare that it's not the same commodity, and I would report that I found this exceptionally shocking.

[00:03:25] Griffin Jones: So it is exceptional in your view and with regard to the rest of healthcare.

[00:03:31] Nader AlSalim: What part of healthcare do you buy without any control or visibility on the outcome? Yet you pay for the price regardless. Because all of healthcare is a marginal improvement, and you'd argue that the component of value based when it comes to any point solution is a gradual improvement on a scale. But when it comes to fertility treatments, it's the only time you couldn't have a more binary outcome. And you can measure it, yet you're paying for the underlying unit of that treatment, not the outcome of that treatment. I

[00:03:57] Griffin Jones: It's hard to think of this passionatelessly, isn't it? Because I looked at your your company's Instagram, and a few weeks back. There was a post that says, how the F are we going to pay for this? And I looked at the comments of what people say, and some people were saying, I had to get a high interest loan.

I just didn't have , another way of being able to do that. Other people were saying it was all of our savings. Another person says side gigs, extra shifts, no vacations, savings, all of it. It's hard to. see people going through that and then just think of it in an actuarial sense, isn't it? 

[00:04:41] Nader AlSalim: I couldn't agree more, and I think, like I'll add, people remortgage. If you go on, crowdfunding platforms today, you'll see pages for families that are crowdfunding for IVF journeys. People remortgage their own house. People go to friends and family. Grandparents, I think, fund about 20 percent of treatment.

 I think the very ugly reason that those treatments are expensive is because they can afford to be. Because people will pay everything they have and they don't have for a baby. And you have this unique dynamic where demand is fairly inelastic because of that price of the hope that it's fairly intangible.

[00:05:13] Nader AlSalim: And usually the two forces that exist in order to put pressure down on pricing are either a public health care payer, which does not exist in the U. S., or sufficient insurance coverage to put pressure on pricing, which also does not exist. Absence of those two forces that stabilize prices, everybody reports that these things are expensive, but nobody reports why are they expensive.

And the reason is You can be as expensive as your local market dynamic allow you to be because you're pricing an inelastic demand into a commoditized product, being a cycle, not linked to the outcome. So you create exactly what you've just seen, where people will wonder how would they fund this? And they go to really bizarre means on how to fund that put them at more financial risk than they would otherwise, which adds a lot of more strain to what is emotionally and physically a very painful experience.

[00:06:00] Griffin Jones: One of the things that you said earlier, thinking of if you were reporting back to Planet Vulcan that there are people that are in pursuit of an outcome, but they're paying for a method regardless of the outcome. Is it possible now to get to this world that David Sable has been talking about of pay for baby, not for cycle? Is it possible to be there now?

[00:06:27] Nader AlSalim: I think it is possible to be there now, and I don't want to put that pressure on the providers themselves, and I think the provision of care and the payment of care is the crux of why we've created the healthcare system in the U. S. that is so fundamentally broken because of the misalignment of incentives.

Is there a possibility for you can appear to come and say, I'm going to move this market from a cycle basis to outcome basis. I think the answer is yes. And there is no breaking news in this, right? No one wants to buy an IVF cycle. And to quote our dear friend David Sable again, He'll be the first to tell you that certainly no one wants to pay for a negative cycle.

The ability to transfer the risk of a bad outcome, and bad outcome, no baby, from a patient to the provider will be an enormous competitive advantage. And what we do, which a lot of people hold as like innovation, I would call as a great form of dinosaur insurance. We apply a 19th century insurance model to a 21st century problem, and much of that innovation happened by moving the risk of a negative outcome from the provider onto the patient onto us.

For And managing that risk is the business that the patient should be in, because again, I do not want anyone to pay if they don't have the outcome they desire.

[00:07:37] Griffin Jones: But the providers can't assume the risk on their own, right? Or I think it would be extremely difficult to say that just the providers, without having additional help, would be able to say, we're just charging you if there is a successful live birth. Would that be possible. Why do they need the help of someone else?

[00:08:00] Nader AlSalim: Because I don't think the provider should be in the business of risk management. I think the provider should be in the business of care management. And the separation of the two, by having a specialized risk management on top of your care delivery, that is at arm's length, Where you're not betting against your own odds because the house will always have better information asymmetry, which is a critical problem in IVF to begin with.

You are creating a risk bearing business outside of the provider that is interacting with the patient, where the provider gets paid regardless of the outcome, and I'm managing the risk on someone else's behalf. I do think it creates a cleaner transfer of risk between all three parties in a much more transparent way.

to render the service versus a wraparound by which I provide the service and I provide the warranty.

[00:08:44] Griffin Jones: when you said a new way to pay for this, Gaia is a new way to pay for this. Your model is different though than that 19th century insurance model. What are the differences? E,

[00:08:58] Nader AlSalim: I think the fundamental difference where Gaia operates in as a business model to begin with is we said there shouldn't be a way by which you're paying this on a cycle basis because it doesn't make any sense because of what we said earlier. You shouldn't buy this in bulk because healthcare should not be bought in bulk in order to get some value out of it.

What should be is a better way to predict the risk on two levels, on an individual patient level and on a clinic level. And I want to reflect the personalized risk of that patient performing at that clinic in the form of any other insurance that you buy that would calculate your personal chances of something happening based on your own personal data.

And in this case, it could be your biomarkers, it could be your clinical data, it could be the clinic's performance, and so on and so forth. And then the way this is very different fundamentally is we shifted the market from a fee for service into an outcome based and shifting that not on a select few or on those who are eligible, shifting that on every single person that goes through the IVF so that we're pricing the risk, not rejecting the risk, and we're passing that on risk to the patient.

It's how this is highly differentiated because with Gaia,

[00:10:12] Griffin Jones: explain that to me. The difference between pricing, the risk versus rejecting the risk.

[00:10:16] Nader AlSalim: absolutely, when you put a LinkedIn post the other day and you're asking for questions, there's a gentleman who asked a very good question, like, how do I know that Gaia is not cherry picking the risk, which is a very valid question because you could design like risk shared programs and you can say 1 in 10 people will be eligible.

So that's a shared risk program where I cherry the risk for those who qualify. And Guy's approach is a little bit different. We said, our job is to understand Griffin's chances of success on an individual basis, and for me to price the risk reflecting your probability of success. My job is not to lump you with a 35 year old.

My job is not to say, this is the laws of averages. My job is not to say that people like you will have chances of X. I actually want to understand your own performance as a patient, and I want to correlate that with the patient's performance at that clinic. And together, I move very close to the unit of risk that I'm measuring, which is the predictability of IVF as an outcome.

And if I can do that, why can't I underwrite it? And what we pride ourselves here, and we try to do a lot of education, no two people at Gaia will have the same price to start IVF. Because no two people will have identical risk, not because they happen to be 35, not because they happen to have a PCOS or any other condition.

And I think that's highly differentiating because then you're moving that risk unit to the individual and then you're superimposing the clinic performance on that individual. So you really move as close to reality or to the truth as possible. And then you'd say my job is to give you a price for that risk.

Your job, if you want to accept it or not, as opposed to say you're eligible, you're not eligible. And today, Our eligibility is about 92 percent so 9 out of 10 will walk away with a prize to reflect their chances.

[00:11:49] Griffin Jones: What's insufficient about the current shared risk programs that have been introduced. What's the lacking with those types of programs? 

[00:11:59] Nader AlSalim: I'm not criticizing them, I think they were great when they were introduced and Some of them are going on for 30 years and they're clearly like a bulk of innovation if you go back all the way to when they started. I think there is a bit of the one size fits all element that does not work.

I think there is a little bit of the standardization of the package is based on if Griffin needs four cycles of IVF and Nader needs two cycles of IVF, the solution is not to sell them both three.

And back in the day when we didn't have the data that will allow us to go on an actuarial level of what is the relative performance of each cycle and the enhanced probability of each cycle. That was the easy approach to create these shared risk programs based on multi cycle approach.

But today, if Griffin needs four and Adam needs two, you need four and I need two, and both of us will not use three because someone would have overpaid or underpaid by one, and we're eliminating that sort of bundling from the system. A group basis to an individual basis.

[00:12:53] Griffin Jones: How did you get into all of this, both from the actuarial background and why the fertility space?

[00:13:01] Nader AlSalim: I do ask myself that question a lot. And I think the answer is it's a complete accident. My story is very well documented and I do not want to bore yet another podcast audience with it, but it's the, reason I have a child. I had a hundred thousand dollars to spare, so I spent five.

IVF cycles in over three years in two clinics in two countries, and you wouldn't believe it, but I would go to the doctor after every failed cycle and ask a simple question, what happened and what happens next? And they go, we don't know. And I've always thought what an insane answer. And yet, I do exactly the same thing and expect a different outcome, which is the definition of being insane.

I would show up the next day and pony up 15, 000 and say I'm ready to go, let's go. And it's such a bizarre experience because that emotional lottery of going round after round expecting a different result, but you actually don't know what happened and you don't know what informed the next decision.

And that journey took a while. And then the more I started being part of that journey as a patient myself, you crystallize the problem, right? The better the treatment gets at solving the infertility, the more intolerable the lack of access or the lack of better outcome becomes. But the reality, which is What informs sort of the business model around being insurance or spending a lot of time on actuarial is Cost remains the greatest barrier to infertility anyway You cut it or slice it You've seen the stats all over the news and you've seen how many babies out of a hundred in the US are born out of IVF And how many people in other parts of the world and it's not like people from other parts of the world like IVF more than the US does it just cost an arm and a leg and it's free in many other places and What I kept thinking about is the misalignment of the unit of sale versus the unit of outcome I kept going back to the lack of someone in the middle who's de risking the probability of a negative outcome.

And I kept going back to not being able to understand the patient risk at a very small and accurate unit. And in any other forms of insurance, and I'll tell you a little bit more about my background earlier, but in any form of insurance and the way it works in multiple contexts in finance.

There is this old saying, if you can predict it, you can price it. And if I can predict it, why can't I price it? If I can predict it, why can't I underwrite the risk of it? If I can predict the probability of a hurricane in a certain state that I can design a financial instrument that protects against that hurricane, why is it different?

When it comes to a woman having a child, because so long as it's non random, and I can predict it with a degree of accuracy, certainly means I can negate that risk of a negative outcome by providing an underlying insurance against that risk not happening. And I started going down that path, and it didn't evolve much, to be honest.

It evolved in maybe in certain nuance of the product and the structure, but the premise of it on day one, After year four it's exactly the same. We want to be the first value based underwriter of fertility treatments moving that market from the unit of a retail sale of a cycle to that of an outcome.

[00:16:15] Griffin Jones: If I can predict it, why can't I price it? Why have the traditional insurance models not been sufficient in being able to achieve that? 

[00:16:27] Nader AlSalim: Lack of data, lack of will, lack of innovation, all three. I think if you're an insurer of a certain scale, even when I started, people would think fertility is like this niche little problem that affects a small percentage of the population, so on their list of priority, it's probably very low. And what is the low hanging fruit if you are a large insurer with a large book that is managing billions of volumes of other forms of insurance and healthcare on its own is hard to navigate, so the point solutions even gets relegated to second order.

 Two, I think, absent a mandate, there is a lack of care, meaning if you can get away without providing that cover, why would you?

And lack of innovation. And I I don't think you look at the insurance world and you think, what an innovative bunch.

[00:17:15] Griffin Jones: That's true. I don't think the model has changed much, at least not from the consumer perspective for decades as far as I can tell being a consumer. I think we need to get into the mechanics of how Gaia works a little bit, because it is radically different than these previous uninnovative models, as far as I can tell. And I don't think that. I can paint the picture for people at the level of detail that you can. Tell me about how GAIA works.

[00:17:53] Nader AlSalim: I'll give you an example on our IVF product, which is one of our products, but I'll give you an example because it's simple and it's straightforward. So you come to me and I predict the risk of your success and failure over a cumulative rounds of IVF up to six cycles. And then that risk will tell me what is the level of protection fee that you need to pay in order to start.

You tell me what is a protection fee. A protection fee is akin to a premium. You pay it at the beginning of a cycle. It is a percentage of the total cost of a cycle. It is personalized to reflect your own chances of success. You pay me that protection fee at the start. It's about 25 percent of the cost of a cycle.

I pay the clinic on your behalf. You don't have to worry about a single payment that comes your way. Every single payment, every single line item, every single treatment that the clinic will charge you, I will pay it on your behalf. All you have to part way is that 25 percent of the cost at the beginning.

Then you go do the cycles that you'd want. When you have a baby, you pay me 400 a month. If you don't have a baby, you pay me nothing.

[00:18:48] Griffin Jones: This is a mix of insurance and patient financing, isn't

[00:18:54] Nader AlSalim: Correct, and I think it's a good point that you picked on. Because what we do not do, and I think it's such a lazy way to label Gaia, we're not a financing option. We're far from a financing option. We're not in the business of financing IVF. I don't think that's remotely close to anything that we do.

Because we don't finance the process, we finance the outcome. So the example that I just spoke to, financing only kicks in to pay me back what I paid on your behalf, in case you walked away with a child. So what you're financing is the outcome. If there is no outcome, there is no financing.

Because I'm going to waive the cost of the treatment that I've paid on your behalf.

[00:19:32] Griffin Jones: And the difference between this and shared risk is that in traditional shared risk, I would pay a much higher fee. Premium, if I were not to have a baby after a certain number of cycles but this is, I pay a certain amount, I pay a percentage of the IVF cycle, that is the protection fee, and then I either have a baby, and then I pay over time, or I don't and I pay nothing.

Is that the difference between this and traditional shared risk? 

[00:20:06] Nader AlSalim: correct. Amongst other nuance, but the crux of the difference is that you're not overpaying for cycles you do not use. Repaying the cycles that you use in order to get the outcome that you want, whether it's one, whether it's two, whether it's three. And I think that's fundamentally different than you committing to paying three cycles regardless of what the outcome is and whether you got pregnant out of one, two, or three, it's the same bill.

It's just a much more fairer way to estimate that risk and get to charge for that risk.

 How does 

[00:20:31] Griffin Jones: this work in the UK? 

[00:20:33] Nader AlSalim: The national health system in the UK is such a source of pride for all of us. But I think the reality is When it comes to fertility treatments, it does fail. We build this world class healthcare system that is publicly funded, but when it comes to the elective treatment of fertility treatments, we just don't do it sufficiently.

The NHS funds about 25 percent of all treatments in the UK, and 75 percent of those treatments are privately funded. If you think about it and how it equates to the U. S., it's very similar to how the employer market plays out with a cash payer. So about 25 percent of it is covered by the employer of some sort through your house plan, and about 75 percent of it is paid out of pocket.

So similar dynamic from that. If you double click on the 75%, i. e. how do people like you and I pay for it if they're not covered by their employers, it's a very similar pattern to how the U. S. market pays for it. It's a bunch of things, right? Savings, loans, credit cards, friends and family, yadda.

From a market structure and dynamic, it's exactly the same, the little contribution that happens from the public healthcare system, it's the same that happens from the employer in the U. S., and then the combination of them opens up a big market for it comes to the cash payer. The two things that are different here is we do not have a private healthcare model in the U.

K. There isn't that model. People don't buy private healthcare the way that they do it in the U. S., especially from an insurance perspective. For And especially from a coverage perspective, they don't. It's often these elective treatments that fall outside of the public health care spending that gets paid out of cash.

So the level of awareness on how to pay for IVF and how to optimize for the outcomes, whether it's egg freezing, embryo batching, so on and so forth, is weaker as it compares. So against that backdrop, we've launched here two and a half years ago, and the success that we've had is a true reflection that there was a big need in the market because the market was not as big as it needed to be because a lot of people are priced out.

And two and a half years in, hundreds of people through the program, we've underwritten thousands of cycles now. I still think most human KPI, we're now delivering a baby every six days in the UK. With that in mind, if you look at the composition of the people that we're serving, 20 percent of the people that we're serving, for example, today are same sex couples.

Today, in the UK, they don't qualify for any form of funding. And you look at the diversity of the regions that we're covering, and you look at the difference that we're making on those people's lives, because A lot of the members, and you see it through a lot of the testimonies that come through, will tell you very openly that if it weren't for that protection, if it weren't for that early place to start, if it wasn't for that low cost to start, they just wouldn't embark on a family.

So for you to understand that the difference that you're making is you are the reason why this family exists or not, it's a very humbling metric by which we should hold ourselves accountable to how much we can expand the market. Because what annoys me a lot, especially about the U. S.

market, is we decided to fantasize about how to improve access for those who already have access. 

[00:23:26] Griffin Jones: Upper class people that can afford it, for example, and then they get employer coverage because they are the people that work for the type of companies in the type of positions where employer coverage is

[00:23:39] Nader AlSalim: precisely, and we said, for those people, we're just not going to stop innovating. Because you already have access, but we're going to make our access much better. But if you're not working for Google, tough luck. If you're a public school teacher from Ohio, we don't care enough about you. And we're just not going to innovate because you don't deserve the same chance of having a family.

As someone who happened to be employed by an employer within a certain class that allowed their employees. And I think there couldn't be anything morally wrong than that. I'm not saying this is bad we should innovate across the spectrum. And those people deserve better access, and if you have them easy, deserve better access.

But we should just not leave people out. And what's happening today, Griffin, we are leaving people out. And we are sending the message that we don't care about you. On

[00:24:21] Griffin Jones: Tell me more about that because I've heard you talk about a value based mission and These types of values seem to be what you're talking about now, but how does that integrate into what you're doing?

[00:24:35] Nader AlSalim: a very lofty vision don't you want a world where anyone who wants a family can?

On a simple, basic, fundamental human right, do you think it is right that the difference between me having a child or you not having one is how much money I had? And if you want to distill it to that fairness, and I personally get accused of finding that David and Goliath story all the time, but that's just deeply unfair, it's just wrong on so many levels.

And it's not only for people who want treatment, just imagine if you're modeling what's future behavior is going to be in terms of consumption, it's becoming very apparent that it's outside of heterosexual couples that are starting treatment. It's, think about the LGBTQ families that are being formed, think about rare disease risk and people who would need to eliminate that risk of inherited disease by using IVF.

Think about oncology patients that have to freeze because. Because obviously, not by choice, think about the large and growing elective treatments such as social egg freezing. And today, we've created a world where you'd say, all of that is available if you have the means, and all of that is unavailable if you don't.

I think that's the fundamental value that, that, that grounds us here. That we need to make sure that there is equity, and we need to level, the playing field between those who don't have the means and those who do. 

[00:25:55] Griffin Jones: Why now, though? Why not 5 or 10 years ago? Why not 5 or 10 years from now? What inflection points are happening in the fertility space now? 

[00:26:07] Nader AlSalim: 

There has been an explosive growth in the last 10 to 20 years where when you're witnessing that growth, you're usually not worried much about where the new wave of growth comes. And I think that's what pertained in the fertility space. I will quote, from Pinnacle innovation should stop being in the lab.

And I think that's the inflection point that's really happening in fertility. 

[00:26:26] Griffin Jones: Innovation should stop being isolated to the

[00:26:29] Nader AlSalim: Correct innovation is not restricted to the lab. And I think that's a good point, because that is the inflection point that's happening, that is allowing people to understand that there is a bigger market.

We're far off the true potential of the market. The goal of one million baby a month may seem lofty, but it's not lofty, it's basic math. And given where we are versus where we need to be, there is a lot of innovation that needed to happen yesterday so that we can catch up on that. And innovation should not be restricted to what happens in the lab as it has been for the last 20 to 30 years.

And on that spectrum, there is a lot of things that need to happen. , there are mighty and exciting companies I love what Josh and Alan are doing at Conceivable, with the aim to reinvent, the whole hardware and software of it, but also reinvent the lab, and we need to innovate on the most basic unit of treatment.

But we also need to go further to say, yes, we're innovating on what's happening in the lab and how the lab and the services are rendered, but how about we innovate on how we sell it and how we price it and how we package it. And that end to end is now happening, because people have realized that the market has grown to a certain level, yet the market that is priced outside, that we're not serving, is far bigger than the market that we're truly serving today.

And if you want to realize the opportunity, whether you want to chase the missing babies, or you want to chase the missing dollars, whatever is your incentive, that market should be. At the crux of innovation right now, or that inflection point, as you say. 

[00:27:53] Griffin Jones: Everything that you've said to me thus far makes complete sense and sounds like it could completely transform access to care in a way that we have not been able to achieve thus far because this is a meaningfully different model, Nader, but now I want to get to a sticky point, a potential bottleneck, which is clinics.

For Clinic operations. How do you work with all of them? And let me start with another one of those questions that came from one of our listeners on LinkedIn, which is what about reimbursement rates and what about undercutting clinics? And when I've heard clinics talk about The employer benefits groups or insurance coverage in the past, sometimes they like a lot of things about them, but other times they will show me what they're being reimbursed, and it's a fraction of what they're getting, and then they're effectively subsidizing the cost. So So, how what's the incentive for clinics?

[00:28:56] Nader AlSalim: It is a good sticky point, by the way, and I think if you go to clinics today versus five years and you contract how they feel about the emerging payers in the employer space, you'll have a very different response to the initial excitement of all that added volume versus the actual cents on the dollar that they collect from all that added volume.

And I think this is our opportunity, quite frankly, because there is a fatigue from payers, not only from a reimbursement rate, from how they work. From authorization, from inefficient processes, legacy systems, you name it, right? The quickest eye roll that you will get is talking to another revenue cycle management personnel and telling them, I'm a new payer.

And that doesn't stop at I'm collecting less cents on a dollar. That goes all the way to the process. I would like to really use this as an opportunity for shameless self marketing, and say there needs to be an emergent of a new payer, a fundamentally different payer, that does not stop and start at better reimbursement rate, but goes all the way to making the life of the revenue cycle management personnel at a clinic substantially better, so that you're incentivizing them to work with you, not being a payee.

Arm twisted to work with you. Number two is,

contracts that last are by definition fair to both parties and there is enough juice in them so that they sustain themselves without one being squeezed more than the other should. Clinics margins are no rocket science. Where clinics do hurt is not rocket science. We're very transparent about , what do we need in order to make the math work.

So long as we're in the money and we're passing some of that to the clinics so they continue doing the great service that they do and getting paid for it. No one wants to get the clinic out of business, and certainly I don't want to enter into a contract where I squeeze the clinic to the point by which rendering the service is no longer viable.

But I'm happy because I'm squeezing them because of the margin, because that is not equitable when it comes to creating the power relationship I want to create with a clinic. We're building a network. We're building a high performing network. It doesn't mean that we're going to work with every single clinic.

It means that we're going to work with a select few and that we're able to reward their excellence because we are outcome based as opposed to volume based. It also means it's very important to us. As a new payer, to own the end to end experience substantially better than any other clinic and reward them on a better reimbursement rate, but also make sure that we're making their life easier, because there are horror stories of how payers get paid and what's the process and what's the mechanics that we're trying to eliminate by being a technology focused company as opposed to a paper based company pushing volume. 

[00:31:22] Griffin Jones: I want to pull out something that you said about incentivizing revenue cycle management and the people that are behind the implementation, because I bet all of the CEOs listening are just picking up what you're saying, and they see it, and they see the value in it. I would expect that their challenge would be, How do I implement this?

How do I incentivize my middle managers, those people that implement, to get on board? 

[00:31:55] Nader AlSalim: I always say with all due respect a lot of the CEOs get super excited about Gaia and that's wonderful. The champions within any provider network is the revenue cycle management decision makers that will make this happen or not make this happen. And designing a seamless process What do they want is the question, right?

They want simplicity, they already have so many things to do and so many pairs to deal with and so many obscure and legacy systems to deal with. Reducing the friction points between clinical referral pathways, authorization, the lack of prior authorization, agreeing everything up front, transparent rate system.

No back and forth. We've eliminated all of that, so we're creating almost no friction, and we always say we'll contract on three clicks between you seeing a patient and you referring a patient and you getting paid versus filling ungodly long forms, faxing it to somewhere in the ether, waiting for a respond that may or may not come so that you can get paid 180 days before.

We're the fastest payer in the market today. We pay upon the completion of any service. On a scheduled timeline, on a pre agreed schedule, with no back and forth and no prior authorization. And that alone will improve the life of anyone substantially better than anyone that you've seen from a payer perspective.

[00:33:14] Griffin Jones: The revenue cycle manager's ears are probably perking up right now, but I am not a revenue cycle manager, so explain how this is different from the normal process. You alluded to it a bit with faxes and longer terms, but tell me about how the process often looks versus how it looks in your process.

[00:33:34] Nader AlSalim: What do they want? They want to get paid the closest number to their cash dollar in the fastest possible way by filling the least amount of forms. That's what they want, right? Forget all the fancy acronyms, forget all the, just forget it. We make sure that they get the closest cent on the dollar to their cash price, and they get paid the quickest possible, with the least amount of clicks that they need to click on in order to submit a form in order to get paid.

That's what we do. And if you compare us to a normal process, any of these metrics, we cut it by a half, if not more. An average payer takes 120 days to pay an invoice. We pay in 30.

That alone would save a ton from the revenue cycle management perspective by how much they need to chase a payment. And how much they need to wait on a payment of an opportunity cost of their dollars not being sent versus someone who will honor the payment on a schedule in a very transparent way.

[00:34:30] Griffin Jones: I know you're not in the lead gen business per se, but it also seems to me like you could help clinics with their patient pipeline because you have Patients that find you at the consumer level and get qualified, they get in your system, and a good percentage of them aren't matched a clinic. Am I inferring too much about how You would help with that, but it seems to me like you've got a lot of patients then need a clinic to go to.

[00:35:06] Nader AlSalim: I think you're right to start with it that it's a not lead gen model we say with clinics as we build the network. Two thirds of the people that come to Gaia today, top of the funnel, do not have a clinic in mind, which is telling you something very important, two thirds. It's telling you something that we both know, which is people are beginning the journey of through how do I pay for this thing versus where do I go?

And if they're coming to me to figure out how to pay, the next natural step in that process is to send them somewhere to go. And what we do, without any monetization of any effect, because that's the bi directional partnership that we would have with the clinic, and that's the point of working with a select few of networks, not too many, is in every area we start directing the people that don't have a clinic in mind to a default clinic that we work with, so that this becomes us sending them qualified leads that are interested in pursuing treatment that are very close, like we're very low in the funnel, to the clinic network that we have.

So that our providers get the first dibs at sending them that traffic before they go and they try to find somewhere else or they shop somewhere else and they go outside. And it's been a very effective, bi directional, highly appreciated flow of traffic that we gather. That is outside of the remit of the clinic.

There is also a concept of an arm's length and who do they trust more as the advisor to come and start the journey. You've seen a lot of emerging brands, whether it's on communities or support, or any of the ancillary business that people come to them in order to recommend the clinic. People struggle, like, how do I fund this treatment?

How do I pay for it? Is there any other solution other than what exists today? And people come to us and, again, if two thirds of the traffic comes directly to us before a clinic, that will tell you a lot about the direction of travel.

[00:36:51] Griffin Jones: It seems to me like that might also help with retention. Some people might say I've got a full pipeline, but then, They are losing patients in between cycles or they're losing people in between new patient consult and IVF. How does this help with conversion or patient retention?

[00:37:12] Nader AlSalim:

I think such a good point, and I was surprised to see that not a lot of clinics do actually measure retention. And some of them do, and some of them don't. Some of them measure the unit of the first sale or cycle that they do versus how many cycles that they sell on a journey. And with Gaia today, 80 percent or 78 percent of the people that walk through the door end up with a baby on an average of 2.

2 cycles. If you see what do they do in comparison to the national average, that's about 60 percent uplift number of cycles. Of what they would've done otherwise. So a good sticking point has always been patients with us will go further. When they go further. That means two things happen. They stick with you for longer, you increase the revenue per patient, but you also see the success outcome of that because they've stuck with you and they didn't go somewhere else and someone else picked up the benefit of that.

So you don't only see the LTV increase. You also see the outcome associated with that increased journey. 

[00:38:06] Griffin Jones: And there's a patient experience component to that too, isn't there? Because probably eight years ago now, I analyzed Several hundred reviews, maybe thousands of reviews, and I categorized those reviews that were negative and those that were positive, and as you could expect, those that were negative had to do with A negative outcome that was not categorical.

Some people were happy when they didn't have success, and some people were not happy when they did, but it was the biggest predictor on if someone was going to leave a negative review or a positive review, and no small part of that is because they forked over their life savings. They gave up that vacation.

They put the second mortgage on the house. They sold the house. They didn't buy the house. they are late on their student loan payments because this is something that they had to put first. It seems to me like there's a patient experience, patient satisfaction component to this.

[00:39:10] Nader AlSalim: And it's critical, and it's critical for many reasons, and I like what you say, because this is a classic consumer experience problem, and it's something I personally quite like, for two reasons, right? First reason is, you are selling a service on top of a service, meaning not only your experience have to matter, but the place where they render the experience also have to matter because it needs to match.

This is a classic Airbnb problem, right? You might have a great booking experience on Airbnb where everything is so clear and you pay and it's great and seamless but you go to the actual unit and it's a disaster and then who do you blame, the unit or do you blame Airbnb? And it's the same experience, it's like the byproduct experiences that happens next and who gets to blame where and how.

So it's a critical one to monitor what's happening next. The second aspect of it. And I always like to remind ourselves, you are selling a service and a product that no one wants. In the ideal world, people wish I don't exist. This is not the kind of company that people say, I wish they existed. They actually rather for us not to exist because they would have not used us and they would have conceived in a much more simpler, straightforward way.

And that adds a level of complexity when you're dealing with a consumer. The third and the most important is, it's also a vulnerable consumer. You're dealing with the two of the closest things to people's heart, money and health. The combination of that can either offer you an opportunity to reimagine the consumer experience and serve it the way we do today, which generally is sometimes beyond me of how good the team is in delivering that experience.

Or you can just mess it up completely. And it's that critical if you build the company on day one to say, we don't care about the financial utility or the OR, or the function of the product. We care about the emotional benefit that we attach to the product, and we're going to craft an incredibly well designed experience that's going to pay attention to every little detail along the way.

People might not care about the outcome because they know they can't control it, but people will remember how you made them feel. Every little interaction along the way. And that matters much more than you controlling something that you can't control being the outcome of the treatment and whether they end up happy or not happy.

So the attention is really focused on what support do we give people along the way so they're handheld, they're treated with respect and dignity, and there is just built in empathy in every single word you use, adjective you use, feature you build. And if I tell you that the team's been laser focused on this, continue to be laser focused on this, And even go way above, beyond what's expected of them to deliver that experience.

You'll see it reflected in what people say about the experience, not the product. And I think the two are very separate here for a reason. And I wish that a lot of the ecosystem service provider within the fertility had paid the same amount of attention to the journey of the human being that's going through this and designed it for them because it's a classic design problem in healthcare.

Everybody designs for two people. You either design for the payer or you design for the provider. And somewhere in the middle you forget that there is a patient and you sandwich them in the middle. Because the payer is often the person who pays or the provider who renders. And then somewhere along the line people remember that there is a patient going through this and say, hold on, wait a second, how do we sandwich them in?

And it's often too late.

[00:42:21] Griffin Jones: You're selective about the clinics that you partner with. What makes a good clinic partner?

[00:42:28] Nader AlSalim: Outperform the national average when it comes to success rates. There's two things that matter. You want a clinic that quantitatively produces better results, what we call a first quartile. If you go to a new city, if you go to a new market, a new state, you chart all the performance, clinic performance is charted by quartiles, and you want to pick a first quartile because that is the clinic you'd want to work with if you want to reward the outcome, not the process, and hence you're incentivized to work with a first quartile performance.

The second thing, which is qualitative, Which is the patient experience. You also want a clinic that has a reputation for great patient experience. The REIs are very well known for delivering world class experience. And it has the brand, because of what I told you earlier, because my brand is attached to that clinic brand.

And it's often, that's where the most of the experience happens. We want to make sure that we're owning that journey or co owning that journey, we're owning it with people that share our ethos when it comes to patient experience. So I think the outcome and the patient experience are what matters the most here.

[00:43:27] Griffin Jones: You've had the success in the United Kingdom for a while, but now you're in the United States. What's that been like?

[00:43:33] Nader AlSalim: Another humbling experience. It's the world's largest IVF or fertility market. It is complicated because it's 50 states with 50 different mandates, with 50 different health plans, integrations, with a lot of bells and whistles and regulations for all these states. Yet, the fundamental need is exactly the same.

The fundamental untapped demand is exactly the same. You couldn't be more excited about a market with that size and that potential. Finding the right partners has been a critical step. In our U. S. market entry, we went live a couple of months ago in Virginia with Pinnacles Acid there, Dominion, and early signs confirm everything that we know all along.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done on how do we sequence the next states. The plan is to be in every single state with a select group of provider clinics. Allowing them to improve access in those markets and or improve conversion if that's something that those markets suffer from due to competition or due to the lack of option or due to saturation of some sort.

It's clearly a very differentiated product to add to your shelf, but more importantly, it's a different kind of payer that you need to integrate with. And the plan is whether it's an employer, whether it's a health plan, whether it's a cash payer, We do not separate on the source of the funding or the source of the channel.

We're focused across all channels to make sure that we serve the underlying patient and we want to build the network to match those patients in the states that we want to be in and we want to be in every single U. S. state. And I

[00:45:04] Griffin Jones: We've been talking about topics for the revenue cycle managers and the CEOs and maybe the more senior clinicians, 

what advice do you have for the younger REIs that are going to make a career of the next 30 years of how this transforms the way they practice?

[00:45:23] Nader AlSalim: think, I think you're absolutely right. I think if you're a young REI today coming in and you want to build the next 20 to 30 years of your career, you're going to build it on a very different fundamental ways of practicing medicine that one has existed in the past. You're going to understand that technology in general will play an indispensable role in taking those treatments from an inconsistently performed labor intensive procedure to something that is optimized like in any other engineered industry.

You're going to think about innovation, to go to Beth's point, not only what happens in the lab, in, every structure along the way this, whether it's patient acquisition, whether it's patient management, whether it's protocol management, what role can you play in order to go and take care of that very large unaddressed population of the patients in need?

And last but not least, you cannot think of all these services and integration without thinking about the outcome based pricing that you need to adopt in order to align more to what the patients want to buy while you get paid for the service rendered and someone needs to come and manage that on your behalf so that you're focusing on what you do best, which is care, and then you're moving that to a third party that comes and manages all of that, maybe in a box, Maybe you walk in and what you sell is a 15, 000 baby, and if there is no baby, no fee, and you're really doing all the medical practice, and you're isolating technology, and you're improving the data, and you're improving all those protocols in order to enhance the performance and the outcome, but you make sure that you're getting paid a fee regardless, and someone else is on the hook.

Because what you're selling is not a service, it's not a unit, it's not a cycle. You're selling a child for 15, 000 and if you don't deliver that child, someone is not getting paid. And I'm happy to be that someone.

[00:47:04] Griffin Jones: We're going to put some buttons and links for people to be able to contact you, to be able to get in touch with the company. I suspect that there's other people that are going to say, I want to talk to this guy. When you and I met last year at ASRM, we sat next to each other at dinner, and I thought, this is somebody that people are going to want to talk to.

So some people are going to want to have maybe to sit down with you and I, this episode is going to come out before ASRM 2024. People are listening to it before ASRM 2024. Would you be all right with me sharing your information if they want to connect with you? that introduction so that they could meet up with you there.

[00:47:47] Nader AlSalim: Absolutely. I met you and I met a lot of people along the way, those are the most enlightening conversations that shaped a lot of my thinking but also been invaluable to like how we build Gaia. Because I don't want to build a vacuum. And we're building to an existing problem.

There is a lot of people that are far more experienced than I am and who we are. We bring a little bit of a new eye to this and a new level of innovation that has not been happened before. But we also are very aware that we don't operate in a vacuum and I would love that.

[00:48:13] Griffin Jones: The first time that I got connected with Eduardo Harriton and with David Sable, after the first conversation, I thought, man, I'm glad I met that guy. had that feeling about you, and maybe others will, too. Nader AlSalim, thank you so much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. I hope to have you on plenty more

[00:48:35] Nader AlSalim: Thank you, Griffin. I enjoyed this. 

[00:48:36] Announcer: Today's episode is paid content from our feature sponsor, who helps Inside Reproductive Health to deliver information for free to you. Here, the advertiser has editorial control. Feature sponsorship is not an endorsement and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health.

 

 
 

232 Reduce Costs. Invest in Tech. Scale Care. The IVF Lab Business Approach of Dr. Jason Barritt

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


What do you do if your lab staff sees the value in a new technology, but your business leadership views it as too much of an expense and not enough of an investment?

This is one of the many questions we explore with Dr. Jason Barritt, Chief Scientific Officer of Kindbody. Dr. Barritt provides an inside look at how he leverages innovative ideas to make fertility care more accessible and affordable at scale.

With Dr. Barritt, we dive into:

  • Expense vs. Investment with new technologies (Using time-lapse incubation as an example)

  • Giving lab directors a voice through equity ownership (And how that positively shapes network growth)

  • Moving the subsidization of advancements from cash-pay patients to insurance (The process of how that could work)

  • How scale can drive down costs (What he's doing at Kindbody to reduce cultural media costs by up to 90%)

Dr. Jason Barritt
LinkedIn


[00:00:00] Dr. Jason Barritt: These things are not even discussed if the lab director or an owner or embryologist is not in the room. So you have to get invited in. And I found the best way to get invited in is have a very small piece of that pie. Now it doesn't mean as again, I get to make any of the definitive decisions. But I get to be in the room and or be asked the questions so that they can have the information to make the best decision, whatever that is.

But I also get to know how the decision is made and what the decision ultimately is, and how I'm going to then implement it. 

[00:00:32] Griffin Jones: And later on in the conversation 

[00:00:34] Dr. Jason Barritt: We do a lot of business with the IVF store. They will probably go out and find what you need if they can, additionally. I know this sounds weird to some people, but truthfully, it's very, very valuable for us.

And that is 

[00:00:46] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:11] Griffin Jones: What did Jason and I talk about specifically? When lab staff see the value in something, but business leadership sees it as too much of an expense and not enough of an investment. For that, Dr. Barritt drills into time lapse incubation as a specific example. Let me know if you agree with him. I'm starting to see a pattern among embryologists.

We talk about how equity ownership gives lab directors a voice and gives them a seat at the table in conversations they might otherwise be asked to step out for. This one talks about how advancements might be subsidized by cash pay patients at first, but then we might be able to force insurance's hand to pay for them and how that might work.

It talks about how scale can drive down costs and what he's doing specifically now at Kindbody to test reducing the cost of some of the cultural 90 percent. And then how embryologists Can persuade business leadership to not only put those cost savings into profit, but to use them to pay for investments that continue to grow the top line and improve the standard of care.

Enjoy my conversation with Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Jason Barritt, Dr. Barritt. Jason, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. Thank you, Griffin. 

[00:02:22] Dr. Jason Barritt: Happy to be here.

[00:02:23] Griffin Jones: I should say welcome back because this is the third podcast interview you and I have done. It's just the only one we've ever recorded online.

The other two have just been conversations between you and I. And initially you were thinking, Well, what would I talk about if I came on the podcast? And I said, Jason, we just talked about it. You have all of these really interesting points of view, deep insights. I wish that I had a microphone. And Now we've, we've got you on the, the show and I'm, I'm happy to do that because you've got a lot of insights into the IVF lab, and I think you also have insights into the business of the IVF Lab because you've owned equity in fertility practices and, and still do.

And so I'd like to just start with, you know, just a general, intro of what your views on IVF lab ownership are and, and lab directors owning equity in either the lab or the clinic. 

[00:03:22] Dr. Jason Barritt: Well, nice broad beginning, and yes glad that we've had our, I'll call it pre conversations. Even though I am of course in Beverly Hills, we don't have cameras following us all the time for reality television and so not all those were recorded, but the good news is we can talk about all these things again now and put it on the record so that you can show other people and we can have good conversation about all these things.

So happy to be here and happy to talk about the the subjects that we'll hit today, including laboratory ownership. So I'll, I'll, I'll go down the first road of saying I really am for lab directors owning interest in the laboratory they run. I fit this category because what it does is it allows that individual to be in the conversation with the other owner or owners and therefore they have a seat at the table.

Now in my case, I'm a very small percentage owner, so I don't actually have any type of controlling interest, so my vote technically would never matter. However, being in the room when things are being discussed actually allows you to be a part. of the product that is then going to be put out. And when I say product, I don't mean it in a negative way, I mean it in a positive way.

Because most of the directors are really dedicated individuals who have come up the ranks, have done it with their own hands, made babies with other people, learned how to manage people, and figured out, basically, how to run a little business. And be successful at it and work with a whole lot of really smart medical doctors who want certain things for their patients.

Also at the same time meeting regulatory requirements in order to make sure that everything's done at least at a minimum at that level, if not so much better. And then you have to manage people at the same time. And oh yeah, you're handling multiple millions of dollars of liability, walking around doing things.

For others. You're there to protect those patients in every way, because they can't do this themselves. You are the surrogate to that. And so the people who are then in the room and directing these have so much experience and knowledge of, I'll call it business management, it just isn't always the business itself.

And therefore, having them in the room and being part of the discussion actually makes the laboratory better. A much better business overall. So I'm strongly in favor of lab directors owning pieces of the lab. 

[00:06:05] Griffin Jones: I asked you, hey, Jason, I'm selling sponsors over here, who do you really like to do business with?

Why the IVF store? What the heck do you like about them? 

[00:06:14] Dr. Jason Barritt: We do a lot of business with the IVF store. Not that we don't do a lot with other ones too, we're a big company. So we, we do get things from many, many places. So I don't want to try to say negatives about anybody. But the key thing is that we, we found that they are extremely.

Easy access to get the supplies that we want both online, by phone, through electronic means. They've coordinated with our hybrid ordering system, so they've made it easy for us to be able to get the supplies that they have. They are definitely a curated set of supplies that are very specific to IVF.

They will probably go out and find what you need, if they can, if you actually ask for that, and that's very, very hands on, wonderful adapting that they do for us on that. Additionally, I know this sounds weird to some people, but truthfully it's very, very valuable for us, and that is that they will respond to the request to minimize the number of lot variations between supplies.

So you say that you get the same dishes, one box is a different lot number than another box, which means then you have to test it and track it. It's actually a pain to do and so they will minimize that. Even on a small order where you're only ordering like three to five boxes, they will try to make sure that it's all the same lot number.

You can also Buy a bunch at once and ask them to get you a whole pallet of things if you really want it and that way you only have to test and spend the money and or at one place in order to know that is exactly what you want. Something they've definitely done for us is test and actually do the MEA mouse embryo assay testing for us and complete that so that we can buy directly from them and it's all pre done.

It's actually much easier than buying a whole bunch of things. Sending it to, in our case, like 18 or 19 different places and every place testing their own thing. It makes it very cost effective for us that they adapt on that. As I said, they will go out and find what you need if you really can ask for it and if you know what you want, they then make sure there's enough in supply.

COVID affected us all in really, really weird ways with getting stuff. They've done an excellent job in making sure that they have the supplies available when people need them. 

[00:08:10] Griffin Jones: What specific concerns or interests are underrepresented when lab directors don't own a piece of the business, when they don't have a seat at the table?

[00:08:23] Dr. Jason Barritt: That's interesting, because you find that it's actually different with different groups, so I've been lucky enough to work and have Multiple other owners with me, and they have very different beliefs about what really occurs in that special little box that generally has no windows and has low light and everybody's wearing essentially pajamas all day and making babies in their pajamas.

They get up early, they they do their work as early as possible, and then they leave and try to go have a life outside the lab. So, they all wonder what goes on in there. And the truth is, most of the time, the owners, or the medical doctors, if they're the owners, or actual corporate, if they're the corporate owners, almost never actually go inside the laboratory and actually feel what it's like to do the work.

The understanding of what it actually takes to do a retrieval, And I'm not saying it's difficult, but you do have to get very good at it. And what ends up being found is they think it's just, hey, we just hand you a tube and everything's taken care of from that point. But the truth is, there's a whole lot of steps and a whole lot of adaption that's going to go on on the other side of that wall.

And if they don't have that clear understanding of how much is going to go into it, such as the timings, That are on the clock biologically that need to be met in order to optimize success. They don't understand that everybody's not wearing perfumes or certain nail polishes, and you're in an air handling system that filters out certain things and so you're breathing differently.

All sorts of different things go into the success of that room. They don't always know the level of detail that an embryologist will go to and that the lab directors will try to oversee. I'll give you An interesting example I've been asked multiple times by other owners yeah, you guys, you know, quality control the, the equipment and everything else.

And I said, yes, yes, we do. In fact, we monitor that every day, multiple times during the day, in some cases for different pieces of equipment that you're going to use. We do this for the safety and security of the patient's tissues, but to understand the level we go to, We actually, at the last location that I was at, which was one location that I was managing, it was a large one, but it was one, it took over one hour of a person's time every single morning to go through and mark down all the quality control of the equipment.

You think it's just as easy as, Oh, it's operating at body temperature, 37 degrees Celsius, perfect, everything's fine and good to go. Well, there were about 16 surfaces that needed to be done, 12 to 15 microscopes that needed to be verified that they were operating correctly temperature baths, incubator gas lines verification that switchers and backup batteries were working, fridges, freezer temperatures.

It is a lot of work to do this right, and not all ownership groups understand that. When, when I say that I need to afford a laboratory assistant to go around and do a lot of those things so that I optimize the dollar value of an embryologist's time instead on embryology duties, I have to actually justify that.

And so going into that room and having the discussion on why that level of quality control needs to be in place in order to succeed has to be discussed. Because if you're not in the room They don't even pay attention to what that takes. They just expect that something's happening there. The problem is when you expect something, it's not always going on.

[00:12:01] Griffin Jones: So is that really the difference maker? Just being present and having a financial stake in the company allows you to be present for those conversations? Is, is Because I was going to ask, why wouldn't just, you know, someone that is they're, they're the lab director and they're an employee, why wouldn't they also have this share of voice to be able to say, I need to be able to afford a lab assistant, we need to have these quality controls in place.

Is it, is, is the fact that when they have these things A financial interest in the company, that that puts them in meetings and conversations that they just can't or wouldn't be if, if they were only an employee? 

[00:12:46] Dr. Jason Barritt: There's probably a few centers that they would be in the room or they'd be asked in during certain times and then asked out during other discussions because politely when money is discussed and, and I, and I mean this in the best way possible, you actually don't want everybody in the room.

You don't want everybody involved in those things. And some decisions have to be made up based on money. Some have to be made purely on quality and success. And then some are the mix and all sorts of other factors that come in. And unless you're invited into the room, even if you're not an owner, it's not going to happen.

They're not going to talk about which incubator to get. Or whether you need another one, because you don't want to max out the number of spots in one, and you want to distribute things more evenly. Or you want to switch the device that you're using for the freezing method. Or, you may need more storage area, or do you want to ship them out to a long term storage facility, and how that affects It's the business model of, okay, we're billing the patients and we're receiving it for that versus, okay, now there's shipping it out and somebody else is going to take care of that for us.

Those involve business decisions as well as actual physical hands on clinical decisions. Because politely, to ship materials out to a long term storage facility actually takes quite a lot of time and organization. And then you lose the revenue side of that. You also gain the space so you can treat even more patients.

And so these things are not even discussed if the lab director or an owner or embryologist is not in the room. So you have to get invited in, and I found the best way to get invited in is have a very small piece of that pie. Now, it doesn't mean, as again, I get to make any of the definitive decisions.

But I get to be in the room and or be asked the questions so that they can have the information to make the best decision, whatever that is. But I also get to know. How the decision is made and what the decision ultimately is, and how I'm going to then implement it. Because, politely, I will never win every single thing.

I shouldn't. I don't know all the information and I am not the smartest person in the room on many things. Especially business. I didn't go to business school. I didn't go to marketing school of how to sell something either. But I do know how to operate the lab. And so My little piece needs to be understood, but then I need to understand how it's going to work in the bigger picture of the business, and its operations, and its success.

And therefore, what I need to do, or what I'm being asked to do, why, and then can I get it done, can I get it done fiscally responsibly, in a timely fashion, and still maintain, or Even get better with success. 

[00:15:30] Griffin Jones: That was a question that I had too, does it work both ways where, so you have the business making decisions that are more considerate of the lab, but you also have the lab making decisions that are more considerate of the business because it's, I see it all the time, there are business owners that are making decisions not fully understanding how it affects different teams.

Different team leads will make all kinds of decisions because it ain't their money, it's just, it's just magic money that comes from somewhere else. And so Or 

[00:16:04] Dr. Jason Barritt: you never know how much of the money is being spent, you just ask for and, okay, maybe I get, maybe I don't. 

[00:16:10] Griffin Jones: And so how does, how does it work the other way, where the how does it help lab personnel to make better business decisions?

[00:16:20] Dr. Jason Barritt: Okay, so, embryologists can go to these wonderful educational meetings, ASRM, College of Reproductive Biology, AAB other more local meetings you know, Southwest meeting embryologist meeting, or just talking with other embryologists and such. And they learn about, I'll call it, new technologies, new equipment, new ways of doing things.

They can bring those back and have discussions and think about or get vendors in touch and things like that. And so, New things can be brought to the table, but the truth is not everything can be done everywhere, especially all the time. That's an impossibility. No one can afford that. But what they learn is that when they do bring those things to the table, others are going to evaluate them from a different perspective than they had.

Oh, I heard about this great machine that is a time lapse machine and, you know, supposedly it can, you know, lead to more success. And well, here's the data from some studies and, you know, maybe we can get one of these. And then that goes up the chain, and then there's a business discussion as to, well, that's actually a very expensive piece of equipment, it actually costs a lot to maintain.

Oh, wait a second, you say you'd like one, however, I'm not quite sure we can just do that and how would we work that into the system? The embryologist then learns, oh wait, you could market it in a certain way. And use that data that's out there and the physician can then, per se, present that opportunity or that add on in a different way.

And then there's a pricing model. Is there a way to offset the extreme costs of the equipment, but increase the success? And is there a business model that works? They have to learn it's not a money tree that they go to and just happens to be there. It has to be justified. But when they can be a part of that.

And then they can hear it back as to, okay, we can consider doing that. We'd have to believe that we're going to be able to get a hundred patients that are going to choose to do an add on at a certain price point. And then we're going to be able to market to that. That actually costs us something.

However, there's a revenue source that may come with it. Are you sure that the data is there to support this and that this is the right investment? They become a part of that conversation, but now they've understood It isn't just, Hey, please write me a check and get me this beautiful box that I'm going to be able to play with in the lab.

And I'm going to be able to succeed with, although they want that. They actually have to understand the entire other side of it in order to actually use it in the right way, because otherwise you're just getting a toy. And I appreciate toys and I love the science side and doing new things, but the truth is it's not a money tree.

You actually have to run this as a business. 

[00:19:05] Griffin Jones: So, on the scale of the spectrum of toy that is a nice to have, and on the other ha So, you know, I think the end of the spectrum, a must have that is necessary for the quality of operations in the lab and can return the investment. Where do you put time lapse on that spectrum?

[00:19:26] Dr. Jason Barritt: Oh, tough. So I've been, I'll call it, I've been I was lucky in the fact that I was able to have that sort of conversation that I just had with you approximately 12 to 13 years ago with the group of doctors that I was working with at that time. And I was able to convince them to give this a good shot and that we were going to be able to use this in a way to improve success and be able to use it as a marketing tool for us to be able to Per se provide to patients an add-on that would help them achieve pregnancy faster.

And so, they purchased one time-lapse machine for me and the team that I had. We used it, we did some we did some studies of the outcomes of the patients that had been in it. We actually saw better growth and development in the machine while we were using it in the first essentially couple months that we were using it.

And we started talking about more and more of, Hey, this thing even does better incubation, let alone. The success we didn't even know at that point. And we're like, wow, this, this has other advantages. We also learned that we can learn a lot from time lapse. The truth is when you can look at a video development.

of an embryo. You learn a lot more than taking a one slice picture every single day. So we actually found this was an unbelievable training tool and we could actually get much better at our uniform grading and realizing what embryos can do in a period of time and when they are a few hours younger or a few hours older, how different they can be.

So we actually learned a whole bunch of training positive things from making this investment that we never thought we would have learned. By just making the investment. So time lapse ended up being not just a, okay, this is, this is the top 10%. Okay, it's a toy, but it actually has some good things. It's a 10 percent investment to, oh my, we really should be doing this a lot more.

We should be using this technology to learn more, gain more, make better decisions. We ended up doing an abstract and showing that we had a 20 percent higher pregnancy rate from the first embryo transferred. When we used the technology, so it ended up being exactly what we said it was going to be an improvement in our ability to succeed for patients, but it had so many other benefits that now I put time lapse as much more towards the, yeah, you should be doing this.

As it improves the outcome for the patients, and yes, it does cost, but there are so many other benefits that come with it. So, it went from, okay, it was 10 percent of the thing to, I'd really like it to be at least 70 percent of the thing, because in 70 percent of the cases, It will help you pick the right embryo the first time.

That is success for a patient. And at the same time, everything else comes with it. You can rank the other embryos. You can learn and teach and train. You can have more information. And then you and I probably go down the road of AI and how much this can add to that. So it went from being a 10% Per se, need, want type thing to at least 70%.

I might even say in the future, it'll be 90 plus percent. 

[00:22:45] Griffin Jones: Would you ever go back to not having time lapse? 

[00:22:48] Dr. Jason Barritt: So yes, of course, there is a place for it for time lapse and there's a place for not time lapse. What's the place for not? So if somebody is going to be probably not doing genetic testing of the embryos, I'll call it even A at this point for those embryos.

So we're not looking at that. A standard general culture, if they're going to transfer whatever embryos are there, the best ones based on an embryologist's choice, and their intent is to transfer whatever the best embryos are in order, and they are not concerned with getting to pregnancy as quickly, it is more the what tissue I make, I'm going to use and attempt.

They're a perfect candidate for a regular culture, because I'm not going to go to the extremes of anything. I'm not going to biopsy the embryo and do an invasive genetic test to see if it's normal or not. We're just going to transfer it, and if nature is going to decide that was the normal one, it'll work.

If it's not, that's okay too, because I have the next one after that, and the next one after that. If they are willing to accept it, They are going to go with nature, even though IVF is, of course, not quite natural. They are a perfect candidate for the one at a time. And, and if you're not going to do the genetic testing, there's really no deal to need to do the time lapse.

Now, could it be beneficial? Of course. But, they are not the one who need that. Their intent is different than the, I need to get to the baby as quickly as possible with the first attempt being the highest chance of success, with all the knowledge about that embryo itself, its growth and development, and its genetics.

If they're not in that category, they're not a client for it. And it works, and it does work fine. It works actually quite well, but time lapse.

[00:24:39] Griffin Jones: I just sent out an email that said, who's your favorite vendor? So many of the lab people said IVF store, IVF store. Why is that? 

[00:24:49] Dr. Jason Barritt: Well, they have some very, very experienced individuals running the company and some really Unbelievably, what I'll call happy to help you people type things there. They answer the phone, they will spend the time with you to find the thing and they will find what you need, how you need.

They'll look in their things, they'll find out which warehouse it's in and find out to verify that actually their ordering system says they have three. They'll make sure you have three before they tell you, okay, we got you three, and make sure all that's done. They are really good at the hand holding, they are really good with the positive interaction, and they have some unbelievably experienced people in this field.

They have changed the dynamic in the world. Being able to get the things that you need the way you need it when you need it. That's the other amazing thing. I actually ordered one item. I sort of needed it pretty darn quick, like the next day. They were able to accomplish that, of course. Other ones might be able to do that also.

But because I wanted to minimize my cost on it, I ordered 10 of them. They didn't have all 10. Available from that one place at one time, and they were going to have to charge me the double on the shipping and everything else. Thankfully, they worked with me. We found a way to ship them from the two places that we needed to do it at a discounted rate, because the truth is, it was actually going to be one price from one and one price from the other, and it was cheaper than what had originally been done, had I not been ordering as many, but they found a way to do it and do it cost effectively for me, even though I needed it in a rush.

[00:26:23] Griffin Jones: So, I keep hearing this from lab directors, and I'll ask them on the show, you, Jacques Cohen, Alison Campbell, and asking them, you know, do you see time lapse as a must have? And you say there are still scenarios where it's a nice to have, but increasingly, it's more of a must have. It seems to me that, that seems to be like a consensus that is forming, but it's Maybe 20 or 30 percent of the clinics in the U. S. and Canada have time lapse, and so that's a big delta. Is the only thing that's going to close that delta having more lab directors and embryologists own equity in their companies? Because what seems to be happening to me, lab directors and embryologists saying, yeah, we want to have this, and then at the business level, they're saying, Yeah, but on the P& L, it's just, it's not going to return the investment that we need in 18 months.

[00:27:20] Dr. Jason Barritt: Oh, it's not in 18 months. No doubt about that. If you have a, if you have a time window that's 18 months, and I'm going to call that short in the IVF world you're not going to get it back. It's just not going to happen that way. It's got to be a longer term thing than that. So I'll say this. I think it's transitioning.

Thanks That there is a balance between greater success or time to pregnancy. So success is one thing, pregnancy, but there's also time to pregnancy or how quickly you get to that pregnancy. Either first attempt time, or time on the clock, how many months. Both of those are actually important things for patients.

At first, in these discussions, they wouldn't have been so big. You're just going to get whatever treatment, as quickly as we can do it, and the success when it happens. That's not the client who comes in the door all the time anymore. They're on their clock, and it's moving quite quickly, and in fact, the later they come to us, that clock is ticking faster.

Politely, eggs don't get better with age. Wine does, but not eggs. So you don't want to take forever getting there, and you want to know what you have and all the information about it, and timelapse allows that. It allows it in a much faster timeframe. So yes, being in the room helps. Yes, having the knowledge of the expense of it helps, but I'm going to throw a little bit of a wrench in here.

And that is, I'll call it mandated coverage, or insurance based coverage. This is a challenge. When it is a cash pay patient, they can add this on without an issue, as they can make that choice. When it's an insurance based situation, they could be asked to add this on if they wish, or could be that insurance won't cover it, and therefore that's not something they're going to get.

However Is that providing the best thing for that patient, or was the insurance based client just getting access to care? But then the clinic has to make a choice. Let's just do everybody in time lapse so we do everybody the same and we get the greatest success for everybody. And then let's just do the cost averaging across everybody.

And even though insurance isn't going to reimburse for any of it, let's just do it for the reasons that we want to do it better. And we want to succeed more and that's a tough decision to make because it is so much more expensive. The truth is that it probably adds somewhere around 250 to 500 per cycle.

Depending on which machine you have, how much work you do, how much time you spend on it, preventative maintenance, how many you have, all these things. Politely, that's an expense. In an insurance based model, if you've made your contracts and don't have that included, that's a hard one for a clinic to eat, unless you have enough cash pay on the other side.

So when you have a group that is 10 percent cash pay and 90 percent insurance, probably not going to be able to offer this. Or at least not offer it to everybody. Whereas if you have a better mix of 50 50, you might be able to have the cash pay, afford to actually put the machine there, and that everybody else gets the benefit of it.

And that they also get to go in that same incubator. And therefore, they get to succeed and get that benefit because the clinic has decided that this is what we're going to offer for everybody. So it's a really tough thing to do because insurance is not going to cover this type of add on. And often, they won't even cover PGT A, the genetic testing of embryos, for standard screening of chromosomes.

They have to pay for that in order to get the normal one transferred. That's actually an upfront expense to them. Whereas they'd rather pay for a couple rounds of frozen embryo transfers, whether it's known or not to be genetically normal, and because that's cheaper than it is to do the testing. And that's the same thing that's being done with time lapse.

It's great. It will actually increase and get you to a pregnancy faster. But at what cost and are they going to be able to and willing to do that? So mandated coverage, insurance coverage is going to change this drastically into who gets it. Some places are just going to do it for everybody and eat part of the cost.

That's cost of doing business. You want to do the business the best you can and more patients will come to you because of the success. 

[00:31:58] Griffin Jones: Well, if that happens, Jason, is there also a play to then. Get the insurance companies to pay for it, so let's say you are, you know, 50, you're 50 50, you, like you say, you decide to average the cost, do it for everyone, is it, if that brings success rates up sufficiently and or if that allows Patients it reduces time to baby more quickly because you're picking the embryo, right, the, the first time.

Does that then allow the, the network at that level if they're, if they're doing enough to, to approach the insurance companies and say, this is why we're a center of excellence, or this is why this reimbursement rate needs to be higher. So, so initially they're, they, the cash pay patients are the ones shouldering that.

Cost, so to speak. But can they then use that to make, to, to raise the standard of care that the insurance companies have to meet? Or is that, is there's too many obstacles in between that the, that the insurance company would ignore. 

[00:33:01] Dr. Jason Barritt: So they don't ignore it, but they resist. Right now, however, what we seem to understand is they're already.

Basically asking us to do it because they actually want to get down to single embryo transfers of no normals. They actually really want that. It minimizes their overall cost over time and they are mandating, many of them, single embryo transfers. Well, you can do them one at a time, but this way you get to choose it better.

It's actually less length of service, less procedures that need to be done if you do it this way, with this technology up front. They want that. They just don't want to pay for it right now. But they will learn, as you just said, as they find those centers of excellence, the ones that are actually doing it better, succeed more often with the single embryo transfers, are giving the take home baby rate faster.

Those places will be looked at and said, what are you doing differently? And I'll reimburse differently because I know that my client, the patient, will get that service and get to a less expensive overall thing for me by doing that. And so they actually are asking us to use the technology and are asking us to get there.

But they want to. Let us self select. You be the 

[00:34:25] Griffin Jones: guinea pig, you figure it out, and then I'll pay you for it. Well, generally insurance doesn't 

[00:34:31] Dr. Jason Barritt: give you the money unless it's absolutely needed. Right. And that's the business of this. 

[00:34:37] Griffin Jones: Yeah. 

[00:34:37] Dr. Jason Barritt: The truth is, when this was all cash pay, and you were going into your local clinic, and you were getting the best care that you could there, there was no, I'll call it, middle, Person taking whatever percentage, and I, every state is different, every insurer is different at what percentage they take out of the total money involved here.

But the truth is, if you take, this is purely an example, I don't know if this is exactly right, but 10 percent of the money out for the insurance company, that's 10 percent that isn't being spent. At the local level, in the clinic itself. Now I'm not saying that it didn't give access to more people for the care, it did.

When we cost average that in, that is a choice that's being made and people are voting for it and wanting to mandate care and I understand why. Access to care, being able to help more who are in this difficult situation. Totally get it, no problem with it. But we're also Putting a lot of money out of the thing that would have been used for technology advance, or other access to care that would have been provided to those locally.

Not at the insurance level. So this is all a big balance. The polite answer is this isn't just medicine. It's also not just business. We're not making a widget. Right. And it's gotta be balanced. Everybody has to be a piece of this and one can't dictate the other completely. And there's a back and forth and technology as they advance, sometimes they get included.

And that's, what's actually happening with PGT A testing, their genetic screening of embryos. More insurers are realizing it's better for me to pay, and please don't hold me to exact dollar values here, it's better for me to pay 3, 000 for the biopsy and analysis and get the right one, two embryos to be able to be put back.

In a more timely fashion, rather than not paying for that and having three failed transfers or four failed transfers that are costing me more money in the long run. So they are starting to get there. And some are starting to say, okay, we will, we will insure this or cover this. We'll make deals, of course, to reduce the cost, but we'll cover this and we'll especially cover it for those who are, 40 and above, or 38 and above, if female age, I'm sorry is what I'm meaning.

Because it'll actually help us in the long run, less total cycles will need to be done, because we will find out whether we have a normal embryo or not to even transfer. I know that sounds, Tough. But the truth is, if you do an IVF cycle and don't know if you have anything that's genetically normal and you attempt to do, let's just say there's three embryos, three embryo transfers one at a time, there's an expense with all that.

There's also time on the clock. But if I did a genetic testing of those three embryos back in the creation cycle and none of them were genetically normal, I don't do three. Frozen embryo transfers at the cost of those three that probably had very low chances of success. And I don't spend that time on the clock.

I get to the next cycle. There's actually money and time involved there. And those have to be looked at. Insurers are starting to come around to that and get that understanding. It is not going to help them to spend money on a procedure that has extremely low chances of success. So find out. It costs a bit more at the beginning, but find out.

[00:38:08] Griffin Jones: What are those things that are also in that, that realm of time lapse where the embryologists and lab directors generally feel pretty strongly about them, but maybe the business side isn't convinced yet or doesn't see the return on investment yet? Like Electronic witnessing sample management automation, cryo storage, maybe some of the AI tools.

What else is in that, that neighborhood of things that most of the embryologists and most of the lab directors really see the value on but most of the business side doesn't yet see the ROI? Hmm. You nailed a few items there. 

[00:38:46] Dr. Jason Barritt: I'm going to sort of go down the AI one only because I'll call it the newest. There are multiple models out there for AI use in the laboratory. Technically it's actually probably being applied on the clinical side too. But because my experience is on the lab side, I'm going to talk much more about that.

It's technically expensive. However, this is a knowledge game. Best choice made in the most timely fashion. Right now, let's just say adding time lapse to a cycle costs 250. I don't know whether that's an accurate number or not, depending on what technology is being used, how it's being used. It could be double or less, who knows.

But where's your actual ability to sell it? It doesn't exist now. Now you can market and say you're using AI, okay? Maybe you can get more clients in for that, but are you actually going to earn anything for it? No. Probably not. However, it's going to help your team succeed more often for your patients. And actually that has a longer term, better return on investment.

You'll be able to sell that success or that time to baby in a different way. You'll also be able to show even the insurers who won't pay for it, probably at the beginning, you'll be able to show them it actually is worth doing for everybody because they will spend less money in the long run. In order to be able to do it for a small investment up at the beginning.

So AI is definitely that thing that a lot of lab directors are coming around to. Now, there is a lot of resistance on AI in the embryology lab also, and we could probably spend two days on that discussion. However, I'll nail it. I'll nail at least one. They think AI is going to eliminate the jobs of the embryologists.

I will say that it is going to eliminate some of the things embryologists do now that they don't need to spend their time on because AI can do it more accurately, more repeatedly, faster. Such as? Grading an embryo. Therefore the honest answer is an AI system, and there's a few out there, the truth is they will be able to see, in their micro lifetime, a million embryos.

I will probably never see a million embryos in my lifetime, not even close. Maybe a hundred thousand, maybe 200, 000. And my team will see something like that also, but one AI system sees a million and it's learning every single day from every single picture being added to its system. Yes, my embryologists learn every single day when we look too, but we'll never have the same.

Scale to be able to learn it as quickly as an AI can. Additionally, that AI has taken all the information in about that embryo and everything it learned about that embryo and every embryo before that and is going to be after that, and it put it in its bank, and then it uses that in the calculation for determining the next embryo and its grade and success estimates.

Well, a human can do that, and we actually do that in our head without really thinking of it in that way. But the truth is, it actually takes us much longer. And we don't have as much ability to put all that data in our head and extract it in microseconds. It can grade an embryo faster, more accurately, more repeatedly than I will ever be able to.

And it will be better than all of my team members. And it will have no variation between team members because it doesn't have team members. It knows everything. Additionally, a more junior embryologist with less experience And a more senior one may grade things slightly differently. In fact, we all have slight variation that's based on our experience and our knowledge, and that's why we get better with time.

Well, the AI does the same thing. It just does it at an exponential pace of learning compared to what we can. The amazing thing is an AI system can learn to grade embryos probably in two days that I have spent 20 plus years learning. That is a scale beyond anything I'm going to be able to ever do. So instead of thinking it's going to eliminate me or my job, how can I use its ability to do my job better?

And that's where we have to get. Not the, it's going to take somebody's job. No, it's going to do the grading for me. Hey, congratulations. Now I don't actually have to do that. I just have to use the information it now gave me to give best care to the patient. And right now, AIs. technically don't have sets of hands and can't do a retrieval, can't process a sperm, can't put things together in a dish.

If you put things in front of their eyes, per se, microscope in this case, and put data in front of them, that it can translate to 1s and 0s, and it can think about it, it can do that job, and it can probably do it faster and better than I can. But we are still absolutely going to need embryologists because there's a lot of us that need to do things before it can do its thing.

[00:44:26] Griffin Jones: How do you test this now, Jason? Because you were, you were the lab director at SCRC for many years, which is a big practice in Beverly Hills, does a lot of cycles. Now you're chief scientific officer at Kindbody, which has practices the size of SCRC and then many more in many different cities. Yes. So now you're at a place where it's like, well Do I, do I, do I test something at a small level across the whole network?

Do I, do I test something here in this city at this lab? And so how, like, whether it's AI like this that you're describing or any of the other solutions, how do you prove, how do you prove, how do you prove them as you decide if they're something that you want to scale? 

[00:45:12] Dr. Jason Barritt: So, yes, so you mentioned my my new position.

I am very happy to have joined Kindbody because of the scale that it will be able to treat and help. The truth is, Yep, running one center, although a very big one, and a very successful one. I was able to per se touch a whole lot and help a whole lot. This is 20 or more times bigger with, as you said, I think we're running right now 19 embryology labs and 39 endocrinology and, and, and andrology laboratories across the country.

When we make change or when we make a move into something like time lapse or into something like AI use, we'll allow it to help more at a grander scale. Technically, it also allows it to be cost averaged down much quicker. Which actually then allows it to be used more and actually increase care and increase the number who have access to that technology.

So, I've moved up, but that doesn't mean I've reduced the challenges. In fact, it means I've added way more challenges. However, when change occurs, it has a grander scale of success. So, you sort of described the different ways of attacking. How technology gets put into a, I'll call it a a larger scale corporate network of laboratories.

So, usually the corporates have a slightly bigger piggy bank than at single locations. However, That doesn't mean you just go spend it. It does what you just said is you sort of try it out a little bit. Now, some of these technologies are so expensive and so difficult to initially put in place that you really only want to try it at one place and see if it's really working out.

Some, as you said, you want to try a little bit everywhere, but the truth is the cost for implementation, the training, the time, the knowledge, and, and I know this sounds really weird, but When you have 19 different embryology labs, you have 19 other variables than if you controlled it all within one. And there's a lot of variables in the embryology lab.

And the more you can control, the more you can be accurate with what your intervention is actually being successful or not being successful at. So generally you roll these things out at one. So I am very lucky at Kindbody. I have who are on my team, eight regional lab directors below me, who all have great years of experience and knowledge themselves.

And so we can get together, we do a couple times a week, and we discuss technologies, current challenges, Future challenges, how we want to implement these things and what we want to do. And the thing is, now I've got myself included, nine of us in the room, we all meet by, you know, of course, virtual meetings anyway, now we never actually get in the same room but we actually gain more information and more perspective and see more opportunity, and then we can help each other with designing a better experiment, designing it, and then implementing it at one place and then Asking the tough questions and figuring out the solutions at one, instead of one off trying these things all by yourself in a little box, I'm actually using all nine of us.

To evaluate something, one is hands on doing it, but all the rest of us are getting to be a part of that and learn from it. And then when we scale it, it is a grander change that is able to be done. So, on something like AI, technically, Not really being done at Kindbody at this point in the way that we really want to get to in, I'll call it, embryo grading.

However, would it be possible and how much data would be able to be collected, how quickly, on how it could change things? And the truth is, at some of our very large centers, we could These words easily determine its application and its ability very quickly. And a whole lot of our other places who are not so large, they would never make the investment or the time investment in it.

However, they will gain from it. And therefore, if we find it's valuable, Pretty sure we will. They will be able to have it implemented in their thing even though they would never have been able to afford to do it or do it by themselves. So the scale of success will be much quicker because we can do it this way.

I guess it's getting back to the business side of it too. You got to make the investment to get the technology. 

[00:50:02] Griffin Jones: So when you have your, your nine including yourself, I guess, lab directors that are, Reviewing maybe one of their, their trials, you know, one person is, is doing that. Do you start off with that so when, whenever somebody's doing new for the first time, it's letting the other eight know, here's what I'm gonna, here's what I'm gonna start doing and here's what I'm gonna measure?

Because I, I could see if it was retroactive of, here's what I've been doing the last six months or whatever. Here's what I've been doing the last 12 months, that people might be a little bit more resistant to change or more interested in what they're currently doing, but if it starts off as, hey, now I'm going to begin doing this, I'm going to let you know what it's like in June, I'm going to let you know what it's like in October that You might have the other eight get more invested, because I could see that a challenge is not just proving what works, you can do that, but getting everybody else to actually implement it is really difficult, and implement similar things, so how do you approach them getting on the same page?

[00:51:08] Dr. Jason Barritt: I'm gonna recall right back to the beginning of our conversation and say, If you're in the room, you're part of the discussion at the beginning. By being a part of the discussion at the beginning, you are invested. And I don't mean just monetarily, I mean in the chance of success. So you design the experiment, not just yourself.

But with eight other really intelligent people, you actually ask all the other questions that you wouldn't have come up with yourself or how to apply it, and therefore you design it better, or you say, you know what, we need to put that on the side for now, and let's just get at it. A and B. Is A and B different?

Are A and B two different letters? Yes, they are. But wait a second. In Arkansas, A matters. But that really doesn't matter in somewhere else that A is not happening. Therefore, I don't really care whether A and B are different. You have to design the experiment. By having the people in the room, you design a better experiment.

You also get to be a invested in its success. Now, one person's going to go hands on per se do it, but everybody else will help design it. Everybody else will help review it. Now, I admit, the one who actually goes and does it, Absolutely a huge, huge part of the wheel working, but the truth is you need spokes on a wheel, otherwise it'll collapse.

So where the rubber meets the road, sure, great, you can be that, but you need a whole lot of spokes to support the wheel. And the truth is by getting them to buy in with being present in the room and their knowledge being brought to the table, them being listened to and being part of the design and the solution.

You actually get buy in, and buy in, and we haven't really talked about this, is extremely important in large systems. When you're running a one off, you pretty much can get buy in, you know, in an hour, all of you getting in the same room, looking at each other. At this scale, you need a lot more to get that buy in.

And when, as I said, I virtually meet with them every week a couple times, I'm not actually sitting beside them all day. That's a very different way of operating. And it means that I actually need to empower the people. That's the other big part of the networks. Empowering the people to succeed. Giving them the tools to succeed.

And then when they succeed, that It makes you succeed, which then opens the door to the next thing. And so this is a, you know, you got to manage up and down. You got to give the people above you a chance at showing success in something. If you're going to go to them, don't go to them with something that isn't going to provide them with an opportunity for success.

It's going to be a waste of time, or it's not going to work out for them. Why are they making the investment in you? And then managing down and giving them the actual opportunity to succeed, giving them the tools to do it, and making them a part of the solution. They get the buy in, and then they apply it down to the next person, and they apply it down to the next person, and when you get that buy in, everybody's rowing that boat the same way.

In fact, You might have a motor on that boat at that point. 

[00:54:18] Griffin Jones: That's what makes a motor on a boat, is when you do have all of those people rowing in the same direction you're, then you're finally starting to go at a much faster speed, more powerful speed than, than going it alone, where initially it might be going alone makes you go faster, but over time, you'll go much farther.

Yes. Going with, I think there's a proverb about that. 

[00:54:41] Dr. Jason Barritt: Yeah, sure, but that's the fun part of the scale, I'll call it. So I'm driven by wanting to be successful, not only at the patient level, but also at the employee level, because the truth is I've probably in my 20 plus years, helped train or actually trained physically too, well beyond 30 embryologists who are out there working.

Some still work for me. Some worked for me before and now are working for me again. Some don't work for me anymore, but they're off working for others and succeeding. And the truth is, that octopus, that those, that tear, that tree of all these other opportunities and more things that are occurring at a scale like I'm doing now, There are so many more effects that can occur by me and my team working together and affecting more patients in a more positive way in a time frame.

And so I take this as a huge challenge because scale is challenging, however, it also allows me to scale things better and have more of an effect in a smaller time frame. 

[00:55:54] Griffin Jones: Do you involve those eight regional lab directors in, or I should say, do they come to you with the business case for what they are seeing the value in, or are they typically coming with the, the clinical outcomes or the lab outcomes case, and then you have to make the business case to the, to the, to the board or to, you know, to the rest of executive leadership?

[00:56:22] Dr. Jason Barritt: Well, sometimes it's challenges they're having, sometimes it's, hey, here's our, you know, key performance indicators, and it's, it's dipping or it's rising differently than, than it's been before at that location. Sometimes it's, hey, my one location is doing something different than my other location. And then sometimes, and this is where I'm going with your question, they are bringing to the table things that Yeah, I may have had on my back burner or heard about or been, but hey, can we give this a little shot?

I got a tiny little bit of time and I got a couple of these, I want to give it a shot. And the great news is, some of those eight leaders that I have, have already given it the shot on a couple things. And then they bring to the table, the group, not just me. Hey, I'm, I'm going to give this a try. I'm going to try to freeze sperm slightly differently, or I'm going to do a different cooling rate, or I'm going to mix this slightly differently, or I'm going to use this, I'll call it microfluidic sperm separation device that is a different one on the market, and I want to see if it's different to that.

And we can run these tiny little experiments because all of us Can run these things and then they bring it to the group and then I can per se take it up. One, find out whether we need to do more investigation of it. Two, find out if, hey, one place in Texas tried something. Can we also try it in Chicago?

Does it matter what the latitude is or does it not? Does it matter what the sea level is? Can I do it in California and New York also? Or do they have a limitation that doesn't allow it's an only Texas thing? I can have those discussions and I can find those things out so that when I want to sell it. Or purchase it per se, I can sell it up the chain the right way.

And I know this sounds interesting, but the truth is when I go up the chain and ask for money to be spent on some new technology, generally, I'm not asking for a one off, I'm generally asking for a network off, which means it's more money upfront, but it has a bigger scale for success and therefore it has to be sold.

And justified very differently. Then, if you're at a one off type place, and that's the good thing. These eight come to me with things, and each other with things, that they've heard, they want to try. I'll give you the example as the very, very fast, we'll call it lightning thawing, or rapid thawing, or I think Juergen Lieberman is now calling it fast and furious warming.

The technology that allows us to do a procedure in essentially a one off type place, and that's The technology that allows us to do a procedure in essentially a 10 percent of the amount of time before and at 10 percent of the material that we needed to do before the media. Those are huge changes in percentages.

That's a lot of money saved by not having to spend time and to spend it on material. 

[00:59:23] Griffin Jones: That's a different technique or it's a different media or, or something else. 

[00:59:27] Dr. Jason Barritt: It's actually the same media. It's just changing the protocol. And Juergen and his team and others, please, I'm not just trying to say Juergen have given this the shot of the very rapid warming procedure of embryos.

He's actually playing with eggs now too, but let's just talk about embryos for now. He's found that you can do it essentially, you can do it essentially nine times faster with nine times less media used. Well, that is huge, I'll call it time and money saving. If your success is at least equal, if not better, and he's actually showing it might be better, when do you transition to something like that?

And the truth is, if you were a one off little center, you have to basically go all in. But when I have 19 embryology labs that can give things the shot and patients have donated materials to testing. And research on a grand scale like this, I actually have access to be able to run this experiment, run this technology, and figure out whether it's going to work in scale or not at our place much quicker than most would.

And then when I apply it, we haven't quite applied it yet because we're still investigating it, but when I apply it, the significant savings of time and of money will actually allow us to then serve more patients. And be able to treat more patients in a more timely fashion. Because I just didn't spend all that money on something that I don't need to spend it on anymore.

And I can get to that answer much faster by having a huge network to be able to do this in. 

[01:01:09] Griffin Jones: It could be the case that the network says, great, we want to take that money and then lower our bottom line with it and so that we have so that we're increasing profits. But it could also be the case that you can say, Listen, I saved this, we saved this much money, let us try this thing that I think is going to return the investment.

So let us take this and, and we've removed, we, we've cut this expenditure out, but let us use this expenditure as an investment that we think is going to increase the top line. 

[01:01:38] Dr. Jason Barritt: Yes, the business of it, yes. So the amazing thing is when you're not in the room. They'll just say save the money. When you're in the room, now you can say, hey look, technology has advanced, we've learned from it, we actually became more efficient with it, and actually saved money.

Please, let's all not just add it completely to the bottom line, let's please use please. And sometimes this is the right argument, sometimes it's not. Let's use half of that savings and make an investment in AI technology. Because that's the next one that will have a mass scale ability to, I'll call it, affect.

Money, and time. If it can grade every embryo that will be graded in a single day, in a single lab, in under one second, because it does it in microseconds of course, but it's going to take four embryologists two total hours to do all that grading in a morning I'm gonna use the technology pretty quickly.

Because all that time savings can be used on treating more patients. So your first one, I'm going to call it warming technology, uses part of the money to invest in the next thing. And the next thing will also have scale and have ability to save. And then that one will have ability to increase patient care.

And so that's the other one. I'm now in a company that was built on and really is driven by access to care, treating those who weren't going to be able to get it. Or didn't have the access in that place, or it wasn't cost effective for them to be able to get the care. Those barriers caused them not to get the care and not to have the joy of having a child.

And that's just not right. We actually should give them that access to care. So this company is also driven by wanting to be able to make this efficient, cost effective, so we can keep the cost as low as possible. So we can treat as many as possible. Because the truth is. There are way more people not getting the care that they, they need because of the barrier of money.

And the problem is, this is medical care. You didn't generally cause infertility in any way yourself. Therefore, why aren't we treating it as other medical care? We have to work on this. We have to get the insurers to want to pay for it. That means we have to make it cost effective and show them why it would be successful for them to want to make the investment in this and give a good enough reimbursement that we can treat more patients or more are covered.

And therefore we can see more. And then we talk about AI and its ability. to learn and the fact that embryologists are not going to lose their jobs because AI is now grading embryos. In fact, there's going to be twice as many patients in the laboratories coming in and needing the care because now we're not taking the time on the grading anymore, we can actually do more retrievals, we can treat more patients, we can succeed more for more.

So that scale is also amazing. And it will come. So it sort of wraps back to our beginning of that there's a business side to this, and there's the clinical side to this. And as efficient as we can be inside that laboratory will allow the business to grow. It'll allow that access to care and us to concentrate on medicine as the number one thing.

It will operate as a business. It's true, this is a business, but it's going to operate as the best medical care possible for the most people to succeed for those who can get there and can get the access. So reduce those barriers and let more people have this great success of having kids. 

[01:05:42] Griffin Jones: I really look forward to having you back on sometime halfway through end of 2025 to see the scale, to see how you've been able to scale many of these changes, to see what expenditures you've cut, to see what investments you made.

I can't wait to have you back on. This has been a pleasure to finally have a microphone and record the darn thing, Jason, and I think people are really going to enjoy it. Thank you so much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. Thanks for the time. This podcast was brought to you by IVF Store.

I hadn't even heard of them until you lab directors and embryologists told me how much you like them. If you agree with Jason, tell him, tell me, or tell the IVF Store. I'm still learning about these guys. You seem to know a lot about them. We really want to know, if you've had a good experience with the IVF Store, will you let either them or Jason or myself know?

[01:06:34] Dr. Jason Barritt: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of the great suppliers. 

[01:06:37] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

 
 

231 What You Do With The Data with TJ Farnsworth

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


What are the most important KPIs for your fertility clinics? How do you define them?

We explore that with today's guest, TJ Farnsworth, CEO of Inception Fertility, as he shares his best practices for establishing KPIs to obtain reliable data, and how to use it effectively.

Tune in as TJ provides his perspective on:

  • How a small group text turned into the Fertility Providers Alliance (The field’s first trade organization)

  • The differences between trade organizations and medical societies

  • Can we expect potential FPA guidelines?

  • Leveraging political resources in light of recent legal decisions (Dobbs & the Alabama Supreme Court)

  • Griffin questions if private equity’s timeline is bad for investment in innovation and resources

Inception Fertility
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram

TJ Farnsworth
LinkedIn


[00:00:00] TJ Farnsworth: The data, you know, once you look at it, as long as you know it's consistent, as long as you know it's right, we'll tell you the answer. And I think what we're trying to do with the FPA is then create a platform of communication and collaboration where we can take that information that we're collecting at a At an individual provider level, whether you're a, you know, single clinic or whether you're a, you're a small group of clinics or whether you're a large platform and share them with each other in a way in which we can improve all of us, I guess that's ultimately the goal.

[00:00:28] Kevin Ali: Hi, I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon. And at Organon, we're committed to engaging with leaders across reproductive medicine. So I'm excited to introduce today's guest, TJ Farnsworth, founder and CEO of Inception Fertility. TJ has built Inception into the largest provider of comprehensive fertility clinics and services in North America.

[00:00:52] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon. Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at fertilityjourney.com

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser

[00:01:45] Griffin Jones: Guess who's back on the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. That's right. Kevin just told you, you might know TJ Farnsworth from being the CEO of Inception Fertility, but he also helped found the Fertility Providers Alliance, the FPA. Have you heard of it before?

Do you know what? This is something that we haven't had in the field. A trade organization, and you might be thinking, we have trade organizations, TJ explains the difference between what a trade organization does versus what a professional or a medical society does. He talks about sharing political resources in light of things like the Dobbs decision and the Alabama Supreme Court decision.

It tells the origin of how a group text with a few other fertility clinic CEOs and founding doctors turned into a conference call of 50 people turned into a trade organization with a charter and governance and a board of directors. I asked TJ if he thinks that the FPA will one day issue operational guidelines.

He said they won't issue clinical guidelines, but this is what he had to say about the shortage of providers. Managed care contract negotiations, sharing protocols, sharing supplies, if we ever see ourselves in a gnarly supply crunch. He talks about best practices for how to, how to establish the right key performance indicators, like what percentage of patients are cash pay versus managed care, what's the average time to treatment, and then how to get consistent, reliable data, and then what to do with that data, and how the FPA might be able to establish accurate, impartial benchmarks for its members.

I think this data problem plays into the chicken and egg problem of a lack of adoption of new technological solutions in the clinic and in the lab, and not just startups, but ones that probably should be blue chip by now. I press TJ on those investment timelines, not just venture capitals, as he points out, but also private equities.

Hear his response and more and enjoy this episode of Inside Reproductive Health with TJ Farnsworth. Mr. Farnsworth, TJ, welcome back to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast yet again, again, again. Good to see you, Griffith. You know your way around here by now. I, do you know how many times that you have been on the show counting this time?

I do because I just went back and counted. I don't know, three times? This is number five. You were five. Alright, cool. You came and since we've done about 30,000 episodes now, it's you, you, and we've been doing this for five years, so you have probably been on an average of once a year. And so first time that was page, that was episode 45.

I went and looked at all of these before our conversation too, so I could try not to ask you questions I've already asked you. So number 45, was that, was you talking about your experience as a. Patient, and then how that brought you into the field, and talking about how you use that to inform giving your team the type of decision making authority so they don't do the same bozo thing of we can only take the credit card this way when you and your wife are in distress.

Episode 166, that was a BUNDL episode, and the, uh, That's where you came on with your team, talked about shared risk and what the type of scale you need in order to be able to share risk and reduce risk for patients and get patients in a paying program that works better for them. Then you came on episode 188, you talked about compensation models for REIs.

You, in that one, you were, I really, I liked you before, I liked you even more after that episode, because I felt like you You opened up a bit about just being like, Hey, these were some mistakes I made in the past. Here's a much better way I think is doing it now based on some hard lessons learned. And I think that people should go back and listen to that episode.

Then there was a live special edition episode where you came on with Dr. Beltzos, with Dr. Alvaro. That was in April, 2020. This is like everything shutting down, I'm soiling myself. I'm so freaking scared of what's happening. The MDA just closed and then that episode was about can clinics support new docs and staff while this is going on.

I thought, you know, private equity money, this is going to dry up. You know, there's going to be, demand's just going to drop for a while. I was wrong. You were more optimistic at that time. And so while I want to talk about a different topic today, I do think it It is interesting, four and a half years later, to go back to that moment and kind of think about why were you optimistic?

I just remember, I didn't even go back and listen to the episode recently, I just remember you saying like, no, I think like, this is where the field's going, we're going to have plenty of demand for docs, we're going to have plenty of demand for staff. Why were you so optimistic? 

[00:06:42] TJ Farnsworth: I think a lot of it is because I look at things from the perspective of a patient, you know, just going back to that very first episode we did together, and you know, when my wife and I were going through this, you know, there was nothing that was going to deter us from having the family we wanted, and yes, I think COVID interrupted a lot of patients journeys, but the patient that wanted a baby in April of 2020, They still wanted a baby in August and, you know, October.

And so, while it might have delayed their journey depending on where in the country they were and where in their journey they were, it didn't change anything about what they wanted. And, frankly, probably long term created a greater degree of patience for us because people were putting off creating families because of a lot of uncertainty, which was unfortunate, but we didn't know what we didn't know back then.

So, yeah, it's easy to be standing here four and a half years later saying who was right and who was wrong. 

[00:07:35] Griffin Jones: Well, you were right, righter than I was. Maybe it's just that, you know, being from Buffalo and the, the sky's always falling type of attitude, but you've got that entrepreneurial spirit and that, that optimism.

And it was around that time that I don't, I think you had started FPA, the Fertility Providers Alliance, a bit before that, but I feel like that's when it caught on. Let's zoom out for a second. I remember when the FPA was just, was an idea that you had, you had texted me about prior to you even starting it, and then you, and then you started it.

What is the Fertility Providers Alliance? What was the idea behind it originally? 

[00:08:20] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, I mean, we were sort of talking about it before, you know, the COVID, you know, crisis, but I think, you know, uh, any good, any good crisis brings people together in unique ways in which, you know. I've been in other specialties in healthcare before, and like many people have, and, and there are industry trade organizations, you know, for lack of a better term, that exist in other specialties that are, that are maybe a little bit more mature than fertility, and one of the things that I know you've heard me say before is the lack of collaboration and, and, and, you know, sort of coordination and, and shared effort that exists along various different providers within our space.

It's something I've never seen in another healthcare space before and it's, and I think, you know, my goal originally was to say, was to create a platform, a forum for people to be collaborating You know, ASRM was an amazing organization, one which we're not trying to, what FPA is not trying to replicate or replace in any way, try to be complimentary to, it operating as a professional society, but there, there hasn't really been a forum for people to come together on, on, you know, political lobbying, business topics, all kinds of things that I think were necessary just to start a dialogue and, you know, it turns into whatever the membership of it decides to turn it into over time.

But. I just think I always thought there was a, there was a lack of something missing there, which I think I may have even mentioned on that very first podcast we did pre COVID. And I think, you know, what COVID did was it brought a bunch of people together that needed to try and figure out how to solve some problems together.

And I think it was, you know, wasn't until during COVID that we actually technically named the organization and sort of brought everyone together. But Certainly the idea of creating a platform of, of collaboration was, was really what it was all about. Cause it's just, it's better for all of us and it's better for patients if we're working together to better the industry.

[00:10:12] Griffin Jones: You talked a bit about the differences between a professional society and a trade organization. I think those differences might not be immediately obvious for a lot of people listening. You're not replicating ASRM, you're doing something different. In your view, what is the difference between this is what a professional society does versus this is what a trade organization does?

[00:10:35] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, look, there is always some natural overlap and, you know, we, you know, we, you know, You know, taking my, putting my FBA hat on, FBA talks regularly with ASRM, and Jared and I have a great relationship. He's done a really great job of, of cementing that collaboration between the two organizations. And I think a lot of it is around the idea that look, the professional society has limitations in the fact that it's, it's focused on clinical and which is, which is what, which is really what.

This is actually, frankly, more important. It's the clinical and scientific advancement of the specialty. And, you know, not as important, but still top of mind is, you know, what type of, you know, is there, are there, you know, business operational best practices that we can share with one another? And are there, You know, are there opportunities to collaborate in ways in which we can advance the sort of the operational side of the business operation side of the specialty?

And you know, ASRM has done some of that in the past with the, you know, the Association of Reproductive Managers, which I think is fabulous. It's something that I think is a great aspect of what ASRM does. But I think there's something larger and more, more formalized and not, not just, you know, you know, in terms of collaborating, you know, whether it be COVID or whether it be, you know, post dob situation, you know, we get focused on these crises, but, and we'll, and just to, you know, focus on them for a moment, you know, how do we get the, the, you know, pharmaceutical companies, the device manufacturers, the clinics, everybody in the room together talking about ways in which we can share resources.

So that we can be as efficient as possible with the use of those resources, rather than everyone just sort of reacting in their own way of throwing their own dollars and time and energy and effort at trying to solve a problem. And then in the middle of times, which is, you know, you know, uh, crises are one thing, but, but, you know, there's times between crises, which sometimes it seems like there's not, but, uh, well, there are times between crises where there's opportunities for us to talk about, you know, uh, ways in which we can help each other.

And. You know, I use this analogy a lot. I, you know, as I think back on our prior podcast, I think I may have used this example before, the oncology, the specialty I came from, the specialty as a, as a field felt like, it feels like it's at war with cancer, not with each other. You know, when we, I, I remember the time I opened the cancer center in a new market and the competing clinic down the street came by and brought us cookies and told us if, Hey, if you, if you're.

You got a delay on any of your supplies or something like that, let us know, we'll loan you stuff, you know, that level of, you know, I've opened a lot of fertility clinics and new markets in my career, almost 10 years now in the fertility space and nobody's I just think there's a, there's a, there's a feeling that people don't want to, people don't want to be playing in other sandboxes that I think has really gotten a lot better in the past five or six years.

And it's, it's going to continue to get better as we talk more and create that, that platform for dialogue. 

[00:13:36] Griffin Jones: Times Between Crises. TJ, when you do, when you authorize your end of career, tell all business biography, consider that for a title. That'd be a pretty cool title to see at the airport. So you think it's gotten better in the past couple of years.

I want to ask you about that, but I want to ask about the resources that you saying, like, if we could get the pharmaceutical companies, the device companies, the clinics, et cetera, sharing resources. Now, I was thinking you meant like political lobbying resources. But it sounds like in the example of when you were in oncology and a different system came to you all and said, hey, if you're running low on supplies, we'll lend you some.

You might not just mean political resources. So what types of resources are you envisioning or were you envisioning that could be shared? 

[00:14:23] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, I think, obviously, I think, you know, political lobbying is a great example in terms of, in terms of, you know, why am I hiring a lobbyist in all of these states, and then Cooper's doing the same thing, and, and, you know, Faring's doing the same thing, and, and, you know, ESRM is doing the same thing, and, Can our dollars be stretched even further by, by collaborating with each other in a way that we weren't before.

But I also think it's things like, you know, I'll just use the COVID scenario as an example, you know, all of us at clinics, we're trying to keep open during a pandemic, which we, you know, we're either closing, reopening, or, um, trying to keep open, um, in some cases, uh, during the pandemic, depending on what each of us individually decided.

And, you know, we were sharing amongst the different clinics, whether you be a, you know, single doc, two doc practice, or whether you're one of the large networks, we were sharing Bye. You know, infectious disease protocols, consent forms, all kinds of things that, you know, from my perspective, why not share them with each other because if we're helping each other survive this, that's better for all of us.

And it's easy to point to these things or these crises, but there's always these opportunities to exist, you know, you know, between crises, as I said. And I think there's always an opportunity for, for us to be consistently, you know, I'm really dissatisfied with the level of work we're doing and ways in which we can improve upon it.

And if I can improve upon, you know, what someone else is doing, if I can learn from what my other large network colleagues are doing, if I can, you know, not every clinic in this country could or should or will be a part of a big organization, but if we can share resources to make them just as successful as the large networks are, or even more, all the better.

You know, the, the, the rising tide lifts all boats. There's a whole lot of capacity for treating fertility patients from an access perspective that we've all been talking about that's necessary for us to unlock. And so if we're collaborating with each other to figure out ways in which we can do that, all the better.

[00:16:16] Griffin Jones: Do you think it could be the case that one group shares supplies with another group or trying to 

[00:16:25] TJ Farnsworth: Absolutely. We've never been in a scenario, at least that I know of, that's happened, but we would do that, no question. Because again, I think, you know, my example in the oncology thing was more of an acute example, but, you know, whether it be, you know, if there was a supply shortage, I mean, you know, of some kind, due to supply chain disruption, if ways in which we can be collaborating, purchasing between clinics in a way that allows us all to operate and meet the needs of our patients, All the better for everybody.

[00:16:55] Griffin Jones: We talk abstractly now, but we are entering this world where the future of global commerce is very much in question of what's going to be possible to be sourced from which countries and which regions, and what further down the line supply chain affects will happen. So what you're talking about is being open to an idea.

There might actually be concrete examples for in the next. 

[00:17:20] TJ Farnsworth: There might be, and it's a great, the great thing about it is, is if you're trying, is, we got to create the platform because, you know, we were trying to build the plane while it was taking off during COVID and trying to create an environment where we can collaborate and work together.

And we need to be building that, that platform community for communication and collaboration long before the next crisis comes along. And, and, and again, there's a lot we can do, you know, to better each other and improve before that crisis comes. I'm not smart enough to predict what that next crisis will be, you know, whether it be, but I mean, just in the past, you know, five years, we've had COVID, we've had the DOMS decision, we've had what happened in Alabama, that whether, whether you're operating in Alabama or not, had an impact to you and your patients, all of these things are things which we, we're going to see something else come, and we'll never predict what that is, but if we have a platform for communication and collaboration amongst all the providers, And the nano organization amongst device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, ASRM, SART, otherwise so that we're, so that we're, you know, doing our best to meet the needs of the clinics and therefore our patients, all the better.

[00:18:29] Sponsor: Organon is dedicated to delivering impactful medicines and solutions for a healthier tomorrow. Guided by its mission of being here for her health. Organon proudly recognizes fertility providers around the world focusing on care equity. We believe everyone should have access to fertility education and treatment.

By collaborating with providers, advocates, and communities, Organon is working to elevate fertility awareness, expand resources, and invest in innovative products that help more aspiring parents access the care they deserve. Every journey to parenthood is unique. Organon stands with you. Learn more about Organon's resources at fertilityjourney.com

[00:19:19] Griffin Jones: What was the reception like in the beginning? And so was it, was it in March of 2020 when you started approaching other groups and other founding docs and other CEOs of, Hey, this is what we're trying to do? Or was it, was it prior to then? And what was that like? 

[00:19:36] TJ Farnsworth: It was a little, it was a little funny.

I actually remember we, there was a text stream going between myself and You know, a handful of others, people at, at Shady Grove and, and various other different clinic platforms, you know, that, you know, sort of say, Hey, let's get on a call tonight. This is, you know, right after the MDA shut down, the whole crisis, things have, let's go on a call tonight and, and let's discuss how we, ways in which we can, you know, collaborate and strategize together and help each other.

And, and it became, Hey, I'm going to add this person, I'm going to add this person, and then it would be like, I don't know, 50 people on a conference call and, and, you know, talking about how we're going to create these things, you know, and, you know, we're talking about strategies like, Hey, listen, we need to be going to our landlords and talking about rent abatements and our lenders and talking about, you know, covenant holidays and payment skips and all the things that we needed because I was a big believer of the time.

And I think there's not just me, but this was shared by everyone else that was, you know, sort of leading the charge at the time that nobody should, we wanted no subject to fail because that would be bad for all of us. And, and that sort of sense of, you know, when you're, when you're, when you're being, you know, when you have an external force attacking you, it sort of brings everyone together in a way, in a way in which.

is, uh, is a unique opportunity. And what happened after COVID was y'all wouldn't have been sure went back to say after COVID. It was a long time, but I was all sort of went back to, Operating, and then, you know, the DOMS decision came along, and we're all sitting around the table at ASRM talking about it, and, and, and, you know, several of us said, listen, we can't look for an opportunity to collaborate and work together and communicate only when there's a crisis, because we will not have the institutional framework in place necessary to be as successful as we could be when these crises do come up.

If we're doing this just as a daily, you know, part of our operations of our business, and frankly, that's part of the evolution and maturity of what we do. of the specialty, because, again, you know, I've been in three or four different specialties in my career, and they've all had this, and so we need this as an industry, it'll make us all better, and, and it's not just for large networks, it wasn't until, if it wasn't during COVID that way, and It shouldn't be for the future, it should be about how do we advance this specialty for all of us.

[00:21:53] Griffin Jones: Do you think it would have been possible without COVID for one reason is the unifying force that you mentioned when you've got an external force attacking upon the group, it unifies the group, but also I don't think there's ever been a time in human history where that many ultra busy people have been synchronously available.

[00:22:14] TJ Farnsworth: I'll say that on behalf of my peers in the space, I assure you, none of us were available. We were all figuring out how to, you know, keep our clinics open, furlough workers, preserve our balance sheets. I was working, you know, you know, 10 plus hours a day, 12, 18 hours a day, some days, just trying to, And, you know, just figure out how to keep 

[00:22:32] Griffin Jones: But all on that issue, because I was the same way, too.

There was no There was It was an extremely stressful time. There was no, like, sitting on and watching Netflix, but everybody was thinking about the same thing. 

[00:22:44] TJ Farnsworth: There was, you know, finally some grip on this. I think eventually the specialty would have gotten to a place of having FPA like organization around it, but I don't, it may have taken, it may have been just in its infancy right now.

If our baby first started, we talked about, right, I'd certainly accelerated the timeline around all that extraordinarily. And it looks like it did for a lot of things. I mean, look, we're standing here, In a time in which I don't know what percentage of our new patient consults happen via video, but you know, it was negligible prior to COVID and it's common post COVID.

So COVID accelerated a lot of things and I think this is just, you know, one of those components of it. 

[00:23:23] Griffin Jones: Let's move on to the institutional framework because you said, you know, it can't just Text thread of 50 people or a Zoom of 50 people. You have to have a sort of framework in order to make it an institution and give it life.

How did you set that up? 

[00:23:41] TJ Farnsworth: Well, I think in the beginning it was just about who wanted to step up and take a leadership role or doing this during COVID. It was all just sort of A little bit of chaos. I think as we began to formalize things later, it was really looking at, you know, the, you know, the larger networks that had some institutional capacity to be able to start to set this up.

And right now, even the FBA is still in its early days. I mean, we're, we're really just creating the governance framework that's been created, sort of what the value proposition the FBA would have to any clinic, I think, is still being, is still evolving. It will always evolve. You know, right now, I think.

It's really all about sort of putting the framework together, which the large networks have the, you know, resources and capacity to do that. But ultimately, long term, it has to be for the benefit of everybody within the industry. It can't just be for, if it ends up becoming and evolving into a large network fertility providers organization, that's, that's not, that's not to, it certainly wouldn't be the vision and goal I would have had originally.

[00:24:41] Griffin Jones: So you're working on the governance now. Do you have a charter yet? 

[00:24:44] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, the charter's in place, you know, the mission statements are in place, all those things are in place. I think, you know, when I think about if I'm a, you know, three or four doctor, independent practice that's going to stay that way, you know, for long term, what is the value proposition for an organization like this to me?

I think, you know, if I'm in Alabama, I was spending all kinds of time and energy and effort, all of a sudden, political lobbying, And, you know, but if I was in California, I might not have paid much of attention. I'm obviously dealing with patients around that, but I certainly wouldn't have thrown resources at it.

And how do you create a scenario where everyone can be feeling like they're at the table with regards to voice being heard and understanding that what happens in Florida or Alabama or Texas or New York or California or Ohio or wherever has an impact On a national level, I think the great thing is the Alabama decision actually helped solidify that.

So I think, I think, you know, we're still collaborating as a group and obviously, you know, the, I would say the current FPA leadership, which is the CEOs of all the major networks, you All have day jobs. And so, you know, it's really right now, it's around, you know, sort of figuring out how to put those pieces together, obviously, political lobbying, especially in today's environment, is on the top of everyone's mind.

But then, you know, once you get that in place, yeah, and doing that in a way, again, the share of resources, because, you know, there's resource limitations in terms of dollars that can be spent. And if we can do it in a way It's efficient and maximizes that spend so that we're advancing, you know, fertility preservation for oncology reasons in states in which that's an opportunity where we are, you know, protecting access to IVF in places where that might be a peril.

That's to everyone's benefit. And then I think you start to get to things like where can we be sharing best practices? Where can we be collaborating on sort of operational processes that drive a greater degree of efficiency and benefit all of us, which. You know, we're, we gotta lay the foundations first though, so that's what we're working on now.

[00:26:48] Griffin Jones: Are we starting to see some sort of consensus on what operational processes need to be made more efficient? Not, not which need to be made more efficient, but really how they need to be made more efficient? Are we starting to see some consensus, or right now you're just hosting the debate? 

[00:27:07] TJ Farnsworth: I think you're always going to have, um, various opinions.

I think everyone can align themselves with the fact that, you know, there's a shortage of providers. You know, we need more nurses, we need more embryologists, we need more physicians. How do you get there? Those are different types of debates. The administrative overhead of providing nurse services. I mean, one of the benefits of a greater degree of insurance coverage is access, which presents a clinical challenge.

How do you meet the needs of those patients in a timely way? And then also all the other components of this is, you know, just like other parts of healthcare, when you have a greater degree of commercial insurance coverage, you're going You've got a greater degree of administrative overhead associated with that in terms of, uh, obtaining prioritizations, you know, managed care contract negotiations, billing collections, all these things that are the sort of complicated sausage making that exists in all of healthcare and, and some clinics have the level of sophistication necessary to meet those challenges, some don't, some are choosing to say to themselves, I don't want to take insurance, so I'm just going to take cash, which is obviously It helps from an administrative perspective and each one of those clinics should do what they think is right for them and for their patient base.

I think it's about creating a platform by which you could say, here's the path I'm going down and the resources for me and the ways which I can share with others that may have gone down this path or may have been down this path or may are going down this path and we can collaborate with each other. I don't think that there's ever going to be an opportunity to sort of, Coalesce everyone around a single opinion, that's actually, I don't think that's a benefit, I think people going down different paths and trying different things and seeing what works, and then sharing what works and what doesn't work, is how you're getting approved, right?

If we're all doing the exact same things and not trying different things, Then, you know, there wouldn't be a whole lot of opportunity to see what was, what could be different and what could be better. 

[00:28:57] Griffin Jones: Does or will the FPA issue guidelines in the way that ASRM will issue guidelines on the clinical or scientific side, does FBA or will they issue guidelines based on, here's what we think are operational best practices?

[00:29:15] TJ Farnsworth: Potentially, I would say that we're, you know, that's something I think, you know, we're going to need broader membership as we, as we get this foundation put into place in order to decide some of those things. I think it's certainly a potential that will, something that will come. But what I can say is that the FPA will not do is issue clinical guidelines.

You know, FPA looks, is not in any way interested in competing against ASRM as a professional society. For physicians, offering advice around, around, around clinical processes and clinical guidelines. It's, it's more really driven around what we can do around creating, you know, business operational best practices on the administrative side.

[00:29:53] Griffin Jones: She said, people are starting to share what's not working, what is working. What is working, TJ? What are the couple operational things, the one to three really specific things that have made a big impact in different groups in the last couple years in terms of operational changes? 

[00:30:10] TJ Farnsworth: I think we're all getting a greater degree of, of handle on our data, and so, you know, it's, it's hard to know what's working and what's not working as you, as you operate and tinker with different operational practices at the clinic level, if you're not tracking KPI data, and so I think all of us, you know, that are running networks are getting, have over the past few years gotten a better and better handle, hands around, You know, the data, like how much, how much of a clinic in a given market is, is, is cash pay versus managed care?

You know, what are we seeing in terms of the time it takes for a new patient to get to treatment? What are those barriers? You identify those barriers and, and remove friction points. I think data is, and, and consistent data and, and, and reliable data is, is one of the critical things that we're all coalescing around and getting better at.

I would also say that, that, that the most of us are, I, all of us are, have really sharpened our pencil and improved our muscle memory around the commercial, commercial insurance side of things. We, you know, you know, 10 years ago, the vast majority of clinics were primarily cash pay. And now, you know, 50 plus percent, depending on the market.

Some of it's 70, 80% even in non-mandated markets have commercial insurance. And so you're seeing a scenario where, you know, where places like Boston, IVF, uh, they, they, they've had this institutional knowledge forever because they've, they've, yeah, forever, but for a long time because of the mandate that's existed in Massachusetts.

But you know, a practice in Florida might not have that knowledge. Yeah, I think everyone is, is sharpening their pencils and improving their muscle memory around everything related to commercial insurance, front to back end, which is the front end being, you know, how do you negotiate with commercial insurers?

How do you, you know, what you should be looking for? How do you deal with prior authorizations and benefits verification all the way through? Then how do you submit claims, adjudicate those claims? And execute on collections. I think that's a knowledge and skill set that a lot of clinics just had to refine over the past few years.

[00:32:20] Griffin Jones: With regard to the data, figuring out these important KPIs, like what percentage is cash pay versus managed care, what's the time to treatment or Uh, and making sure the data is consistent and reliable. How do you get that data just from, just from the EMR or are there other software, other methods that you need to do get that type of data?

[00:32:43] TJ Farnsworth: I mean, the vast majority of it's going to come from either your, a combination of your EMR and your practice management system. And then, you know, whatever you're using from a CRM perspective to manage, you know, the new patient pipeline, those sort of three things together are going to, you know, no matter what you're using, no matter, you know, I think everyone is coalescing around whatever their technology platform they're going to use is, and then how they're going to track that data.

And that, that consistency of data within providers, It's giving those providers an opportunity, all of us, to have insights that we can then share with each other that can make us all better. 

[00:33:22] Griffin Jones: I find that even when people have all, and almost everybody has an EMR at this point, most people have practice management systems, some people have CRMs.

When they have all three, I still often find that it just Don't have the, like, maybe there's some way of them being able to pull those KPIs, but it doesn't, like, live in a place that they regularly use or that they know how to get immediately, which makes me wonder how they're using it. So, in order to get it, you have to, you have to have those three things, but then, do you need to assemble a specific team that gets that information?

Do you need to train the people who are already using it? to get information. How does, how does that work? 

[00:34:06] TJ Farnsworth: The first thing is creating consistency of data. So what I would advise, uh, a clinical provider, whether you're, whether you're a single practice or whether you're a large network, And that's what we're going to be talking about today is creating consistency of data, and that has to be a multidisciplinary approach that's got to be administrative, lab, clinical, physician, let's all agree what we believe this KPI means, because you'd be sort of shocked and surprised to know that a new patient consult means different things at different clinics, right?

And so, and you probably wouldn't be shocked to know that, but, but it's, it's, it's It's wild. And so you, first of all, you need consistency of data. Here's how we're going to track this data. And here's where we stack our hands on what this data means. Because if, if the, if what the definitions of that data changes over time, it really creates a difficult, how do you create your, over your trends?

How do you see, is the, is the change to the data because you change the definition of the data or is it because the data is actually changing? So I think that's foundational before you even get to like, how do I present it? How do I track it? And many, I would tell. You know, there, there are lots of different choices in terms of automating the production of KPIs, uh, for small to medium to large practices, um, and platforms that, you know, you don't want a bunch of your staff, you know, reporting KPIs up the chain.

That's just, uh, that's an administrative headache that they don't want, that they don't want to deal with. You got to figure out when to automate that. But before you even worry about trying to automate it, you got to make sure that the data is right. Otherwise you're just presenting wrong data. 

[00:35:35] Griffin Jones: So you have to get that consistency of the data you wanna automate it be because you don't want people just hunting down data that they're having to pull.

So it's gotta be automated, it's gotta be at the top. It's gotta be consistent. Then what are people supposed to do with it? How are they actually supposed to get their teams to make any sort of meaningful change or informed decision because of it? 

[00:36:03] TJ Farnsworth: Well, I think, I think whether it, you know, whether you've got dedicated professionals who this is what they do is they look at the data and analyze it and then report back on it or whether or not you're going to create a multidisciplinary team of people that looks at the data.

I mean, what do you do with the data is usually told to you by the data, right? So, so, but I think, you know, generally speaking, our healthcare in general tends to be a Made up of a lot of people, whether it be business people or clinical people, who are data driven individuals. And so, if you know that the data is right, you know it's consistent, it's not something you can really argue with.

Now, you can argue about what you, you know, what your reaction might be, but if you're seeing, you know, X, Y, or Z, if you're seeing, you know, one, One embryology lab you have is got a materially better, you know, outcomes rate in some kind than another, there's a best practice to go find there, right? There's an opportunity to learn and, and, you know, what the answer to that would be, the solution that would be, would be way above latte grade, but, you know, that's one side of things on the side, well, it's all the lab side of things.

There is unquestionably the same example to be given for a clinical physician driven data that would come. And then obviously, you know, you already see how long does a patient sit between a new patient consult and a benefits authorization? Okay, what, where are there opportunities for me to automate that or streamline that or reduce friction so that I don't have patients waiting and that's one of the A couple of dozen examples that we can come up with on the sort of, um, you know, administrative operational side of things.

But the data, you know, once you look at it, as long as you know it's consistent, as long as you know it's right, we'll tell you the answer. And I think what we're trying to do with the FPA is then create a platform of communication and collaboration where we can take that information that we're collecting at a personal level.

At an individual provider level, whether you're a, you know, single clinic or whether you're a, you're a small group of clinics or we're not your large platform and share them with each other in a way in which we can improve all of us. I think that's, that's ultimately the goal. 

[00:38:12] Griffin Jones: How do you keep that communication consistent?

One thing that I noticed, so I'd sit on the board for a while. For the Association of Reproductive Managers, which is a subgroup of A SRM, and we've got a forum, and I think the different professional groups also have their online forums. And every once in a while someone will pop on and be like, what do you think of Engage md?

What do you use for this? What's your take on this EMR? Or how do you calculate this metric? And then you'll get people, that answer is just kind of random. Like there isn't, we haven't. Ben, really able to find a way where, you know, consistently we've got people sort of sharing that communication. We have our meetings that are well attended, and we do virtual events that are well attended, and maybe that's the answer, but have you found a way to keep that sort of, that, that communication consistent rather than just when one person has a problem and then, you know, tweets it out in the ether for advice?

[00:39:06] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah. So what we've done so far, again, it's early innings. And so there's a lot of truly you've learned with ARM that we could probably take and adopt, but right now, you know, the FPA board is meeting monthly and then we've created subgroups of the board, you know, one, you know, aimed at different things.

For example, you know, you know, just using an example, we talked earlier, public policy and lobbying efforts and saying, and there's going to be a subgroup that meets more frequently as we advance that. And then the board itself as a whole is going to be monthly. Well, the, the, what the, the, the key evolution of the FPA is gonna have to be is how do you then extend that outside of just that core group?

And as we begin to develop a value proposition to a broader and broader membership, I think that's where the, where the challenge will come. And, you know, the problem is, is that, as you've seen you, I'm sure what these, with these, you know, these forums, you know, we create that internally even within Inception.

So let's, you know, we create a. Yeah, we have a team's channel for all the lab directors, we have a team's channel for all the nurse managers, we've got a team, you know, and, you know, some of them are more active than others, but the problem is everyone's got a, everyone's got a job to do, right, so they get busy, and it's hard to really try and drive that engagement.

I think you're going to have to, you know, the most successful strategies around that are really pulling, right, which is, you know, You know, which again, one of the gifts of COVID is this rare degree of acceptance over virtual meetings and, and everyone gets busy. But if this is a priority, we all agree is important, but it's something we'll make time for.

[00:40:39] Griffin Jones: What you do with the data is usually told to you by the data. It's a good quote, TJ. If I steal it, I'll give you credit for it. Okay. And I think of some of the challenges that companies selling into the fertility field are having is there are people who are really trying to solve the problem of patient wait times, of patient engagement, of time between consult and treatment, time between scheduling and consult, number of Phone calls that the nurses and providers get, adherence to protocol, etc.

And some of these solutions look pretty good. I think one of the things that they're struggling with is a convincing story to be able to show to the patient. People like the members of the FPA of this is exactly how we're going to, our solution reduces these wait times and this is exactly what the wait times are costing you and this is exactly how we're going to reduce the wait times, this is exactly how we're going to save you XX million dollars and we're only charging you Y million dollars.

It seems to me like they often miss that scale of, of data and partly because each different member has their own data, so, so each network, each clinic has their own data, and why would I give it to you startup? You know, you're trying to charge me and you want my data. That seems to be a catch 22 that is preventing the field from scaling faster.

Do you see. Is there any way that the FPA might be able to play a role in this where there's some sort of data that people can use as benchmarks or ways of being able to share and get information so that we can actually see who's providing value and who isn't? 

[00:42:24] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, I think there's no question there's probably an opportunity for, and we've talked about this, is the creating, you know, Benchmarking data that we could share and that wouldn't be the, you know, U. S. Fertility giving Inception their data. It would be an independent organization that would be able to, we'd all be able to provide our data to you and that could then provide benchmarks for all kinds of various different metrics that would be important to various vendors and to each other to say, Hey, you know, why am I, you know, outside of this, you know, benchmarking norm and where it may be identifying opportunities to improvement that we didn't necessarily see on our own because we're only have around data to work with.

So we've actually, no question, we've talked about that, but I think that strategy of, you know, vendors who take, one of the things I will say is I've, I've found unique some of these sort of, sort of startup, startup startups that are trying to solve some of these problems is. What I've seen in other specialties is a willingness to come in and prove it to companies, and I haven't seen that from most of these new entrances to our specialty yet.

I think that'll come, but I think part of it is, you know, raising money is hard right now, and so the idea of giving something away for free for a period of time to see And prove that it does what it says you gotta do is tough. 

[00:43:35] Griffin Jones: But I think, you know what, so this is what I mean by the, the catch 22, and I wanna stay on this point for a second because I think you hit it on the head.

I do think that they just don't have enough proof. Like they've got some proof of concept. They've done a couple of small case studies, they do see the need, like working really hard. I think they often just lack the like, here's the, like the real proven example. Let us come in and prove it first to your point.

That probably does have to do with fundraising, and I don't know that it's just because capital is a little drier now. Two or three years ago, capital was not dry, and there still wasn't a ton of VC influx into the fertility field. And very often, what these founders are telling me is that the VCs are telling them, field too small.

Opportunity is too small, TAM is too small. And, you know, I think you and I are both on the David Sable train of, we don't think it's too small. We think we could be doing 10 times the volume that we're doing in the United States alone just to catch up to European countries who all, who themselves are probably not doing as much as they're going to need to be doing as It's a very strong, but everybody gets it.

100%. And as society starts to think about demographic collapse, just wait until that's the thing that economists are talking about, demographic collapse, and all of a sudden, IVF gets more important. So, you and I see that picture, but I think what VCs are looking at is, well, all you're doing is 250, 000 cycles, therefore, you know, that's TAM's not big enough, therefore, you're not getting this money, which means that they can't prove it to you, which means that solutions can't be implemented to scale to make that addressable market actually addressed.

How do we, how do we solve for that? 

[00:45:25] TJ Farnsworth: It's a tough one because I think a lot of those professional investors have, you know, a shorter time horizon than, you know, UIF in terms of why we think about this industry. And, and, and so it's, it's important for founders and for CEOs of those smaller businesses to understand that, you know, yes, this may be the size of the market now, here's where I need it to get to.

And, and look, there are going to be some investors that understand that this is a longer term horizon than, than others. And, and You know, whether that's limiting their ability to invest in improving their product or not, I don't know. I don't run those companies, so I don't, I don't have any idea, but I do think, you know, you know, for us, for us, you know, they are taking, uh, you know, for taking my hats on and off here, but, uh, from an Inception hat perspective, You know, someone's willing to come in and prove a product that, you know, I think, I think if I was a CEO of that company, I would want very clear metrics that we're all going to agree on in advance, how we're going to collect that data, how much time we're going to collect that data, and what that means, but what does success mean?

Like what, how are we going to define success? Again, just be able to do a trial and see if it's successful. How does it, how do we define success? And then if it is successful, what does that mean? Does that mean I have a new customer? Because then you just think of it as part of your customer acquisition costs.

And I think that's the challenge for some of these smaller companies. You know, you know, whether it be software companies or product companies or technology businesses that are entering the market to try and solve some of these problems, especially, especially in the cases where they're, they're pretty young and they're pretty new and they don't have a lot of examples that they can point to and say, look what we did for that company.

Cause you know, it doesn't take much to, to, to build a few examples. I mean, EngageD is a great example of that in terms of the fact that look at their market penetration and it's that way because they've proven over the years what the value they proposition they bring to the other clients in the space.

[00:47:16] Griffin Jones: The customer acquisition cost is real high, and that makes it a challenge, but it isn't just the startups, and so, therefore, it seems to me like it isn't just venture capital whose timeline might be too short. I wonder about private equities timeline being too short. Many of the groups in the FPA are, for Our private equity back groups and when you have solutions like, you know, it could be, it could be time lapse imaging.

It could be, it could be cryo safety or cryo storage solutions that aren't really like startups or many of them aren't anymore. They're established. They have proven themselves, but their penetration still seems to be Pretty slow, and it seems to me that that's very often the case because they can't convincingly show this is going to return the investment in 18 months, therefore, that's too short for a private equity three to seven month timeline.

Now, you run a private equity group, the one you're currently running, the one in the past, you work with other folks that are Our private equity group, so like, is this a challenge for having too short of a timeline to be able to implement some of these solutions? 

[00:48:28] TJ Farnsworth: I can't speak to, you know, everyone, private equity partners, like Will City is the most private equity funds have a sort of somewhere between 5 and 10 year time horizon on their investments.

But I've never once been in a board meeting. Both my own companies and the ones I sit on the boards of with a private equity firm is preventing or resistant to investment in something because it will be outside of their time horizon, because they, they realize that the, you know, you know, the continued momentum of the business is part of what makes it,

[00:49:01] Griffin Jones: I've asked you a bunch about the FPA and so I want to let you have the concluding floor whether it's about the leadership coming up, whether it's about new initiatives that you want to take on, whether it's about what you would like to invite prospective members who are listening to know so that they join up.

The floor is yours, TJ. How would you like to conclude? 

[00:49:22] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, I would, I would encourage anybody who is a provider in the space to come talk to us, understand what we're trying to build, what we're trying, we have not made a major membership push yet, although that's coming, mostly because we want to solidify the value proposition that we can bring, because it's an organization that has to be a part of, you know, everyone's small, medium, and large clinics.

Not every clinic, some clinics are going to be academic forever, some are going to be independent forever, and that's the right thing for them. The important thing for us to do is to build a platform for collaboration and communication that lets us all be better. And I think if that's something that's of interest to one of your listeners that's a, that's, you know, running a small clinic or medium clinic or larger clinic, reach out to me, reach out to anyone in the membership, the leadership of FPA, reach out to FPA directly.

We do have independent operations of FPA. We asked an executive director that's independent of any one of our networks. It's, it's, it is being stood up as an independent organization. I think it's really important to know that. And I think it's something that, you know, as there's more and more, you know, anxiety within our industry, whether it be from political winds changing from here to there, We're just from the perspective of the fact that we're trying to figure out how to meet the needs and the demands, the growth to your example of being 10 times the size of where we are now over the coming years, we're going to have to do that in a way that, that, that, that is us working together.

And if that's something that resonates with, with someone, they should reach out and see how they can get involved. 

[00:50:51] Griffin Jones: TJ Farnsworth, I look forward to having you back on the program another five times. It's always a good time talking to you. Thanks for coming on the program. 

[00:50:59] TJ Farnsworth: Do I get a jacket like Saturday Night Live?

Like they get like a five timers jacket they used to do on Saturday Night Live? I feel like there should be something. 

[00:51:05] Griffin Jones: It's got to be double digits before you get a track jacket, but you're getting in shape. So we're gonna, we're gonna have to get the right size for you. And, and we might have some cool t shirts coming out for it.

So thanks for coming back on TJ. 

[00:51:18] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon. Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at fertilityjourney.com

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization.The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. 

Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

230 Guess Who's Back. Gina Bartasi's Plans as Return to CEO of Kindbody

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Back as CEO.

Gina Bartasi, returning CEO of Kindbody, provides a look at the strategies behind Kindbody's recent success and their vision for the future. Gina talks about Kindbody’s announcement of profitability, new initiatives, and lessons learned by the company.

Tune in as Gina Bartasi explores:

  • The strategies behind Kindbody’s profitability last quarter (And what that means moving forward)

  • The introduction of a new celebrity partnership aimed at opening doors for fertility awareness

  • The tension between the volume of care required and maintaining high-quality service

  • Her response to last year’s  Bloomberg articles

  • The delicate balance between business operations and medical practice in the clinical setting

  • Kindbody’s technology investments (Why they’re banking on their own EMR)


[00:00:00] Gina Bartasi: We intentionally built an IVF clinic and a lab in very expensive retail space. That's a mistake to do for a couple of reasons. First of all, retail space is very, very expensive and an IVF lab, your patient is asleep the majority of the time that they're there. The IVF lab is not conducive to a retail office space.

If IVF clinic in a retail space, you're going to have disproportionately more issues. By the way, no four wall business is immune to leaks. Outages related to electricity and they're not immune to it. That's why you have generators. That's why you have other things. All four wall businesses, I don't care if you're Shake Shack or Kindbody or any other fertility clinic network, what you want to do is mitigate those leaks and outages and other things.

[00:00:45] Kevin Ali: Hi, I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon and at Organon, we're committed to engaging with leaders across reproductive medicine. So I'm excited to introduce today's guest. Gina Bartasi, founder and [00:01:00] executive chairman of Kindbody, a New York City based fertility network with a mission to democratize access to healthcare.

[00:01:08] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon. Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at fertilityjourney.com

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible.But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the advertiser sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the [00:02:00] advertiser.

[00:02:01] Griffin Jones: Thank you, Kevin. And actually, we had Kevin record this just before Kindbody's announcement, where Gina is no longer just the chair of Kindbody. She's back as CEO. Ask her why and what she's up to. This is coming after Kindbody reported being profitable last quarter.

This gets us talking about doctors and that hairy line between operations and the practice of medicine that you know I don't think is separable. So I asked Gina how it can be. I ask if Kindbody is going to close locations. Gina talks about the countries and cities they might go to next and the quality of care they're in versus the needs that docs and staff have.

I'd love to know what you think of this conversation. As always, send me an email and enjoy this conversation with Gina Bartasi. Ms. Bartasi, Gina, welcome back to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast yet again. I think this is time number three for you. 

[00:02:51] Gina Bartasi: I think that's right. 

[00:02:52] Griffin Jones: The other episodes were popular, by the way.

I'm pretty sure at least one is in the top five. They might both be in the top [00:03:00] ten of listens. So we'll see how we do with, with number three and, uh, and I look forward to talking to you about highs and lows of the past, more so about the future. Um, but even before we do that, this, this might be old news by the time people listen to this, cause this Recording will probably come out in a couple weeks.

But as of right now, you just this week announced two big things. Um, one has to do with the profitability of Kindbody. The other has to do with, uh, the new CEO who is someone we know. And so let's, let's talk about those things. And, uh, let's talk about you coming back as CEO. Why you? Why now? 

[00:03:49] Gina Bartasi: Now, you mentioned two big announcements, uh, this week.

I thought you were going to mention, um, today we announced a partnership with Sloane Stephens, uh, the tennis star, [00:04:00] uh, and the campaign is called Open the Doors. We want to open the doors and open the dialogue to fertility, to fertility preservation. And so Sloane Stephens, the other thing we believe at Kindbody that's been fundamental since our beginning.

is to ensure that we're creating, uh, diversity and equality for all patients of all ethnicities. So I actually thought that's where you were going to start, Griffin, is with a world renowned tennis pro. Uh, sure, if you want to talk about me, uh, returning to CEO of Kindbody, it's a privilege and an honor.

You know our team, our doctors, they're world class. Um, the company did report, uh, revenue visibility of 225 to 250 million. Uh, which is meaningful. This company is still young. It's only five years old. Uh, we, we opened our first clinic in Midtown Manhattan, actually in Flatiron, Manhattan, uh, less than five years ago.

So to be less than five years and tracking towards anywhere close to a quarter of a billion dollars is meaningful. The other point you [00:05:00] mentioned, which is important to our teammates is, uh, profitability. Uh, people know that are in the venture community, this J curves, you invest, invest, invest, we've invested heavily.

Tens of millions of dollars in our proprietary technology. We have our own kind, uh, electronic medical record, our own patient portal, um, and so we've invested millions of dollars there. We've also invested millions of dollars in new locations. Um, our peers that are listening in know it cost a couple of million dollars to open a new world class state of the art IVF clinic with an IVF lab, and in addition to a couple of million dollars to open a clinic, you have operating losses the first year.

That's no surprise. No one opens a new clinic that's profitable from day one, ever, never, it's never been done. So you carry operating losses and then most forecasts to break even about month 24, better operators are able to get to break even about month 18. Uh, we're able to break even a little earlier than [00:06:00] that, call it anywhere from month 12 to month 15 when we have employer sponsorships, when we have really attractive managed care contracts, uh, when we have a brand.

That's where we always like to start. The reason Kindbody has so much attention is because It's because unlike some of the other networks that are peers where they have very disparate brand names for these clinics, uh, Kindbody is one brand and that's intentional because since the beginning we've talked about the consumerism of healthcare.

So the other thing that creates a faster time to profitability is when we go into a new market and there's already pent up demand from self pay patients because they know this brand Kindbody. And we're grateful again today that, The big announcement to me is not about Kindbody or about me returning as CEO.

It's about how we create more equality to family building care. And that starts with Sloane Stephens. Uh, representing other young, she's 31 years old, uh, athletes, social influencers, and people [00:07:00] of color. 

[00:07:01] Griffin Jones: I think the big announcement is you coming back as CEO because of all of those things. Kindbody is so big and has so many different initiatives that being at the helm is, uh, a pretty hefty responsibility.

And I don't know a ton about CEOs that have come back. I think the only one that I can think of is Steve Jobs. And that's a sort of, you know, that's a sort of, you know, renowned story that people still think of. Uh, because if there was a time when Apple was n Not what it is. And then all of a sudden, iPod, iPad, iPhone.

And, uh, so what does that look like for you? What are you coming back in to see, to see this job done for? Because I have a feeling that Steve Jobs came back to make sure that those things are what came to fruition. Why you at this time? 

[00:07:59] Gina Bartasi: Yeah. [00:08:00] Um, humbly as it sounds, I probably know the business best. I'm probably most qualified to lead the company into the next five to 10 years.

I know the players. I know, uh, I respect, I actually like the player, player, the other players. We don't ever call them competitors. You will never hear us call any of the other large networks. Or even any of the other Fertility Benefit Administration companies, um, competitors, their peers. We talk about and coined this term coopetition.

We believe we're stronger together when we align and partner to create a bigger pie, a bigger, a bigger pie instead of arguing over the same small piece of pie. Um, I think the, you know, my returning is, is just easy. Uh, it's natural. Again, I know. I know the employer market. I know the consumer brand market.

Uh, the managed care is, is, is the beast that we all have to work with. Uh, as CEOs of large networks, [00:09:00] we certainly know the industry has gone more towards managed care. It's changed pretty dramatically. Um, I read and respect, I mean, I was going to say it was you, Griffin, it was actually a banking analyst that had David Keefe.

He was a total rock star at NYU, but he talked about patient demand and how it changed a decade ago. It was primarily self pay, and today, there's some sort of sponsor, whether that's an employer sponsor or a managed care sponsor, and what that means to the economics of the fertility center. A, the reimbursements are lower, and B, the collections Um, you know, I'm, I'm back as CEO, um, because there's a tremendous amount of opportunity in the future.

We're at the very, very early endings of what we think is, uh, continued growth in the market. There are changes and I'm, uh, it's easy for me to adapt and see the changes just given the tenure. I've spent the last 12 years in the industry and again, [00:10:00] I'm honored to work and, and, and And call so many of the other CEOs, uh, again, friends and, and peers of ours and mine.

[00:10:07] Griffin Jones: You were still during, active with the company during that time, but do you feel like that you had some time to reflect on things that you would do differently this go around? Because I've, I've never stepped down as owner of my own company, but I do think of, of, you know, mistakes that I made and, uh, things it's like, okay, I.

know what I would do differently this time around. And I think one of the things One of the hardest things that you can do in business is hire people, lead people, keep them happy, get them what they need to be happy. It's really hard. And There was a time where I know that I didn't do the best by my people.

What I was doing was having them do too much for my good people. I wasn't keeping track of what I was having them being responsible for. So [00:11:00] I kept piling stuff up on their plate without having a map for them for growth, without having enough recognition for them. What then that allowed for was when you have a couple of people that aren't a good fit, come into the organization, then it's really easy to, to sour that bunch because you have good people that aren't, aren't being taken care of the best.

And I was guilty of that. And I was, and I was doing it because, uh, you know, it is, it is effing hard to run. a business. You know, I can't imagine running a company the size of Kindbody. I run a organization, you know, seven figure organization, you know, with a couple dozen people, including the part timers and the independent contractors.

And it's still crazy to me. But I did learn what I needed to change about that. And I didn't have to bust all the way down to the foundation, but kind of had to bust down to the studs and think about what I had to do differently, and that was make sure that there's a seat for every person that is crystal clear with the [00:12:00] outcomes and then have an HR and administrative system that could be really supportive.

Um, and it's a, it's a hard lesson to learn, and I don't feel like I've mastered it yet. When I do, I'll write a New York Times business book that, uh, people can pick up in the airport. Um, But it is a lesson that I've really gotten better at. And it was one that was hard for me. And I have to admit that I didn't do the best job the first go round.

You having the opportunity to still be in the organization, but not be in that top C suite for What was it, two years or something like that? Plus years, yeah. What are you coming back with now saying, I either wish that I had done this differently or this is what I'm going to do differently this time around?

[00:12:44] Gina Bartasi: Yeah, thanks Griffin. Uh, a couple of things before we talk about my mistakes and, uh, if we talked about all of them, I know this is a long form content show, but we would be, uh, well into the evening hours. I'll share just a couple of lessons learned. I also think it's worth noting [00:13:00] I'm a couple of decades older than you, and so you want to do this lifelong learning, and you do, you hope that you are a servant based leader to your team, to your patients, and that you're constantly learning and adapting and working to get better.

I think the folks that don't work at Kindbody, Uh, don't work well are the ones that say, I don't have anything to learn and I'm not trying to get better. Those folks usually don't fit well into Kindbody. Kindbody there's an ethos that we're constantly learning. We're constantly treating each other with kindness and as a partner and as a team.

Um, you, I, I hope, I think you get better the more you do it and the bigger organizations you scale. Kindbody is significantly larger than, Progyny ever was and then is today. Kindbody has 850 full time employees. Uh, when I stepped away from progyny, I think we were 160, 165 employees. I know they're larger today, but I think they're around 250, 300 employees.

But your point is, it is, [00:14:00] it gets easier as you get older because you learn lessons and hopefully when you're progressing, you're like, okay, I'm not going to make that same mistake again. Um, but I have a, the Kindbody is for sure the largest company that I've run. And then what you have to do is be humble and you have to be honest and you have to ask for, you have to hire people smarter than you, people that are more experienced than you.

And you have to say, I need your help. I haven't done this before. I haven't, haven't done X, Y, Z and, and believe it or not, most people want to help each other. Most people do. I just don't. Fundamentally believe that every day when I wake up, most people want to help other people. Most people are humble and most people are trying to do their best and do better every day.

So that's on the people front. On the mistakes front, as I was executive chairman and Annbeth Eschbach, who I adore, she was like, man, it's so much easier sitting up there than down here, down here in the day to day. I was like, I know, I get it. It's lovely. Because, you know, I only have one direct report, it's Annbeth.

I mean, to your point, the hard part is running all the people [00:15:00] functions. And so, when you step back, you know, the mistakes now look like easy and dumb mistakes. They were hard because we ran them. But remember this consumerism of healthcare. We wanted to build these fertility clinics Around where our patients work and play.

So we intentionally built an IVF clinic and a lab in very expensive retail space. Okay, that's a mistake to do Griffin. For a couple of reasons. First of all, retail space is very, very expensive. In an IVF lab, your patient is asleep the majority of the time that they're there. So you need these retail locations to be where the patient's spending the majority of time, which is for monitoring, but not for an IVF lab.

The other thing is, the IVF lab is not conducive to a retail office space. Uh, we should all talk about Bloomberg, uh, and our friends at Bloomberg. They love to call a flood in LA. It's not a flood. It's a leak. If you talk to any of our extraordinary clinicians, we had a leak. You're going, if you try [00:16:00] to repurpose this as a valuable lesson, if you try to build an IVF clinic in a retail space, you're going to have disproportionately more issues.

By the way, no four wall business is immune to leaks, outages related to electricity, Thank you. And they're not immune to it. That's why you have generators. That's why you have other things. All four wall businesses, I don't care if you're Shake Shack or Kindbody or any other fertility clinic network, what you want to do is mitigate that, those things, those, uh, leaks and outages and other things.

So for sure, going forward, one of the things that was easy to do up here is to say, okay, what would we have done different? And for sure, The IVF lab should be in a medical office building that is already built out for an HVAC equipment, already built out and you can put a generator on the roof. There are, like, that just seems, everybody else listening to the show is going to say, yeah, that dummy.

Okay, yes, call me a dummy. Uh, but we really had this intent to, to make this so patient centered [00:17:00] and so consumer focused, but you won't. We are opening two more locations in the summer under that old model. Again, in Miami, it's this big, beautiful retail location with the IVF lab. Same thing in Charlotte.

Going forward, we're opening five new centers next year. You will not see. IVF labs in expensive retail office setting. Um, so that's one major lesson learned. 

[00:17:21] Sponsor: Organon is dedicated to delivering impactful medicines and solutions for a healthier tomorrow. Guided by its mission of being here for her health.

Organon proudly recognizes fertility providers around the world focusing on care equity. We believe everyone should have access to fertility education and treatment. By collaborating with providers, advocates, and communities, Organon is working to elevate fertility awareness, expand resources, and invest in innovative products that help more aspiring parents access the care they [00:18:00] deserve.

Every journey to parenthood is unique. Organon stands with you. Learn more about Organon's resources at fertilityjourney.com.

[00:18:11] Griffin Jones: It sounds like a good lesson, but people are able to call you a dummy for that if they do because they're right about that one thing. But when you're trying something new and something different, you're trying a whole new thing.

And it's like, okay, these are the things that are true about the status quo that add value. But We're still right about these other areas and what you're trying to do is create an entirely different type of brand for a much larger scale of patients than what we currently have and so it still is the case and In, in many cases that we want to have this type of brand, we want to have, we want to have this type of retail access at the clinic level, just not at the lab level and, uh, people can say, oh, haha, but [00:19:00] they're, it's, they're not trying for the whole thing.

Trying for the whole thing, you're inevitably going to have a couple of those things where people get to say, I told you so. Um, but. the, the idea is that you're going to have other things that you're going to be able to, to, to get to say, I told you so. Um, you mentioned Bloomberg and I would be a crappy interviewer if I didn't discuss it a little bit.

I'm more interested in talking about the future, but the Bloomberg thing was interesting to me because, and my publication covered Bloomberg's coverage, but there was one thing that we discussed in their coverage that they didn't mention. And there's something I believe, there's a few tenets of journalism that I believe in that I don't watch.

like the cable news or any of this like political informed news one way or the other because I just wanna, I wanna see the news and I believe in that local news standard. A couple of those principles are you don't use words like several or many. What does that mean? There were several people. Does [00:20:00] that mean 40 people?

Does that mean 4,000? You don't use adverbs chillingly, alarmingly. And then you On the other hand, you also try to give some context of, well, where else are these things happening and, uh, and, and some other things. And I'm not saying that there weren't mistakes made at Kindbody, and I'm not saying there weren't bad practices at, at places, but what I am, but a question that was unanswered to me was, well, where else is this happening?

So we might be reporting on the divorce rates of postal workers, and maybe postal workers have high divorce rates, but one thing I want to ask is why postal workers? Why not? grocery clerks and lawyers and dentists. And, uh, and so one thing that we reported on was that, uh, Bloomberg just didn't even mention if they had looked into this with other networks.

And so that coupled with the timing of the article was, it was like, why, the public doesn't [00:21:00] care if it happens right before ASRM, like, and that. is supposed to be Bloomberg's audience. Uh, and again, I'm not saying that there wasn't, like, there wasn't anything legitimate that they report on or anything that, you know, Kindbody might not be proud of that happened.

Some of those things could happen. It just seemed to me like that question wasn't answered and that timing was strangely motivated for an audience. Um, and do you think it's any other reason than your size? Like, you're just so big that this is the first time your mainstream media is going to You know, look at a company.

[00:21:35] Gina Bartasi: Yeah. I mean, you, you bring up all great points, right? The amount of salacious clickbait adverbs, and they also name drop. They always name dropped our largest customers and our celebrity investors. And so it's a shame because, you know, I grew up, I grew up. I grew up in radio and television. I grew up in the media.

I was, I come from, I was a publisher of magazines. We used to pay a dollar a word to writers. [00:22:00] Today, you know, reporters, you know, it's hard. They have, they have to issue clickbait and adverbs and all these catchy adjectives just to get it. You know, and, and, and lead with something negative and salacious just to get reader's attention because readers no longer trust, uh, legacy journalism.

They turn to their friends, okay, they're going to turn to user generated content for a referral of a fertility doctor, a referral of a restaurant, or where to buy a car. Today the media landscape has changed where today's readers value more user generated content. Over legacy content. And what that's done as a former publisher and media executive is put enormous pressure on the value of good journalism.

And that's what's driving. This type of salacious content, because you just didn't see it out of Bloomberg, um, you know, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a very, used to be a highly valuable, uh, news outlet, but [00:23:00] all of them, I'm not picking on Bloomberg, but they intentionally, I, I, I also noticed they never cited any other uh, Uh, fertility clinic, you know, we tried to draw an analysis from some Harvard research papers, uh, a paper Denny did at Boston IVF, an extraordinary program.

And you know, what happened when the, we knew Bloomberg was going to write it because they asked us to verify all this. And I went to, we hired external comms, just like any other company would hire external corp comms. And they said, Gina. You know, welcome to the big league. This happened to Uber, Airbnb, and because you have created this high profile, very valuable, very consumer centric brand, That's why you're a target, you know, if you were one of these disparate programs around the country, that there's not any national brand.

So, you know, just get used to it. It's interesting that, um, the [00:24:00] reporter was, was always negative in tone, too, like they never gave us the benefit of the doubt, even when we provided them. Um, data and facts, they ignored that. And so we're work, we're actually working, we're trying to, we're trying to help Bloomberg understand the industry, understand what's changing.

And so why, what I would say is what's under the bridge is water under the bridge. And our goal right now is to move forward, um, with Bloomberg and help them learn about the industry. And we're going to remain optimistic. Now. You parlay that or you, you, you lay that on the backdrop of, you know, Kindbody's been incredibly fortunate to have a ton of positive press, right?

And that is the intent we set out to do. We wanted to build a brand, a trusted brand so that you, when you went into a new community, when we went into Denver, when we opened in Denver, which is a very competitive market with some really remarkable physicians, Those clinics [00:25:00] there, that's what I tell employers all day long.

I tell employers everybody is equally good at their craft. I say that. Our peers are all extraordinary physicians, they're extraordinary. We go into Denver and because we had a Kindbody brand, we had 55 patients prepared to cycle before we opened the door. Same thing in Newport Beach, we've been waiting for our Newport Beach location to open, which just opened about three weeks ago, the brand opening was last week.

Um, but it's rewarding to us who are working so hard to treat this patient population to go into market and already have demand. And that's what the national brand does, right? We were on the Today Show this morning with Sloane Stephens. We get the responsibility we have as a national brand, you know, and as we talk about the future, we really think about Kindbody in terms of a global brand.

Our employers today are asking us to open locations in Canada. They've mapped it out for us, Canada, London, Dublin, Singapore. Um, so we really think [00:26:00] about how we protect, um, and groom, um, this, this world class brand. And that brand really starts with our physicians. For And it starts with enveloping the patient in kindness and making sure every single day we wake up, how can we serve that patient, um, better, more kind, telling a patient, you're going to have problems having a child and you're going to need expensive medical treatment.

It's a devastating discussion and it is very difficult for anyone to have, even if you've been having it for 25 years or you're 25 days in a recent fellow. And so we just want to make sure that the kindness extends from our front desk teammates to our nurses, to our clinicians, to our revenue cycle management folks, that we envelop this patient population in kindness.

And we've created this brand and it was intentional. So, you know, I think the takeaway is. CORPCOM's team said, you know, you're going to have this kind of scrutiny. Prioritize [00:27:00] patient care, stay on your mission, and, you know, it's, it's just part of, you know, it's just part of creating a national, soon to be global brand.

[00:27:08] Griffin Jones: I want to try to thread the needle between the good press and the bad press because you are going to be a target because of your size, no matter what, whether you're good, bad, or neutral, you're going to be a target for media. You're interesting. There's simply more to report on Walmart than there is on D.

C. Joey's General Store in Tallahassee. There's more to report on. You've got more irons in the fire. And I also was critical of that they just didn't give context of like, did we look in other companies? The question of why Kindbody wasn't answered. That's the question. Why postal workers? X or or A or B, whenever it's a, a, a, a type of, of trend feature.

And I also think having a, it, it, I don't think it was newsworthy enough to merit a a series. Those were my criticisms of it. It doesn't mean that none of the complaints that were levied were were valid. And I [00:28:00] wanna talk about, uh, physicians because this is something that I hear from physicians across the board and I'm on, I have differing opinions based on.

What physicians are telling me and I'm not talking about from kind body I'm talking about from other practice maybe kind body But also every kind of network and even independent practices and academic practices Which is they feel like we're being pushed to do IVF We've got to do this much volume and on one hand I can empathize with I could absolutely see blood sucking capitalists come in and trying to squeeze every penny out and push it to the, to the max.

On the other hand, uh, we have to be doing more cycles than we're doing now. Everybody talks about access to care, but we ain't gonna be doing access to care if docs are doing 150, 180 retrievals a year. We have to make an infrastructure where docs are being able to do a thousand plus retrievals a year.

That requires a ton of technology and support, and it, is really hard [00:29:00] to build that type of system because if docs think a thousand cycles a year, two thousand, whatever it is, they think based on the type of work that they're doing today, not a work where a lot of their work is either automated or some of it's eliminated and the rest is delegated to people.

Lower on the license hierarchy. What type of, you know, so given that this is a concern that docs may have had at Kindbody that they have everywhere, what is, what is your, and I know you've invested in your EMR, tell me about the technology and the support that you need to leverage in order to, to get the productivity from docs that's necessary to scale the care that patients absolutely need with also.

You know, I'm not driving people into the ground. 

[00:29:52] Gina Bartasi: Yeah, no, you've already brought up the point that we try, uh, with our doctors. First of all, it starts with teaching, treating [00:30:00] your doctor, uh, like a teammate and a partner. All of our doctors are equity owners. From the day they walk in the door, they own equity.

We have departed doctors that still own equity and kind body. Um, but we had one of our doctors say, wait a minute, at my last private practice, we were wildly profitable with 180 cases. Why do I have to do 240 cases to be profitable here? And we just, you, you have to take the time, you have to treat with kindness, and you have to educate.

You have to say, remember our mission. So, the first thing is to make care more affordable, and so if you lower the price, you have to increase volume, like you, you just articulated it perfectly, but if you say that to doctors without bringing them along and educating them, there is going to be this discord between your doctors and the institutional money, um, and so you have to, you have to slow down and you have to say, here doctors, and then you have to help educate them and empower them, you have to give them their [00:31:00] own P& L.

You have to say, here's your clinic P&L and let us help you. Like our doctors are starved to learn. When I said at the beginning of the show, you know, it starts with an eagerness of curiosity and wanting to learn and do better every day. I could tell you right now that every single one of our REIs wakes up every single day wanting to do more, wanting to get better at medicine, wanting to get better at business.

Every single one of them wants to be a business owner and they want to learn about, you know, Financial management and being good stewards of their clinic, but if you say you have to do 250 cases and you don't educate them, listen, if we kept the price high They don't have to, they don't have to do any more cases, it's as easy as that, they can do a, that's, that was her point, we, I used to do 180 cases, why can't I just do 180 cases here, I said great, let's just keep prices high, and the pool small, and we'll just sell services to rich, white, dual income families, and she was like, ah, No, we can't do that.

Our mission is to bring [00:32:00] down the cost of care and to create accessibility and, uh, equity amongst all. And I was like, right. And so once they, there's a light bulb and they are in locked step with us because you have to find REIs that are aligned with our mission. That for too long, fertility care has been for a very privileged few.

It's Pride Month. We have pride flags outside of all of our clinics. I hope our peers do my guts as they do. But we are very vocal that the cost of care must come down. And the way you do that is through technology, through APPs, extenders. You've got to have the REIs at the top of their license. You know, when we've talked to other REIs about joining Kindbody, when they say Me or I, me or I, that means they're not going to work well at Kindbody, because this is not a team.

There is no I in team, that old cliche. And the other thing that says they [00:33:00] mean they're not going to work well at Kindbody is when they insist on doing everything. Well, I have to do my own ultrasound scans. I have to call in this script for the patient. And I'm like, you know, guys, the cost of care is coming down.

David Keefe told us that in an analyst report, all physicians. There are physician owners and all CEOs of all other networks know that. Hopefully they've modeled that for their PE sponsors. The cost of care is coming down, it's being driven by managed care, and it's being driven by the employers. And so then the question is, going forward, how do you build a better mousetrap?

How do you bring the cost of care down? But still ensure profitability in the health of your clinics. And again, at our technology, there is no paper. Um, I had a patient reach out to me. Patients still reach out to me, which make my day. And a patient reached out to me, no kidding, yesterday. I don't know how he got, it's a same sex couple.

He texted me. He said, hey, I'm just trying to pay you. But I've been trying to call your call center and I've been on hold. First of all, we don't want patients to be on hold [00:34:00] and I regret that this gentleman was on hold. I said, if you'll send me an email, I'll get you to the right people. He sent me an email.

I said, dear, and his name. I said, have you tried paying your credit card on your patient portal for his surrogate? So within 60 seconds, he wrote back. He was like, all done. That was easy. Like, you know, and so you, you have to, because he's just a patient. He presumes in traditional healthcare, there is not a Easy, convenient, tech forward way to pay your bill online.

So his immediate inclination is to pick up the phone and call us to pay us. Thank you. But our goal is to not have a call center with 200 people trying to take your credit card written down over the phone. We know we want to do everything securely for the patient and the best way to do that is to come into our HIPAA compliant patient portal and you enter your own HIPAA compliant Uh, gender identity, your own partner information, your own insurance information, and your [00:35:00] own credit card information.

It's most secure to do it that way. But it's interesting, the patient population today does not think technology first. And he was like, thank you for building it so easy. Now we have to go back to our team and say, why didn't this guy know that? What can we do when you're in our patient portal to make it easy to say pay here?

So that, because, you know, what I heard from that is he had to wait to get us paid, and so we have to do better about that, but, you know, we're trying to change healthcare from paper and not a lot of workflow process. You know, a lot, historically, doctors got to do their own thing, and they got to do their own, and we want, we want consistency.

The 32 year old PCOS patient, who has the exact same data markers. And assume her partner is heterosexual with the exact same sperm markers, should be treated exactly the same, whether they're in Detroit or Denver or, uh, uh, Miami, Florida. And so there's, and that's [00:36:00] what having systematized technology does.

We want to, you know, this anecdotal decision making, I can remember when I was in treatment, the doctor was like, Let's try this. And I was like, I don't want to try anything. What does your machine algorithm say is the best predictive stimulating cycle for me as a patient? Um, so again, there's, there's a lot to unpack there, but we are unapologetic, uh, unapologetic that the cost of care must come down.

And the way to do that is to utilize more technology and to make it easier and seamless on the patient. 

[00:36:35] Griffin Jones: You're touching on something that I ask every CEO that comes on this program and I probably even talk to you about. It's something that I wrestle with, which is the, the operational needs for expanding access to care and the autonomy of, uh, having, you know, uh, having clinical autonomy.

And because I, I think those things overlap and I, as somebody, as a [00:37:00] business person who wants to see, uh, Access to care expanded like I don't own a clinic and I don't have any shares in any I feel like I could say I would make docs do stuff and that stuff might interfere with the way that they want to practice and recently at Midwest Reproductive Symposium.

There was a talk, so this is public. This isn't me having a private conversation. Uh, I don't want to, uh, say the doctor, so I'll make up a name like Dr. Richard Scott said that these corporately owned networks and business owned networks absolutely Make you practice medicine. And to me, it strikes at what I see as like inseparable things.

Like I would not, uh, if, if I were the owner of a clinic network, I would not let docs do their own ultrasounds. I, because it just, it isn't feasible. I would make them use a certain EMR. I would, uh, you know, there, there's probably a few of those [00:38:00] other types of. of things that they would be doing, you know, they wouldn't be doing IUIs, you know, um, but I'm not a clinician.

I am a D. Biology student, and I think that a lot of the folks running these networks are smarter than I am, but they're also not clinicians. Those tensions, to me, I haven't been able to reconcile. Richard Scott seems to say that they're not. Reconcilable. How do you reconcile them? 

[00:38:27] Gina Bartasi: It starts with the REI and being mission oriented.

When, when, first of all, I've, I've told you historically and it's still true today, none of our corporate teammates make clinical decisions. We just don't. We build technology. Let me, let me give you another example of technology we've built. Um, there's all this documentation and in other EMRs the billers have to go in and read the documentation.

In our technology, the documentation picks up the code that you're supposed to be billing the insurance company and everything is automated. But you know, [00:39:00] we want all of our doctors to use the technology. I will tell you today, about 75%, maybe 80 percent now utilize that documentation and that automated code billing.

And some of them, it's harder to get them to adopt the technology. They just, they're accustomed to doing their own documentation. What that means is, is you have to have more billers, more coders to go in there, read the physician's notes, and then bill on their behalf. You, again, this partnership, and it is a partnership between, um, REIs and institutional money, whether that's venture capital or private equity.

And there are differences, and I'm happy to talk about the differences, but there has to be a partnership, and then there has to be patience, right? Because when you come in, we want you to utilize our technology, but you have to educate, educate, educate. Again, it has to do with when you're taking down the cost of care so that more patients can afford treatment, your cycle volume has to go up.

Then the light bulb [00:40:00] goes up. If you walk them through the hows and the whys, you've built the technology, they're They're notating and charting at the middle of the night and you just want to say, our job with technology is to make your job easier, but you have to have a lot of patience to walk the doctors through why you've built the technology and you shouldn't be building any technology.

We have an application team, they're a product team and our product team sits in between our engineers and our technology team and the doctors. There's not any, just so we're clear, there's not any product and technology people who don't take their directives directly from the REIs. And then, I do think, uh, for sure, instead of 35 different REIs having input, they ha they collaborate.

We have a medical advisory board, so when there's a medical decision to be made, It's not 35 different REIs trying to make a different decision about something medical or about a technology build. It's a medical advisory board, and then we have a technology board that decides what new features, because you [00:41:00] do, you have to bring, and then sometimes the doctors want you to build things that the technology team may say, It's not the best interest, but then you work together back and forth and back and forth.

And Dr. Kristin Bendikson leads those. She's our head of clinical, chief clinical officer. So she leads these discussions in conjunction and in partnership with the technical team To ensure that she's got support and collaboration from her peers on the REI side, and then our technology team understands their job is to serve the REI.

They take their orders from Dr. Bendikson, not the other way around, and I think that's fundamentally important. Um, probably unique to Kindbody's culture, and it goes back to being venture backed instead of private equity backed, and there are pros and cons to both. 

[00:41:47] Griffin Jones: There are pros and cons to both, but I want to see a venture backed venture succeed because I think what we need is a new kind of model.

I think it's going to be really hard to do that with a private equity model, the type of [00:42:00] innovation and scale. In my view, so I would like to see a venture backed group succeed. Whether it's docs or whether it's other types of staff, you talked about servant leadership. What are specific things you do to lead as a servant?

[00:42:14] Gina Bartasi: You have to show up. As executive chairman, I wasn't, as president, I still went to all of our openings. Uh, but if you really want to be motivated, get in front of your clinicians. I went to our Newport Beach Clinic last week, um, that's an extraordinary team. We have extraordinary, I was in Columbus, Ohio for our opening, like, you know, you're, you're working so hard.

As a corporate executive, like every day, the clinician's job is hard, but our corporate team members, our CFO, our COO, everybody is working really, really hard because what we're doing has never been done before, has never been done before. So we're not like looking at anybody else's playbook going, let's do what they did.

You're like, literally every day you're innovating, and that's what makes it hard. Um. But when you really [00:43:00] want a shot in the arm, return to your patients and return to your clinicians. When I went to Newport Beach, because our extraordinary team there had worked in our mobile clinic for the last year while we were opening our lab, we already had kind babies there.

And you have these grateful patients and they're like, Oh my gosh, thank you for creating Kindbody. I felt so, you know, and so if you want to be, you know, A great leader, return to your why, return to your what motivates you, and these are patients. Listen, my twin boys, it's their, oh, their birthday's tomorrow on the 14th.

They turn 13, you know, and it's just, it's not that hard to go back to that heartache and that vulnerability, and you see the, and these patients are screaming ear to ear. What's different between the patients we serve today and, 13 years ago is, again, it was noticeably diverse in Newport Beach. Like, I have a vision of Newport Beach in the OC and I see white, rich, and heterosexual.

That was not who was at our clinic. Yes, there were heterosexual couples because they [00:44:00] make up the majority of the IDF population. But I think we intentionally serve a very disparate patient population and that is very intentional and that is rewarding. And if you want to be jazzed as a CEO, get in front of your patient and your clinician.

We have a nurse practitioner there, she's the bomb. I'm not going to name all of our superstars because they're too easily headhunted. But she jumped up in front of me and she was like, I love Kindbody. I was in Denver with you, I was in San Francisco with you, and I was in LA with you. And I was like, are you an owner of this business?

Cause you talk like an owner. She was talking about all the sacrifices she made and she was driving back and forth between LA and Long Beach, where she lives. So, we're going to grant equity, uh, disproportionately take care of our superstars like that. So, we have a, an embryologist there who left another private practice to join Kindbody.

Kindbody is the group. We want to ensure that Kindbody remains the group, the employer of choice, that when we come into a market and we run ads for an REI or an [00:45:00] embryologist, that people choose Kindbody as their first place of employment. And she was motivational, and hearing why they chose the, all of these people are highly targeted and, and highly compensated, and they have a choice of where they want to go to work every day, and to hear them talk about how and why they chose Kindbody.

And I got back on the plane, it was a long flight back because I missed my flight to Chicago. I was coming to MRSI, but I missed my flight. And then I took four flights to get back to the East Coast. But anyway, um, I was really jazzed as the leader. You're like, man, okay, every day you're like kicking yourself for the mistakes you make or, you know, but as long as the highs outweigh the lows, you're like, I can do this another day.

We're going to make a difference. So I don't know. I was like coming out of there. I was like, this is good. This is really good. 

[00:45:46] Griffin Jones: How about when staff interests and, uh, patients interests aren't aligned? As a leader, you want to align them as much as possible. I remember pressing a doctor about this on the podcast a few years ago and couldn't get him [00:46:00] to say one way or the other if staff matters more than patients, but I was talking to someone also at MRSI, uh, that, uh, had been on the industry side for a while, is now back running a clinic, and said No, I'm seeing a level of demand and a level of expectations from patients that aren't fair and aren't kind.

And I have fired a couple patients in the last few months, and I hadn't really heard somebody say that. Every time I had always heard people talk about firing patients, it was like, oh, it's this one off rare thing. Sounds like this individual has done it a couple times in the last, uh, done it multiple times in the last few months.

And I think that that might be necessary at times. There's times where Um, we, everybody wants everything, right? Like shareholders want the maximum return. Employees want the best benefits, the, the, the best kind of job customers, patients want everything now, and you can't always [00:47:00] align those all the time.

So how do you handle that when those are at odds? 

[00:47:05] Gina Bartasi: It's rare we see that a Kindbody, um, you know, we want to be able to treat all patients, we. Um, we don't, we don't turn away patients for diminished ovarian reserve. We don't turn away patients when they've had failed cycles. 

[00:47:21] Griffin Jones: It's rare you see patients that drive your staff nuts.

[00:47:24] Gina Bartasi: I think what happens at Kindbody is even when that patient drives the staff crazy, instead of losing your cool, what we would teach is can somebody else message and handhold this patient? Because it could be just a personality misfit. It could be that, it could be a number of triggers. And so instead of firing the patient.

And what we want to be able to do is to say, Hey, my colleague, Sarah can help you through this and do a handoff to another colleague. That is one of the things that we are seeing. This is a learn [00:48:00] lesson, um, the advantage of this kind body network and us all being on the same tech stack and us all having workflow process, you can do exactly what I just said.

So even if you don't have all the staff you need in new, if we go back to Newport beach to say, Hey, Talk to my, uh, financial navigation colleague here or minor, then, then you can easily transfer that patient to another teammate in another market who does have capacity. When you're trying to bring down the cost of care, it's about cost of labor and capacity.

In all of these networks and all of these clinics, they have spare capacity. They have spare capacity with nurses, with MAs, with sonographers, with billing people, with doctors. And so at Kindbody, we say, hey, if you're going to batch this week. We have a physician on mat leave, do you mind to go and cover?

And that's, we didn't build the model like that. The model was like, okay, every clinic is going to start with 15 employees, and we're going to have multiple backups. Like that was in [00:49:00] 2020, 2021. And then as you get closer to the public markets and you get, Closer to now driving on profitable growth, not just growth at all costs.

Now you get smarter about, and by the way, a lot of our teammates want to travel. Like when this young lady in Newport Beach was like, I started with you in Denver, she was smiling ear to ear. She was like, do you know the experience I've had? I mean, our head of the PAs and MPs of clinical, who's a PA herself, she's traveled all over the country and she enjoys it.

So think about, again, if we go back to this brand of Kindbody. And trying to bring down the cost of care and still have profitability to be able to build out new centers is this ability to turn an unhappy patient into a positive patient by saying, Hey, we're having, we're having some miscommunication.

I'm very sorry. Let me let you talk to my friend, Sarah. Being able to use this infrastructure of other teammates who have capacity, I think is pretty unique to Kindbody. 

[00:49:56] Griffin Jones: You mentioned the profitable growth and that was one of [00:50:00] the announcements that Kindbody has made that's a big deal for a company that's venture backed.

There's a lot of venture backed companies that grow to be very large and don't ever turn a profit. So what does profitable mean? Does it mean The first month of turning a profit, per annum, at some clinic levels, in some divisions of the company, what does that mean? 

[00:50:19] Gina Bartasi: Yeah, no, it's company wide and it's three consecutive months.

Um, we'll see how June looks, but March, April, May, um, so we always message and are prepared for kind of a summer slowdown. I think most clinics see some seasonality in the summer. Um, we will be, we are projecting to be profitable on an annualized basis in 2024, um, but again, we've been investing tens of millions of dollars.

And then that's what we had been talking to our team about. Uh, we had a meeting with all the doctors two years ago. We talked about this magical J curve and you invest, invest, invest, and you come out of it. And then there's this breakeven line, uh, when you break and then you go the J up and to the right.

So [00:51:00] it, you know, it's a point of pride for us. Um, just because everybody now knows, like it's fun. Our team knows about business and finance and they understand the J curve and they under, they're shareholders. So, and so again, there's a fine balance every day. If you return to taking care of the patient and taking care of each other and the team, um, again, the profits are going to come and, and, and we're there now.

Uh, we're going to open a couple of more centers. We'll see. More revenue, we'll see losses with those centers, but some of the other centers are generating, uh, sufficient, not just profit, but cash flow to support those operating losses, so we'll be profitable and cash flow positive by the end of the year.

[00:51:41] Griffin Jones: Might we see parting ways with markets that haven't been able to be profitable? 

[00:51:46] Gina Bartasi: That decision is, has not been made yet. I think what we're thinking about doing is how can we make those markets more profitable? Profitable. Uh, we've got two markets that still struggle with profit. [00:52:00] Um, and we talk about that, Griffin, just like any other CEO, I'm positive.

Other CEOs have a portfolio of clinics and they have your outliers, your middle of the road, and then they have some clinics that are struggling. In the venture world, it's a little different. We have a lot longer, uh, more patient capital to continue. Instead of saying, let's close that clinic, we think about how we can leverage internal resources.

To turn that kind of, the capital's a little bit more patient, now there's a lot more risk and there's a lot more reward for venture than there is private equity, uh, but we're not, we're not talking about, you know, closing or moving away from any markets right now. 

[00:52:36] Griffin Jones: Do you attribute that to anything other than the J curve, other than the amount of time that it takes for that investment to come to fruition?

This is the profitability that I'm referencing. Or was there other practices that you enacted in the last couple quarters that made that happen? 

[00:52:50] Gina Bartasi: Well, for sure, uh, to give you a sense, when we think about profitability, we have 35 clinics, but those are locations, those are satellites and clinics, [00:53:00] um, roughly 32, 32 percent of our total clinics were profitable, only 32%.

86 percent of our clinics were profitable from October to April. It's, it, you know, you just get really, really, um, disciplined about where you're prepared to spend. And you will see us, listen, um, this Sloane Stephens, I keep coming back to it because again, it's a big day for us. We have these ads. They're 30 second spot.

We're going to put them on our own earned media channels, on our social media channels. That doesn't cost us anything. You know, when you said what's changed in profitability, again, let me talk about the capital markets and how that's changed. Um, three years ago, you could raise a lot of money as a venture backed company at a very high valuation, at 10 to 13 times revenue, forward looking revenue.

Those multiples have come down significantly just in the past [00:54:00] two to three years, okay? So the capital markets and how you finance growth changes as well, which means your time to profitability must shorten and you just spend less. So if this were three years ago, you would see Sloane Stephens not only on our Um, our earned media channels and our social media channels and LinkedIn and other places, you would see them running on national networks and on other places, but you just, you just get more rigorous and more disciplined about where you're going to spend money and where you're not going to spend money.

[00:54:30] Griffin Jones: It's long form content, but it's not long enough. There's so many different topics that we could discuss. We could go down more of the technology that you're investing in. We could go down more in how terrifying that J curve is and what that's like to ride that. We could talk about, within the technology scope, more about your EMR, and you were talking about the patient portal benefits to it, but why build an EMR and what that does for you.

There's, there's There's so many [00:55:00] different angles that we could conclude on, but I'm going to let you decide what we conclude on. The floor is yours. 

[00:55:08] Gina Bartasi: Yeah. Thank you, Griffin. Uh, I appreciate, uh, to be with you today. Um, congratulations on all of your growth. I think we met, how long have you had IAR, Inside Reproductive Health, IRH?

Four years? Five years? 

[00:55:22] Griffin Jones: I started Fertility Bridge many years ago, but IRH, the podcast, started early 2019. 

[00:55:29] Gina Bartasi: Yeah, think about that. So, in less than five years, think about how far you've come as well. So, um, my parting thoughts are always to congratulate others who are innovators and pioneers in the industry.

It takes us all. I talked to a new hire candidate today. She said, what you do, Gina, you lead with courage. That was like, tastic, you know, it's just, it's nice to be, because what we're doing is so hard, you're going to be criticized, and the question is what you do with that [00:56:00] criticism, but what you've done, Griffin, to create a platform so that we can collaborate, learn from each other, and Uh, congratulations to you because you've built a pretty phenomenal brand and team in the last five years as well.

Um, certainly I'm grateful for the time with you this afternoon and, and I'm grateful for our extraordinary team at KindBody. So always good to catch up and congratulations again to your growth. It 

[00:56:21] Griffin Jones: is, Gina, and I'm sure you'll be back on a fourth time because KindBody is always doing something and, uh, it's a pleasure talking to you.

Thanks for coming back on the program. 

[00:56:30] Gina Bartasi: Thanks Griffin

[00:56:30] Sponsor: Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health. This episode was brought to you by Organon. Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys.

Learn more at fertilityjourney.com.

Announcer: Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

229 How the A.R.T. Innovation Revolution will Replace the Current IVF System with Cynthia Hudson

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser. The views and thoughts expressed by the guest are their own and do not mean they are the views and thoughts of their employer.


Are you willing to fight for what’s necessary to lead the fertility innovation revolution, or will you be a replaceable part when the new system emerges?

Cynthia Hudson, veteran embryologist and scientific advisor, gives an earnest look at the current fertility system, the driving forces replacing it, and what that means for today's REIs.

Tune in to hear Ms. Hudson discuss:

  • The verticals creating a new disruptive system replacing the existing one (And the ones we’re missing)

  • New solutions revolutionizing the IVF space (Some you haven’t heard of)

  • REI’s income potential if they lead innovation (And what happens if they don’t)

  • What it actually means to be leading the innovation revolution (Particularly in the IVF lab)

Cynthia Hudson
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Cynthia Hudson: It costs a lot of money to provide these services, and I think if we take the opportunity to kind of re imagine how this infrastructure should and could look like, I think we can dramatically lower the cost of providing these services, and I think we can, Still, you know, listen, everybody wants to make money.

I think there's plenty of money to be made. I think the percentage of the market that is untapped is more than enough to go around, and I think there's a way to do it by lowering the cost of not just artificially lowering cost of providing the service, but actually lowering the cost of providing the services by using some technology and other innovative ways of approaching things.

[00:00:41] Griffin Jones: Something happened in one of the IVF labs of lab director, Dr. Chad Johnson, and he caught it. Listen to this story. Tell me about the story where you realized that two of your embryologists hadn't refilled the tank.

[00:00:54] Dr. Chad Johnson: Yeah, it's actually sort of just a simple anecdote, which has, I guess, bigger consequences.

In one of my labs, The staff got very busy, as they do. These, you know, having done IVF myself, I know what it's like to get busy in a lab. I go on our portal on a regular basis, almost daily really, and I look at, because I'm an off site director, I'm able to go on my PC or my phone and look at that lab's tanks and see how they're doing.

And I noticed that the tank hadn't been filled. It was still well within And, you know, well, it was not even close to being an issue. And I waited till the next day and I noticed that later the day, the next day, they filled the tank and it just changed by one day, the tank count, the fill calendar, the level went back up to normal.

There was no danger in that particular day. So I said to them the next day, I just texted them and said, Hey folks, notice that the tanks didn't get filled yesterday. Great. I'm so glad to see that they're filled today. If the tank had gone to a critical level, it would alarm. Everyone would get texts, phone calls and everything.

You don't want it to get to that level. A tank can have anywhere from 50 to 200 patients in it. I mean, the difference is monumental, which is why when these accidents happen, California, Ohio, and there's been many others, you then end up with multi million dollar lawsuits. And, and that's not even really the point.

The point is that you have lost hopes and dreams. Hundreds of patients. Our goal is to never let that happen.

[00:02:21] Griffin Jones: That's why Boreas Monitoring Solutions was started.

[00:02:25] Dr. Chad Johnson: When people hear the difference between this system and, and several others. They get it, just want to know, you know, that's one of the things where as we do this, we keep adding features to this, like quality control measures and things where people can sign in every day and when they sign in, it automatically clicks a quality control that shows that they physically looked at the tank through the portal.

[00:02:46] Griffin Jones: Visit BoreasMonitoring. com/demo to schedule that time with Dr. Johnson, co founder of Boreas Monitoring Solutions.

[00:02:54] Dr. Chad Johnson: It's a live event, so you can show all the screens that are available, everything from the tank levels to the list of folks who are on call, how do you change the call numbers, the fill chart, the quality control information that's available to you.

Dr. Chad Johnson, I have a PhD and an HCLD in Reproductive Physiology. I'm currently a lab director at Bloom Fertility in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine in Reston, Virginia.

[00:03:29] Griffin Jones: That's boreasmonitoring. com/demo.

[00:03:33] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:03:57] Griffin Jones: So I recorded this conversation with Cynthia back in November of 23. It's being released now in summer of 24. I thought about having it re recorded, but I would rather just have Cynthia back on because there's too much good content. Thought in this conversation. You should listen to it. We should have Cynthia back on.

Enjoy. My guest today gave me a new way of thinking about not just the innovator's dilemma for the incumbents, but a question I've been teasing a lot with different guests and different topics on the show is what's preventing the new emergent disruptive system from taking over and supplanting the existing one.

That guest is Cynthia Hudson. You might know her because she advises a number of different companies, both incumbents, early startups, and those somewhere in between. She owned a fertility clinic, she owned an IVF lab, she's an embryologist if I didn't say that already. And she makes me think that the reason why we might not have seen a disruptive system supplant the existing one already is because we still need a few more verticals for that system to layer on top of.

She talks about those verticals, these new solutions that she sees as revolutionizing the IVF space, some of which you might have not even heard of, and she talks about a couple verticals that might be missing. It could be the case that those verticals need to be in place before a new system can take over, but it could be the case that we're almost there.

A lot of these solutions are 2, 3, 4 years old. They're rising to some degree of maturity. Maybe we need more of them. Maybe they need to reach a greater degree of maturity. But it seems to me that once those pieces are in place, that's when the old system is seriously threatened. If that investor was right that the REIs Best earning days are behind them if they're not part of the technological revolution, not leading the innovation revolution.

And we can extrapolate that to embryologists and other clinicians and scientists. Then where are you in that revolution? Are you more than a couple years out from retirement? And if you are, are you only going to see your influence and earning potential decrease? Or are you leading this revolution? Are you fighting for these new solutions and improvements?

Because as Cynthia points out, you don't need all of these verticals in place to improve the existing system. There are already immediately obvious efficiencies that are being implemented by the avant garde, but maybe more slowly by others. Cynthia talks about what those solutions are. They reduce administrative burden.

They triage and prepare patients. They add speed and safety to the IVF lab. She names names. I can't fight for any of these solutions because I'm not a clinician, I'm not a scientist. You are. You're the one that can vet them. And if you feel strongly enough about any of them, you're the one that has to fight for them.

Your clinic, your network have to consider the cost benefit. Is their timeline for evaluating cost benefit shorter than yours? And if it is, are you willing to fight for what's necessary to be leading the innovation revolution? Or will you be a replacement part when the new system emerges? Cynthia talks about What it actually means to be leading the innovation revolution, particularly in the IVF lab, what are embryologists going to be doing when they're not technicians?

She talks about the biggest problems that they will be solving. She wishes she had thought of non invasive genetic testing to replace what we're currently doing to biopsy the embryo. because she identified that as one of those critical verticals that's still missing, but we can have her back on for another interview and do a whole topic on that if you like.

In the meantime, enjoy this conversation and let me know, have you tried out any of these solutions? Do you think they're for real or not? And are there others that you think are complete game changers? Send me an email. Enjoy. Ms. Hudson, Cynthia, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast.

[00:07:32] Cynthia Hudson: Thanks so much, Griffin.

It's a pleasure to be here.

[00:07:34] Griffin Jones: You are a person that I have known in my periphery for a while. It feels like a couple years that you're someone that I've known as an acquaintance here and there, but I feel like I've gotten to know you more, I don't know, the last six months or the last year. You're someone that I've really enjoyed getting to know.

I perceive you as a popular person. A lot of people know you and seem to like you. And you're also one of those people that seems like, oh, they're really nice. Are they actually that nice? And then as I've gotten to know you more so far, I, I don't know. You could still do a 180, Cynthia. I don't know. You might, you might have a, a, a skeleton in your closet that you're, that you're, you're holding out for a rainy day.

But so far, from what I can tell, it's like, wow. She's, she's really that nice of a person. And and then I've come to realize that part of the reason why many people know you is that you advise a lot of different companies you're involved with. Some. who I would call incumbents some folks that are maybe not incumbents yet, but also probably past the stage of, of what we'd call early startups.

And then it seems like also some early startups. And so, I'm curious as to what it is that you're puzzling together that that's brought you to all these different companies. What are these different needs being filled? What's the ultimate purpose that, that you're puzzling together?

[00:08:54] Cynthia Hudson: Well, that's a loaded question.

And for the record, I, I have a pretty high monthly tab of paying people, you know, to say they're nice. So, you know, thank you to all of those people publicly.

[00:09:03] Griffin Jones: I can't wait to get my, my 5 Starbucks gift card this month.

[00:09:08] Cynthia Hudson: That's exactly right. Yeah, so, you know, great question. I think, you know, I mean, I think one of the things that I've always So, I think that's all I've sort of had in the back of my mind is, you know, how do we, how do we move the needle on expanding access to care?

I think it's I think it's, it's a real, you know, the nicest way to say it is shame that we don't have more people running through our top of the funnel and getting into treatment. You know, infertility has been defined as having the same, you know, catastrophic consequences on, on mental health and, you know, there's PTSD and it's just as traumatic as having a cancer diagnosis and all of these things that, you know, are really The sort of life altering and damaging and changing, and I think that, you know, we have so many cool new things that, you know, are either currently within our grasp or very near to within our grasp that we can kind of deploy and use to bring this type of care to more people.

[00:10:07] Griffin Jones: So, what are those different things, those different, those things that are within our grasp or almost within our grasp, and maybe before we get to what those different solutions might look like, describe those different problems, like when you think of the different companies that you advise on or the different challenges.

that you see to providing this demand. What are they specifically?

[00:10:33] Cynthia Hudson: I mean, I think that, you know, fertility is a fairly young field, relatively speaking and it's not a diagnostic science. So an embryology laboratory is, is a, is a, is not a diagnostic lab, it's more of a therapeutic lab. So, it's an extension of medical treatment and it is not something that you know, some people don't undergo an IVF cycle to get a diagnosis of infertility, right?

So, it's a treatment and because of that treatment modality and because of the lack of, you know, intense standardization, it's a very manual, labor intensive process that takes, you know, Basically takes a village, so you need a physician, you need a nurse, you need a someone to recover you in the operating room, you need a pharmacy to administer meds, you need an embryology laboratory to do an egg collection, an ICSI, you need to do you know, somebody has to do a semen analysis, there's, there's a, there's a whole range of things that come into this therapeutic treatment and Much of that is still fairly, I guess, manual, labor intensive, and so it's expensive.

It's expensive to do, and I think, you know, the opp some of the opportunities that we have in front of us are to, you know, kind of use technology to, you know, To take away some of that administrative burden that we have. So, you know, for instance, we have a, you know, we have electronic medical record systems now.

And some of those electronic medical record systems are more or less easy to enter and extract data from. Some of those systems talk to a pharmacy. Some of them talk to, you know, a testing laboratory. And, you know, how does that data transact and how much, how much duplicate entry do we have to do? I'm working with a company, TMRW Life Sciences, it's not a secret, and what they've done is they've automated some of the process of cryo storage so that we can do a proper specimen management with an immutable audit trail so that the embryologist, who is an embryologist, doesn't have to write down things and remember them and then write them down again and make decisions that We, that don't require the skills of an embryologist.

You know, we have a lot of people in our community, in our world, that don't necessarily know how to get into the front door. And so we have tools like this other company that I, that I advise. It's called Levy Health. And what they've done, they've built an algorithm and they've built a decision support tool to take women who are you know, experiencing some level of difficulty and get them into you know, into a diagnosis a little bit faster.

And whether that diagnosis leads to seeing an endocrinologist for a thyroid disease or whether that just leads to a diagnosis of PCOS and she goes to her OB GYN and, and You know, get some treatment there or whether that leads to an infertility diagnosis and they can go right into, you know, the, the fertility industry.

I think it's, you know, we're using, we're using tools and technology to, to get more people through that sort of funnel. In a more efficient way.

[00:13:40] Griffin Jones: One of the reasons why I wanted to bring you on was to talk about the the path for what it will look like for embryologists in the future when they're not doing some of these things.

But you've laid out a few different solutions and I've asked this question to a couple different people on the show and I've gotten a different range of perspectives, which is, are we able to implement these solutions? into the existing system that we have right now, the existing clinic and lab structure that exists, or does something else have to replace it?

And what analogy I think of is, Cynthia, if I wanted to do this 30 years ago, I would have needed a radio station with a a massive production studio with really

A really expensive engineering system and a X hundred foot tower that could could breach 50, 000 or 100, 000 megawatts on the frequency modulation band, like a ton of infrastructure. And now I have What's essentially a talk show for a fraction of that cost. And so there's no coming back for the radio companies.

They're too committed to that, that, that cost. And it's eventually sinking them and, and they're, they're just not, you know, in that space anymore. They're, They're going on to other areas of telecommunication, and I wonder, in our field, is it going to be something that the existing system can just bring on these solutions as you've described, or is something else going to replace it because there's too much of a sunk infrastructure cost that's unnecessary in the existing system?

[00:15:40] Cynthia Hudson: Yeah, that's a great analogy. I mean, I think, you know, I mean, I think a couple of things. I, I don't think the current infrastructure is going away anytime soon. I mean, think about it, radio stations, you know, in your scenario still exist, right? They still function, they still, you know, they still generate revenue.

They do, you know, so, you know, just in spite of themselves, and in spite of the inefficiency, in spite of the large overhead, and in spite of the cost, they still manage to, to maintain. And so I think that's going to be, I think we're going to see the same thing here. You know, I, I, I believe there's going to be kind of a second, you know, sort of infrastructure design that comes up in parallel at this point.

So the existing in infrastructure will, they will adapt and change slowly, but there's no way to take all of this, raise it down, and then just replace it with something else, right? So, so this is going to continue to iterate and, and, and change and, and this is going to come up sort of in parallel and then, you know, maybe this will eventually die out and maybe this will become sort of like a niche.

You know, for certain markets or for certain, you know, populations, but I, I, I don't believe that the current industry is, is capable or is is equipped to scale in its current form, you know, without some of Some big inherent changes. You're talking about, I mean, think about it. If you have, if you had a, if you, you run a clinic, right?

And so how do you make an appointment? You know, somebody picks up the phone, you've got a website, and you've got a phone number, and then you call, and somebody, you pay someone to sit there and answer the phone to schedule an appointment. You know, if you had technology that could do that for you, and some clinics have done this, right?

So there's, you know, again, you're inching towards change, but You know, it doesn't necessarily negate the need for someone to answer the phone, but that person that answering the phone is then answering sort of real tangible questions where that they don't have to sit and waste their time looking at a calendar when human is capable of doing that themselves.

I mean, I would like to do as much as is humanly possible from my phone without talking to a human. And for the people out there, if you want to leave me a voicemail, it's okay. But I'd prefer you just text me, right? I would prefer that you, you know, just, I'm more of a short, get to the point kind of a person, and if you really need to talk to me and I miss the call, I will call you back.

But I think, you know, is it going to go away? Maybe eventually, but I think it's going to be hard to, to change. You're, you're asking A very successful business to rip up their organizational chart and just throw departments out the door, right? It's just not going to happen. So it's, you know, the ability for these people to shift from this to this is, you know, it's going to go from here to here.

To here, to here, to here. And in the meantime, I think it's, it's almost easier in certain respects to just kind of start brand new. Like, okay, let's take the best of this. Let's take the best of this. Let's, let's use this technology from the get go so that it's baked into our infrastructure. It's baked into our org chart.

It's baked into our, into our you know, to our costs. And it's, it's, this is how we're going to figure out. I mean, it costs a lot of money to provide these services. And I think if we take the opportunity to kind of re imagine how this infrastructure should and could look like, I think we can dramatically lower the cost of providing these services.

And I think we can still have You know, listen, everybody wants to make money. I think there's plenty of money to be made. I think the percentage of the market that is untapped is more than enough to go around, and I think there's a way to do it by lowering the cost of not just artificially lowering cost of providing the service, but actually lowering the cost of providing the services by using some technology and other innovative ways of approaching things.

[00:19:40] Griffin Jones: I think that if you're under, say, age 60, or I guess it depends on how far away you are from retirement, but if you're more than three, five years away from retirement, I think that the only, maybe not the only, but the surest path to success is going to be part of this innovation. I heard someone say recently that that we have reached the apex of how much REIs are going to earn.

Now, this is this person's speculation, but this, I, I thought it was an interesting speculation and, and that they could be right, that the only way that REIs are going to continue to earn more is if they're part of the innovation. Wave, and we might extrapolate that to embryologists and, and other clinicians and scientists as well.

And that if they don't, that if they're part of the current existing system, like radio, they're going to earn less and less and less. And and I think they could be right about that. And I understand your point about Why it's so hard for the existing infrastructure to adapt, partly the reason I understand that is because it's called the innovator's dilemma.

There's a book that Clay Christensen wrote that Dr. Hariton hit me to that, that gives that really explains that. But then why has it been so hard for whatever the new emerging disruptor infrastructure to be to emerge? Like, We haven't seen it yet. And we've seen people try in different ways. We saw a company earlier this year go out of business that had bought clinics and that was their way of trying to get the data to implement the solutions while they introduced new technology on the lab side.

And it didn't happen. I don't know if it wasn't enough money. I don't know if it wasn't execution. But And I'm not picking on those people either. I hope that they return and kick ass somewhere else with the lessons they've learned. But there are others as well that it's like, oh, I thought that was an end to end solution, but they seem to be bleeding money.

And so why is that? Haven't we seen this disruptor, new infrastructure develop?

[00:21:59] Cynthia Hudson: I, I think we're getting close. I mean, I, I think we're on the cusp. I think that it's, it's hard to, it's hard to be an innovator, you know, sometimes. It's hard to do something that goes against, you know, the certain dogma, like this is how we've always done it.

You know, I think that it's, it's a, it's a symptom of, you know, I don't know, it's, it's not necessarily lack of will. It's, it's, it's, it's having the right people in the room and having the right sets of tools and having the right backers at your disposal. I think there's every reason to believe that, you know, there's, there's, there's, there's I don't know, not to say the point solutions, but they're, this, this company solved this problem, and this company solved this problem, and this company solved this problem and it just, it's going to take, you know, a matter of stringing these things together and putting them into an infrastructure that, that make people really want to, you know, I want to go there.

I was talking Rita Bacena, she's a, a scientist and she's, I mean, everybody knows Rita, but we were having a discussion the other day about what barriers, you know, to, to adoption and why people didn't have, why weren't people jumping on, you know, some of these new technologies and new infrastructure.

And, you know, I said, I said, truthfully, I think, I think the innovators and the technology builders and Designers in the space have not done the best job of selling the value proposition or demonstrating the value proposition. And so it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a marriage of blending you know, solid data, real world evidence with cost benefit analysis with communications.

And it's, it's not just one sort of skill set. It's a, it's a skill set that, you know, this person has and this person has and this person has. And I think, you know, what seems patently obvious to you or me, and this is fantastic, why doesn't everybody use it? You know, that, that's just not how businesses work and we've seen businesses fail, you know, because of that.

So, it's. So, you know, we need to do a better job of making sure that our message is being heard and understood and that there is actually real value. And if there isn't, you know, what then is the value? You know, is it that there's no clinical benefit, but there's a workflow benefit? There's value there, right?

So, you know, an example there's a company called DX Now.

So, for either IUI or for IVF or ICSI procedures, and the, the company is DXNOW, and they say, you know, if it, I've always said if it never showed a clinical benefit, which I think it might, but I think if it never showed a clinical benefit, I'm still getting from A to B. Faster, I'm getting there with fewer steps, I have fewer opportunities to make a mistake, because I am a human, and I'm well meaning, but I'm fallible, and I can make a mistake from transferring this specimen from here to there.

To hear, to hear, to hear. I could mislabel something. I could make, you know, we don't want to have, you know, it's, it's a, it's a massive problem to maintain chain of custody. And I think the, the reduced workflow and the reduced number of steps Regardless of a clinical benefit, you know, let's put, let's put them in two buckets, right?

Like, what, what is the value that you're trying to convey to, to the clinicians? And it's, it's a, it's just a matter of, yeah, it's, it's, it's telling, it's telling the story in such a way that communicates what you think and what you believe. And, and you ought to have the data to back it up because if you don't have the data to back it up, whether, again, on an efficiency side or a clinical value side, then you probably should go back to the drawing board.

[00:26:00] Griffin Jones: So you've got these different solutions that are bringing the value on the clinical side or some that, like you said, if they never show a clinical benefit, there's still that value in spades on the efficiency side. Is it that each of these verticals need to develop themselves? Do you think, like, is it, is it, has it been a lack of that there, we're just getting there?

Like when you say You know, we're, we're getting there. Like, is it, is it that now these companies are just about there and there's just about enough of them that are proven enough in these different verticals as opposed to what we might have expected to see is you have somebody that is creating the end to end solution and then they're creating all of the, the verticals.

Well that's obviously, that's going to be really challenging to do. It's going to be really. Cost prohibitive in many ways. But then the existing infrastructure can't adapt these places fast enough, but now are we at a point where there are enough of these solutions, like the one you just described, in different verticals that the layer can come on top of it, and now we have our alternative disruptor infrastructure?

[00:27:23] Cynthia Hudson: Yeah, like I said, I think we're still missing some of those pieces, right? I mean, you know, there's a company, you know, Conceivable wants to automate the entire workflow of the laboratory, right? We don't have that yet, that's a, that's, it's, it's great, it would be amazing, but we don't have that yet, so what do we do now?

Like, what do we do to address all of the humans? that are standing there without the family that they so desperately want. So, how do we get, you know, how do we bridge that gap? Well, you know, I mean, from, you know, from a pure workflow standpoint, there's time lapse incubation, right? So, now this is an incubator where I can put my dish into and I don't have to take that dish out for the next five or so days.

Okay, because it's got a camera on it and I can look at the embryos and I can see if the eggs are fertilized and I can see if they're developing or not. If I don't have a time lapse incubator, now, me as an embryologist, I have to go get my paperwork. I have to sit down at a bench. I have to walk over to the incubator.

I have to grab the right dish. I have to walk all the way back down. to that, I sit down, I put it under the microscope, I make my observations, I write those down because most of us are still not directly entering our observations into an electronic medical record system. It's going on paper and then being transcribed later.

The inefficiency of that and the opportunity for error and transcription errors is, is So, you know, again, that's, that's a whole different sort of bucket to, to challenge, you know, challenge to, to, to, to solve, right? It's a huge bucket of inefficiency. But then when I'm done with my observations, I have to pick up that dish, I have to get up and I have to walk back across the lab and put that into an incubator.

Now, how much time did that take? You know, for me, how much work, how many steps did I have to take? How many opportunities did I have as a human to kind of mess that up versus walk over to that incubator? Press a button, look at it, and see whether or not it's fertilized, and then I can write it down, right?

I can, I can do that. Just, if you just count the number of steps involved, you know, again, there's, if, you know, there's a clinical benefit to, to keeping embryos in an incubator, you know, straight for five days, that's great, but the workflow savings, You know, on the upfront, is, is, is dramatic, and I think it's very real.

Now, is it something that most clinics have adopted? Not so much in this country. It is a cost. It is a, it is an investment but it's a longer term payoff investment. You know, if it's, it's a labor cost savings. For the longer term, so if I as an embryologist, it takes me five minutes to do a fertilization check and I have 20 fertilization checks a day and it takes me 20 seconds to do it in a time lapse incubator, I can count those numbers of minutes and calculate over the year how much of my time of my salary that is going towards doing fertilization checks when I could be doing it in that you know, I could be looking at a time lapse incubator.

I mean, it's just an example, but it's, it's something that. I think we have very kind of tunnel vision sometimes in the clinics and say, well, the humans can do it and that's fine, but they're not actually thinking about the cost and the waste and the opportunity for error that we're introducing by having it be so simple.

100 back and forth.

[00:30:48] Griffin Jones: So there are still pieces missing before the emergent disruptor system can be established. But with the incumbent status quo system, there are existing solutions like what you're just talking about with time lapse incubator, and people aren't there yet. Adopting them. You seem to be very convinced.

You seem to see that there is a clear return on investment. Why aren't more places implementing them? I know we are starting to see more than perhaps we were last year and more than we were two years ago. And so maybe, maybe it's just a case of speed, but yeah. Why isn't that speed faster?

[00:31:32] Cynthia Hudson: I'm not running the clinic.

You know, so, but that's a whole separate story. You know, you know, again, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a change and change is hard, really. I mean, I don't think it's, you know, if, if, So, I don't think anyone could legitimately sit there and argue and say that it isn't a better way to do it, right? So, I think that story is not, that's not the story that needs to be told and sold and convinced, you know, from an infrastructure.

It needs to be a concerted effort on the part of the, the clinic to, to make that investment. You know, we have probably around 50 percent of our, I haven't done the numbers recently, but I would say close to 50 percent of the clinics in this country that are backed by some private equity firm, and those firms are not, I would say the priority is not necessarily massive private infrastructure equipment upgrades, technology upgrades, big, you know, kind of investments in, in efficiencies.

It's, they're certainly looking for efficiencies, but it's not, that's not the kind of efficiency, at least that I've seen so far, that, that they're looking for. You know, there's there's a pretty healthy margin in, I'm running a fertility clinic and that's clearly, it's attractive for a private equity investor, but they're not looking 10 and 20 years out.

You know, they're not looking, you know, longer term. They're, you know, the focus of the PE firm is not necessarily to take the 10, 000 covered lives and, and now You know, increase it to 30, 000 covered lives. You know, we don't see that. We don't see a massive growth in the industry. We see, we don't see them building new clinics.

We don't see a whole lot of new sort of development where, you know, they're buying each other up and not necessarily changing the, the scope and the, you know, the, the numbers of patients, you know, that can go under. And I think until, you know, that's probably, it's just an incremental change, I think at this point.

[00:33:40] Griffin Jones: their timelines on what they need to return to their investors, to their limited partners, because those timelines are shorter, that shrinks the delta between cost and benefit. And so that's why we haven't seen that, perhaps why we haven't seen many of these solutions be implemented faster on those who are in the early stages.

incumbent status quo system. I want to go back to where you said there are still pieces missing. Use the example of the automated IVF lab. There are still pieces missing for this new emergent system to come in and have all of the pieces ready to just have a new system that isn't invested in, in all of the previous no longer relevant infrastructure.

What are those pieces that are still missing? I

[00:34:32] Cynthia Hudson: mean, I think we haven't solved for, we have in a couple of ways, right? You know, one of the things, so to back up a second, the best You know, one of the best tools we have, you know, running an IVF clinic and shortening time to pregnancy is the fact that, you know, a woman normally ovulates one egg per month, right?

And so, the definition for infertility, you know, if you're under 35 is 12 months of trying, assuming you're ovulating normally, assuming you're having regular unprotected intercourse, assuming you're a male partner, assuming you have a male partner, assuming your male partner, you know, has normal semen analysis.

12 times those, those eggs, you know, didn't fertilize or implant or, you know, there's no baby. You know, the beauty of IVF is that we can essentially condense time. We can take those 12 eggs, we can get them all into one shot, and then we can try to see whether or not, you know, there's a baby in there. Okay, and maybe there is and maybe there isn't, but what we can do with IVF and with some of the tools that we've developed is figure out if there is and how do we get to that one faster.

Right? So, you know, we used to culture embryos into day two and day three. Now we can culture embryos to day five. So there are fewer embryos that are capable of developing to that fifth day. We've developed some tools to further screen these embryos. We want to know. You know, what is, which one of those that have, if we have four embryos at the end, it would be irresponsible of us to transfer all four of those embryos back to the woman's uterus.

Now, which one are we going to pick? So, we're going to look at it, we're going to We're going to grade it, we're going to assess how pretty it is, we're maybe going to biopsy it, we're going to take some cells off of that embryo, we're going to freeze that embryo, we're going to take those cells, put them in a tiny little tube, send it off to a lab, and then see if we can figure out if they have the correct number of chromosomes, and how competent are those chromosomes, or not.

Thank you. So, you know, some sorts of assessment. We have now AI tools that can watch the development, you know, of that embryo and say, you should pick this embryo versus this embryo. All of that physical work is being done by someone like myself. Someone has to take that embryo. Somebody has to move it, put it out.

Somebody has to take a biopsy. Somebody has to send it out. Somebody has to label it. Somebody has to freeze it. Like, until we figure out how to get to the right embryo faster. You know, we're, we're still stuck in this. We're doing a bunch of futile transfers that we don't know, you know, that we don't know why, right?

So, we can go through all of this. We can go through all of this work, and we can say, this is the best embryo, and it's got the correct number of chromosomes, and it's beautiful, and you know, the woman's, you know. Uterine lining is perfect and we placed it into the right spot and two weeks later she's not going to be pregnant, you know, we don't have all of those answers so, you know, what we're missing is a whole scientific avenue of development where we can say You know, if the eggs are no good, is there something we can do to make them better, right?

If the sperm is no good, is there something we can do to make them better? Is there a baby in this cohort of embryos? How do we really get to that one or two or three and identify them? How do we get to the point where we understand that we're putting it into the, the most ideal uterine environment? You know, I mean, I think there's so many unknowns that we have here and all of this is, you know, we just, we just don't have all of the tools that we need to make that human get to that family.

Faster, we're still stuck in this, you know, what percentage of infertility, you know, off the top of your head, you know, there are a whole bunch of patients that present at the office, how many of them are going to be called unexplained infertility? Right? You know, there's still so much we don't understand about this process from the biological side, you know, we're stuck in a Well, we'll just keep trying to put them together and figure out which ones, you know, are more or less likely to implant.

We're not really doing anything to improve necessarily those chances. We're, we're getting the correct timing of the transfer. We're trying to pick the best one. We're, you know, we're doing all these things, but we're not necessarily making them better. We're just trying to kind of screen out the things that would just make this the most ideal scenario.

[00:39:07] Griffin Jones: That wasn't what I was expecting you to say with regard to the missing pieces. I was expecting you to say, you know, something along, you know, one of the mechanical solutions for being able to, to, to have a fully automated process. But you're, if, if I'm understanding correctly, one of the barriers to impediments to creating a fully automated system is that it still wouldn't lead to the outcome of of being able to I don't know, of guarantee a live birth, but, or, but, you know, highly accurate.

Or highly accurately predict live birth in a way that you could put a financial model on top of that to where people are paying for successful outcomes. Am I, am I getting that right or am I missing something from what you were saying?

[00:39:57] Cynthia Hudson: No, no, no, you're, you're getting that right. I mean, I think, you know, I mean, sure, you know, would I like to have a system that has, you know, I, you know, me, I, you know, I'm not lazy.

I want to work, you know, smarter and not harder. So, you know, if I could get away with, you know, an annotation of my, my notes, and I could, I could not write anything down and not ever enter anything twice. If I could, if I could build an infrastructure in the laboratory to, you know, You know, to just have a single source of truth and all of my systems talk to each other and, and everything worked, I think, I think we could run a whole bunch more patients through, you know, through this, this ecosystem and, and get them out the door faster.

So, you know, what we're, you know, we're missing pieces of, we're missing pieces of the biology, you know, that, that we don't, so, you know, again, we can do all the treatment cycles that we want. We can use donor egg and we can use donor sperm and we can, you know, we can, you know, we can bring a gestational carrier into the mix and have them carry the embryo versus the, you know, the intended parent.

We can, we can mix and match a whole bunch of these things, but we're not necessarily Really able to treat the underlying or fix the underlying condition. And that, you know, is, is a big sort of hole in the puzzle. Now, from just the existing technology, what we can do and how to get more people in the door and, you know, running them through faster.

I think, I think we have tools, you know, on the table. It's just, you know, again, a matter of stringing them together and deploying them.

[00:41:33] Griffin Jones: So, I'm not a clinician or a scientist, so I might not be able to follow you, and if my eyes start to cross paths, then I will I'll pull us back to something simpler that I can understand, like astrophysics, and we'll But I do want to understand a little bit more of what So, as specific as you can be, what you think is necessary to be developed, so is it diagnostic testing, and if so, what kind?

Is it something that's missing on the medication side, and if so, what's missing? As specific as you can be, what are these missing pieces?

[00:42:18] Cynthia Hudson: Well, I mean, I think we don't, we could do better on the diagnostic side, you know, we, we, if a patient doesn't get pregnant after, you know, several euploid embryo transfers, we don't necessarily have a lot to offer them, you know, we, we, we can't with 100 percent certainty say why, and the only thing that we can do is offer, you know, to replace one of those parts.

You know, you, you know, I mean, an embryology laboratory is, is, in effect, a manufacturing, you know, we don't call it that in this country, but you're taking eggs and you're taking sperm and you're making an embryo, right? And then you have to put that embryo somewhere. So, you can change some of the pieces of the puzzle to see if that makes a difference.

So, we can use, we can swap out the egg, we can swap out the sperm, we can swap out the uterus, you know, we can kind of mix and match with these things, you know. Could we ever really go back to Willow as human and say, well, this is exactly why and, and I, and, and I can fix it. We don't have the, and I can fix it necessarily.

I can treat you differently, you know, to compensate for that, but I'm not actually treating you know, the underlying condition. I think, you know, we have, we could, we've come a long way in you know, the stimulation and, and drugs and, and, you know, managing these ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. You know, now we send very few, if any, people to the hospital for ovarian hyperstimulation.

We figured out how to swap out the agonist, you know, for an antagonist suppression for the pituitary and thereby reducing, You know, eliminating that, that, that great risk of, you know, using these drugs, but why, you know, we haven't yet gotten to the point where, you know, do we need to get the woman's, you know, hormone levels up that high?

Do we need to, you know, Kind of just, just sort of making up and substituting, well, we think this would work, and then this would work. You know, we're, we're not, we're not really at a point where we can say, this is exactly what the issue is, and this is what I'm going to do to fix it, and then you actually don't need IVF in the first place.

You know, but we're not, we're not there. We're tweaking the existing infrastructure you know, but we can't say exactly why it doesn't work. What we can do is just throw things at it to fix it, and every other thing downstream is just trying to optimize that cycle. So, you know, we're trying to pick the best sperm, we're trying to pick the best egg, we're trying to pick the best embryo, we're, you know, we're, we're trying to time the exact, you know, in the uterus, but we're not necessarily.

Solving, you know, maybe some of that inherent problem in the first place. Does that make sense? Am I answering your question?

[00:44:57] Griffin Jones: Yeah, it's, it's a light bulb for me a bit because I've taken you further down this topic than I was originally intending because I've asked it to many different guests and I always feel like, you know, Yeah, but I kind of get it, but I'm kind of missing something.

And I'm seeing more of that there are necessary verticals that need to be established before the overlaying new emergent disruptive system can replace the incumbent one, and we're still missing a couple of what those verticals are. It seems like a lot more of them have matured. more quickly these past couple years, and we're almost there, but there might still be a couple missing pieces.

I'm having a better understanding of what those missing pieces are. And now I want to make sure that we don't end this conversation without me asking you what I originally really wanted to, to, to get out of you, which is what the heck is going to happen with the embryologists? So if we have like you said, you, you have this technology that can get you to A to B faster that can can take fewer stabs, that doesn't need to be doing all of the data entry.

And so, nothing is safe to assume, but it really seems to me that in a decade's time, give or take, that the embryologist isn't really going to be a technician. So when the embryologist is not a technician, what is the embryologist going to do?

[00:46:26] Cynthia Hudson: I think it becomes, you know, more of an more of a a research and an analytical scientist.

I think it becomes the, you know, sort of the puppet master. So there's, you know, there's a machine that, and there's a software system that decides You know, where tissues should go into cryostorage and knows where they are, and there's an automation that takes them in and out of storage, right? You know, there's a, there's a, there's an algorithm that says, you know what, you should transfer the embryo 147 and a half hours, you know, into this human because We, that's the best time, you know, for implantation that matches the embryo and the uterus, you know, the, the embryologist is still going to have to perform that task and do that, but you're now developing the tools to better understand the biology behind the implant.

You know, the mechanism is, you know, we do a lot of, we do a lot of ICSI in this country, Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. So, we, we take eggs and we, we clean off all of the cells around them and then we prepare a sperm sample and we take a single sperm and inject it into each egg. That is the skill, you know, of an embryologist.

We, There are teams working on automating that process but you still need someone to do initial, you know, you have to do the egg collection, you have to evaluate them, you have to, you know, kind of put these tools together, and someone has to decide that they need a team, you know, or not in the first place.

You know, I don't, I see the embryologist doing A lot less I guess, for lack of better, walking back and forth. I think, you know, we're going to be able to, you know, stop this, you know, massive, everybody's carrying dish around, and there's 10 people in the room, and everybody's got something, and the jockeying for, for bench space.

I think we're, I think we're going to get to be more of a scientist than, and, and a little bit less on the handling side. Thank you. Tell me more about what that scientific responsibilities will look like. Will people be leading research projects? Will they be do, do, Do you envision embryologists being the ones to, to, to make that call on, on using ICSI as opposed to the clinician?

[00:48:53] Griffin Jones: Do you see there being a need for the number of embryologists that we have now? Like, is there enough of, of that scientific research that if, if in fact, all of this technician work is is replaced, mechanized in the next 10 years or so. Is there enough research to, to work on and what will those, what will that scientific and responsibility workload look like?

[00:49:22] Cynthia Hudson: I think it's going to change, right? I mean, I think, you know, I don't think any embryologist should be scared that they're going to not have a job. I mean, frankly, the industry needs to scale at a pace that, you know, is going to far outstrip the ability for automation to replace it at this point. So, you know, if we're doing what we, you know, what we should do, there should be 10 times more clinics and they should be so there's, you know, I don't think embryologists are going anywhere anytime soon.

I think we could do a lot more research on optimizing the cycles and how these gametes are being handled. You know, what we know is that we take out eggs, we prepare sperm, we put them together, we evaluate embryos, and then we have some disposition. They're, you know, they're transferred into uterus, they're frozen, they're biopsied, they're You know, they're discarded.

But we don't really understand necessarily, I don't believe we've spent enough time optimizing kind of that cycle. So, it's difficult to do research on human embryos, but I think we have a huge opportunity to critically examine the entirety of the ecosystem, right. So, what we're missing here is the big data piece where we can say, okay, there's this human with this condition, with this embryo, with this culture media, with this dish, and really to optimize, we shouldn't, you know, be waiting 20 minutes to do this.

We should be waiting 35 minutes to do this. You know, we should be looking at embryos, you know, at, at this point. I had this conversation the other night, like, who decided that this cadence of picture taking on a time lapse incubator was optimal? Do we need to have a, a, an image taken every five or ten minutes?

Could we get away with an image taken, you know, every ten minutes? I mean, twenty minutes or every hour? You know, would we get the same sort of result out of that? Would we, you know, would we be able to cut down the cost of creating the equipment to, you know, You know, to further, you know, get, you know, kind of get this moving, I think, you know, was the temperature of the hood, you know, was the, the air quality in, in the laboratory, was the, you know, the human that was doing it, you know, what the, was the barometric pressure, you know, affecting any of this?

We don't have Really good visibility into, you know, should we wait 20 minutes or should we wait 45 minutes, you know? Does the temperature variation right now, if I take this dish and walk it across the room, you know, does that slight variation in temperature have an effect? And are we, like, what, I think we have a great opportunity to optimize the current system that we in, that we're in, but we don't, we have, we could do a better job of analyzing, you know, our current workflow.

In the meantime, and I think that would be an amazing area of improvement on the efficiency side because right now we're basically, as I was saying, left with this is the group of eggs, this is the group of sperm, and that's the uterus I have to work with, and I'm either going to get something or I'm not.

You know, and I can try to pick the best one, and I can try to pick the best ones of these. How do I really know that I've picked the best culture media? How do I really know that I've picked the best environment? How do I know that I've optimized the timing? How do I know that I've, you know, done, you know, all I can from a, from an environmental side to ensure that We're, we're making the most of, of, of what we have at this point, so I think embryologists are not going anywhere.

It

[00:53:08] Griffin Jones: clearly gets across to me that there is no shortage of things to work on and that young embryologists today know that this is the right career for them if they're excited about being the person to solve one or more of those problems, and There's so many problems to solve. So, I noticed this a couple of years ago, Cyndia, where I was having embryologists apply to work at my company.

And I was like, you know that there are people that really want your skill set and that want to pay you a lot more than working at, for a media company, right? And one of the things that they kept coming back to is that they, they did not like being in a lab all day.

And so, I think for those that really don't enjoy that maybe don't be looking at jobs at media companies. Be looking at, uh Uh, the work that solves these bigger problems so that you're not the one in the box and that you are, you're, you're solving for these wider scale problems. So, in addition to, to covering that, it seems like the conversation that I, I've kept having about what's missing from this emergent system.

I don't know, sometimes you just need to ask a question similar ways a thousand times and on a thousand one, you get it and I feel like you, you've made a light bulb go off from what might be the last couple steps for this emerging system and how close we might be to it actually disrupting the status quo.

So Let's conclude with maybe one or two of the the, the solutions that you're really excited about that you said that we that, that are either finally here or that are almost on the cusp of what are, what's like one or two things that either you've just implemented or that is just about here that you're really excited about.

[00:55:15] Cynthia Hudson: Well, you know, one of the things that I, you know, again, this is a, this, at the base of, you know, the way I think about things, it's an access to care issue, and one of the things I'm really excited about is is reducing the number of times that the human has to go to the clinic. Right? So, you know, if, I mean, David Sable says this better than anyone, you know, there's time to baby, there's cost to baby, and there's life disruption to baby.

So, if you want to tackle life disruption to baby, you know, we, you know, you do a telehealth visit, right? I think the pandemic kind of shifted a lot of us, you know, into that, you know, Because we were doing remote visits anyway. But how do you then, you know, I think about it as in a distributed care model.

Like, how do you bring the care to the patient and not necessarily the patient, you know, to your office? Because not everybody lives within a reasonable driving distance of a fertility clinic. We have very big deserts, you know, of fertility care. I mean, certainly in parts of the world, but speaking about the United States, there are lots of people that just don't have access to care because they physically can't get there.

So how about we bring care, you know, to you? How about, you know, again, I, I advise a company called Sama Fertility and one of the things that they're trying to do is to have the patient be monitored as much as is humanly possible remotely. So, you know, they'll send a portable ultrasound machine to your house and they will schedule an appointment to be on the phone with you.

With with someone who will guide them through an ultrasound so that that human did not have to get up and drive to the clinic to get that ultrasound, right? You know, they will arrange to have the ultrasound in a, in a local radiology or an OB GYN or something. So, you know, if we think about nothing, it's not inventing anything, it's not necessarily, you know, you're not reinvent, you're reinventing the wheel in the sense of how you manage the operations.

You know, of the, the clinic. You know, you don't have access to care if you don't have a job that allows you to be late. You don't have access to care if you don't have a job that allows you to just take random mornings or afternoons or days off because of retrievals, because of transfers. You know, I mean, a clinic will typically tell you show up at this day and this time and this many times over this many days and if you don't have the job or the life situation that allows you to do that, then you don't have access to care.

This is actually bringing that care So, you know, it's, it's easing that burden. Okay. And so I would, you know, I'm, I'm super excited about, you know, I, Thinking, I always think about this in a hub and spoke model. So there's a, you know, the laboratory is the most expensive, you know, infrastructure part of the ecosystem of a fertility clinic.

But how often do the patients actually have to be there? Right? You know, we can send a kit to your house and you can send in a semen sample and do an analysis, right? You know, I mean, I think we have certainly improvements, but like, we're a really long way to getting, you know, the patient to only show up at the clinic, you know, the woman twice, you know, to get the eggs out and to get the embryo back.

You know, can we figure out a way to treat these people where they live and only have them make those trips for those sort of critical things where you need that expensive? bunch of kit and infrastructure. You know, we're, we're at a place where, you know, again, you say, what are we missing and what are we on the cusp of?

And, you know, I think, I think we're inching along and we're, we're making strides to get more humans, you know, in the door. And I think we're, you know, I mean, I think we're getting there. I think we're, I think we're figuring out. Different ways to bring more people in. I think we're figuring out that, you know, we can't do everything, right?

You know, I talked to Dr. Takor this morning, you know, she's, she started a company called Genome Alley and she's a medical geneticist and she's, she's lovely and, you know, she wants to you know, make sure that patients are being treated for monogenic disease conditions in states in, in, in, in such a way that.

takes some of the burden off of a standard clinic, you know? I mean, I think, you know, we have to We have to figure out how to you know, do what we do best and kind of plug in the things that, that are going to help us, again, get more people in the door and get them to their family faster.

[00:59:46] Griffin Jones: This will be an interesting episode to revisit together, have you back on in like, 3 years and look at the solutions that have been implemented since this conversation.

Something happened in one of the IVF labs of lab director Dr. Chad Johnson and he caught it. Listen to this story. Tell me about a story where you realized that a tubular embryologist hadn't refilled the tank.

[01:00:13] Dr. Chad Johnson: Yeah, it's actually sort of just a simple anecdote, which has, I guess, bigger consequences. In one of my labs, the staff got very busy.

As they do, these, you know, having done IVF myself, I know what it's like to get busy in a lab. I go on our portal on a regular basis, almost daily, really, and I look at, because I'm an off site director, I'm able to go on my PC or my phone and look at that lab's tanks and see how they're doing. And I noticed that the tank hadn't been filled.

It was still well within. And, you know, well, it was not even close to being an issue. And I waited till the next day and I noticed that later the day, the next day, they filled the tank and it just changed by one day, the tank count, the fill calendar, the level went back up to normal. There was no danger in that particular day.

So I said to them the next day, I just texted them and said, Hey folks, notice that the tanks didn't get filled yesterday. Great. I'm so glad to see that they're filled today. If the tank had gone to a critical level, it would alarm. Everyone would get texts, phone calls and everything. You don't want it to get to that level.

A tank can have anywhere from 50 to 200 patients in it. I mean, the difference is monumental, which is why, when these accidents happen California, Ohio, and there's been many others. He's gonna end up with multi million dollar lawsuits, and, and that's not even really the point. The point is that you have lost hopes and dreams of hundreds of patients.

Our goal is to never let that happen.

[01:01:38] Griffin Jones: That's why Boreas Monitoring Solutions was started.

[01:01:41] Dr. Chad Johnson: When people hear the difference between this system and, and several others, they're They get it, just want to know, you know, that's one of the things where as we do this, we keep adding features to this, like quality control measures and things where people can sign in every day.

And when they sign in, it automatically clicks a quality control that shows that they physically looked at the tank through the portal.

[01:02:03] Griffin Jones: Visit BoreasMonitoring. com/demo to schedule that time with Dr. Johnson, co founder of Boreas Monitoring Solutions.

[01:02:12] Dr. Chad Johnson: It's a live event, so you can show all the screens that are available, everything from the, the tank levels to the list of folks on the, who are on call, how do you change the call numbers, the fill chart, the quality control information that's available to you.

Dr. Chad Johnson. I have a PhD and an HCLD in Reproductive Physiology. I'm currently a lab director at Bloom Fertility in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine in Reston, Virginia.

[01:02:46] Griffin Jones: That's boreasmonitoring. com/demo.

[01:02:50] Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

The views and thoughts expressed by the guest are their own and do not mean they are the views and thoughts of their employer.

228 The Inevitable Consolidation of Genetics and IVF with Dr. Mili Thakur and Amber Kaplun

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Is the consolidation of fertility clinics leading to a shortage of genetic counselors required to support these expanding networks?

Returning guests Dr. Mili Thakur, Founder of Genome Ally, and Amber Kaplun, Lead Genetic Counselor at RMA America, provide their perspective.

In this episode we discuss:

  • Current procedures for genetics in IVF (and where they’re falling short)

  • What the ideal workflow should look like (for both patients and staff)

  • Why adding an in-house genetic counselor saves money (maybe even your clinic from legal trouble)

  • The 3 main ways clinics use genetic counseling (and which is best for long term growth)

Also check out these episodes that feature this episode’s guests:

Amber Kaplun
LinkedIn

IVI RMA America
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram

Dr. Mili Thakur, Genome Ally
Company Website
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram


Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Mili Thakur: Once there is consolidation has happened and then these networks are now going to start to look into the internal processes, like once acquisition happens and they are settled down in terms of what they are doing, I think I see two ways of how this is going to happen. Every practice that has to take care of their patients for the next five to ten years has to take care of their genetics.

Otherwise, they're not going to be able to be functioning. I'm 100 percent sure of that. 

[00:00:25] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Asian Egg Bank. Asian Egg Bank is pleased to bring you Dr. Mili Thakur , founder of Genome Ally, and Amber Kaplun, lead genetic counselor at RMA America, as they discuss if the consolidation of fertility clinics is leading to a shortage of genetic counselors.

To learn more about Asian Egg Bank, head to asianeggbank.com/for-professionals

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:20] Griffin Jones: Consolidation, consolidation, consolidation. 80 to 90 percent of the fertility clinics in the U. S. and Canada seem to be on their way to being owned by what will be three or four companies, and we've talked a lot about the vertical integration that is a result of that and will be a result of that. Same companies owning fertility clinics is owning genetics companies is owning egg and sperm banks, et cetera, et cetera.

But while this is happening, we might be losing the genetic counselors that we need to service the business model that works for what the field is turning into. My guests are Dr. Mili Thakur. She's been on the program before. Many of you know her background as a trained geneticist and a board certified REI.

She's a practicing REI in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She's also the founder of a company called GenomeAlly and consults with genetics companies and fertility centers. If you haven't listened to her last episode, it's about three revenue models for IVF centers as they relate to genetics. She's joined by Amber Kaplun in her last episode, which we'll also link to in the show notes.

It's about the rise of in house genetic counselors and the risks to fertility clinic networks when they don't have in house genetic counselors. The picture they paint in this discussion is one in which assisted reproductive technology and genetics. Think about the rise of both areas. Think about the untapped need for patients who are going to be using ART and why they're going to be using ART as part of why we expect this field to expand to multiples of what it is now.

With regard to number of patients seen and treated, in that world, do you still see genetics as being totally divorced from fertility treatment? I find their argument to be persuasive. So you, as someone that wants to scale and sell a fertility network, how are you going to incorporate that into your business model?

Dr. Thakur talks about the gaps in the process. Amber Kaplun talks about what the ideal workflow should look like. And in my view, this paints a more vivid picture of the infrastructure needed To support the business models, it will be able to take advantage of this explosive growth. And those that don't might lose a lot of money.

When I hear each of them talk, they're indirectly pointing to a solution or solutions that are needed in the way of workflow and technology. Think workflow software, EMR improvements, alternatives to EMRs. You hear and see a lot of those companies advertise on Inside Reproductive Health. I can't tell you which one's the best.

I'm not in your shoes. But when you listen to a conversation like today, does it not make you want to check out all of them? All of these new solutions that you hear about on Inside Reproductive Health or elsewhere, do their demos. Fill out those little forms that we run with their sponsorships. Some of them won't be up to your standards.

But we will not be able to provide patient care, manage our workforce, or be sufficient for market demands if we don't have the right tools for this integrated world that Dr. Thakur and Amber Kaplun are describing. Take this idea for a spin and let me know your thoughts. Enjoy the conversation. Dr. Thakur, Mili, Ms. Kaplun, Amber, welcome both of you back to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. 

[00:04:27] Amber Kaplun: Thank you, Griffin. Glad to be here. Thank you, Griffin. 

[00:04:29] Griffin Jones: You've both been on before, and it was after a prolonged period of time where I hadn't made much progress. Content about genetics and people were like, where's the genetics content?

And then I had each of you on and people yeah, I got multiple emails from people saying yes more of that So I feel like we grew a lot in in the genetic segment of the audience after each of your episodes I look forward to serving them some more growing that some more and I want to get an idea of what's happening with vertical integration And some other things, particularly with regard to genetics.

I had Lou Villalba, and we talked about vertical integration across the fertility field. We're recording this episode, I'm not sure when it will air, but we're recording it in the wake of Invitae announcing their Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They sold 10 couldn't get enough debt off their books, apparently had about a billion dollars in debt.

Filed for Chapter 11. So what's happening in the, as it regards to vertical integration with genetics right now? 

[00:05:41] Dr. Mili Thakur: The best care to a patient right now is one of the biggest thing and our patients are changing too. That is like the influx of social media. They have access to all the information they need at their fingertips.

[00:05:53] Griffin Jones: You've got changing patient demographics, you've got changing workforce demographics, and as you say, we're moving away from single center IVF centers to multi centers integrated into networks. How does that consolidation that's happening on the clinic side What effect does that have on what's happening in genetics?

[00:06:18] Dr. Mili Thakur: I can speak from the physician point of view and then Amber can speak for the genetics workforce in totality. From a physician standpoint, physicians are stretched to their bandwidth with what they can do. Do to take all these patients through they are providing excellent care as best as possible Inside of an influx of patients and a constricted workforce so they need support for all of these new genetic tests that are out there and going to be available and Amber will tell you about how the genetics field is organized right now how small it is and how we are leveraging that workforce.

[00:07:01] Amber Kaplun: At this point, there is a lot of opportunity for genetics. I think it really depends on how the private equity in these networks really choose to support or not support their genetics programs. The benefit of having clinics consolidate into a network is that if that network has committed to having genetic services, you're going to have more clinics having more access to genetic counselors.

But if networks have decided that they would prefer to outsource their genetic counseling services. Then you may be running into some similar challenges that we've been seeing historically with single centers and, and people really using these third party services versus the benefit of having an in house genetic counselor.

So I think where we move forward from here really depends on the attitudes that these networks and the support that these networks are going to commit for genetic services. 

[00:07:49] Griffin Jones: Yeah, I want to talk about that support or perhaps lack thereof. And when Dr. Decker talks about leveraging the workforce, is it because we're not leveraging technology as much?

So what I see happening on the IVF lab side is I see a few key developments that have developed in the last couple of years. Two to four years. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a clinician, so I can't say unequivocally that these particular solutions are the direction that they should go, but after talking to enough people, it really seems like the people running the labs would really benefit from having a few of these solutions, and yet, I don't see them implemented at the network level very often, or Not happening very quickly, and I suspect it's because these solutions sometimes have big price tags that I can see the value, and I could see how you could see the value on the PNL within three or four years, but, and really have a much more sustainable operation, expand your lab throughput, but three or four years, Timeline for a private equity backed entity doesn't really work.

It's too much of an expense on the, the, the P& L up front. It doesn't, you can't make it depreciate fast enough to make your EBITDA worth it when you're trying to sell it at a, at a bigger multiple. Uh, and so I see solutions that I think would be implemented if there were more. People that were growing their business for the longterm and holding the equity in their business that we would see these solutions be implemented more commonly.

That's what I perceive on the lab side. To what degree is that happening on the genetic side? 

[00:09:47] Amber Kaplun: I think that when you're talking about making the commitment for genetic services, there are challenges to it, most notably being that genetic counselors are still in the process of advocating for CMS recognition as providers.

You can bill for genetic counseling services, and you can get reimbursement at this point. But in terms of the level of reimbursement, if the bills that are currently in the House, in the Senate, were to pass, and genetic counselors would be recognized as providers, that reimbursement would increase significantly.

With all of that being said, though, Having a genetic counselor and a genetics team on your staff is already going to be a financial benefit for you because you're protecting yourself against lawsuits that could potentially cost your practice millions of dollars. We're talking about like settlements of multiple millions of dollars, and so that settlement Could cover the salary of multiple genetic counselors for many years.

So even though it may not be something that you see right up front, there are those long term savings, and there is also going to be growth that I anticipate in terms of the amount for reimbursement that we can be getting. 

[00:10:54] Griffin Jones: Having an in house genetic counselor might be something that if they're not looking in that long term view, they see it as Too great of an expenditure for their shorter term horizon.

What else besides genetic counselors? Is there certain technologies or therapies or other solutions that you're seeing not being implemented as quickly as they ought to be because People are looking at it too much as an expense in the short term. 

[00:11:23] Dr. Mili Thakur: Griffin, let's break down the whole IVF setup from a patient perspective into three categories.

So three groups come together to give patient care. So one is your clinical group, which is your doctor and the nursing staff and all of the front office and the clinical team. The second is the IVF team. where the embryology lab is working and creating embryos, biopsying embryos, sending out samples. And the third part of that complex situation is your genetic testing lab, which is outside of the embryology and the clinical practice.

From what I've seen, Amber was mentioning genetic counselors are part of your clinical team. Most of the time, physicians were traditionally the ones that were giving all the direction to the patient and genetic counselors in teams that have integration already, they would be part of that clinical team.

But advancements in all three of those. These have to be integrated to get patient the best care. The important thing in taking care of a patient who has genetic needs, you have to integrate all three. Because the PGT lab is sending the sample as directed by the physician directs and says, okay, this is what we are doing.

This is where the test's going. Lab takes those samples and sends, ships it off to the genetic testing company, which is outside of the physician and the lab's perspective. And then the lab sends out the test results, which comes back to the clinical team. However, the clinical team has to retrieve that information and call the patient back.

And then the IVF team might be the one that is thawing the embryos. And if it is an IVF situation, transferring the embryos along with the physician. So there is a lot of back and forth communication. And that's the, when we talk about vertical integration of genetics, That genetic team, which is embedded in all three of those quarters, is the one that's going to be able to coordinate the best care.

So, what I mean by that is, A genetic counselor who is part of a lab, like the genetic testing lab, which is the outside business, only sees their internal data and are able to give counseling to the patient based on the test. But they don't know what's happening in the embryology lab, they are not part of what the doctor's preferences are.

So I think advancements that will integrate all of these systems to be able to communicate better would be really important. What would make the genetic counselors the best suited for that job? 

[00:14:01] Griffin Jones: What are the barriers or what is the reluctance to integrating those verticals? 

[00:14:07] Dr. Mili Thakur: I think one of the key things is this is new.

We haven't had to deal with integration of, uh, genetics for, uh, Less than a few years, so I think all the practices, while they are taking care of their day to day patient care and also transitioning through this change between the seasoned professionals retiring and acquisitions and mergers and consolidation, on top of that, they also have to now think ahead, integrate those practices.

Systems, because right now they're in a mode of sustainability. They just want to take care of their patients. And there's a lot of patients that have to go through, and there's a lot of complex decision making that's happening. 

[00:14:54] Griffin Jones: Tell me how would the process work though? If so, and maybe Amber, you can speak to this.

If you want to have what you want to bring these teams together more, the genetics testing lab, the IVF lab. lab and the clinical team, so if you want to bring them together at the, at a company that has, by company, a clinic network that has multiple labs, multiple clinics, how do you do that? 

[00:15:24] Amber Kaplun: You're really going to have to figure out what workflow works best for your network, but it's really about being able to establish a workflow that will involve all of those people.

For example, something that I consider to be more optimal from a workflow perspective is that you have a patient or a couple come in, They meet with their physician. If there's an established need, perhaps for PGTM, that patient is then going to be handed off to a genetic counselor for genetic counseling.

That genetic counselor would then liaise with the PGT lab throughout the test development process. The IVF lab obviously comes in at the time that the embryos are created. The PGT lab does the testing, the results come back to the clinic and to the lab, and then most crucially is that discussion that happens around which embryos are we transferring, which embryos are we not transferring.

We're seeing increased requests. For transfer of PGTM positive embryos, and that's just really because our indications for pg TM are expanding. So for example, we may do testing for genes like B, rca, A one or B RCA A two, where they confer disease risk, but not necessarily a hundred percent certainty that a child would develop a condition.

So we are seeing in some cases requests to transfer those types of embryos, but there's obviously going to want to be very careful checks and balances in place if you are going to be doing that to establish, yes, this embryo is eligible for transfer at our clinic. Yes, we are transferring the correct embryo and making sure that everything goes off without a hitch.

[00:16:57] Griffin Jones: Break this down stepwise for me because I probably only followed you halfway through. And so couple comes in, that's you got your new patient visit, it's determined that they need. PGT, or some other type of genetic testing. 

[00:17:10] Amber Kaplun: PGTM, I think, is the best use case for this type of integration. PGTA, I think there can be such a high volume of patients that are going through it.

Some clinics that have in house resources will require pre test counseling, others won't. But when you have an in house genetic counselor, almost invariably people that are having PGTM are going to have a connection with that in house genetic counselor. through that process to help improve their experience.

[00:17:37] Griffin Jones: So the clinician determines that they need PGT M, that they hand the patient off to the genetic counselor, genetic counselor liaises with the PGT lab, and then what, and then liaising back with the clinician, or is there some interaction with the patient first, or tell me what happens after the PGT lab.

[00:17:57] Amber Kaplun: There's going to be communication going on at multiple levels, right? The genetic counselor is going to be, um, communicating with the patient. Genetic counselor is going to be keeping the care team and the physician updated on progress. The PGT lab will come back to the clinic and quite often that can be both the physician and the genetic counselor if applicable.

Um, so there's multiple lines of communication that stay open throughout the process, um, really to make sure that everyone is staying on the same page, that. Expectations are appropriately managed in terms of what does a couple want eligible for transfer, what doesn't a couple want for transfer. 

[00:18:33] Dr. Mili Thakur: And I think, uh, Griffin from, from that same workflow, I think we can Talk about the gaps that there are.

So one of the gaps that starts when the patient shows up for a request, patient is there, many times patients have multiple things going on. They're not able to conceive, but by the way, they also had somebody affected with a genetic condition. And they also are like emotionally in a very vulnerable situation.

So they may not. up front say that there is a genetic need. So there has to be a process when the intake of the patient is being taken, where you would pick up an extra need for the patient. An example for that is a case study that I did. I saw a patient where she came in, was seen as an infertility patient.

Actually, she was a patient who was doing donor sperm, did IVF, and then embryos were tested for PGT A. And then come to find out when they were going to do the transfer, the patient said, Oh, I also wanted to mention, I hope that the embryos were tested for this autosomal dominant disease that I have. In that intake process, there was this gap of not picking up the disorder that needed to be tested.

You can't just assume that the patients understand. The second thing is, when the requisition is being sent, which lab are we going to choose? There is so many different labs right now. Each one, they're different technology. Which lab is the one that the patient will be best served from? And what is the pre test counseling associated with whatever test you are going to be doing?

So the pre test counseling right now for PGT A is very minimal. The doctor just says, we're going to look for the chromosomes in the embryo, which patients don't understand quite as they might. Once the requisition's gone and then the patient is doing IVF, then there is a big thing that happens in the lab.

So the lab has to see the requisition from the physician. This is the IVF lab I'm talking about. They have to pull out the right kit. So if you work with five or six different labs, you have to understand that same day, there could be a case that's going out to the different lab and another one going to another lab.

So you have to pick the right kit. You have to sample the embryo. All embryos are sampled, no matter which lab they go in the same way, but then you have to put them in the right buffer. You have to handle the embryos with the right buffer. You have to store them at the right place, label them appropriately, and then ship them to the correct company.

When it's received by the company, there's processes that should be in place for quality control, right? All companies that provide this kind of testing have to have those processes because then they're going to amplify the DNA, results will come back, and then Again, the gap happens when, I kid you not, there is like each person who takes care of genetics in the practice has to keep five or six, seven, sometimes, portals.

So the results come back into that genetic company, which is an outside business portal, and the staff has to go in and retrieve that result in a timely fashion. And then the patient has to be called back by the clinical team. And then you have to have the doctor in the IVF lab. Integrate again. So, when I talk about gaps, they can happen in any of those spots.

If, say, the results were there for a week and the staff just did not go into that portal, they will not know that the results are back. If the staff retrieved the results but are waiting for the doctor to call the patient because the results are abnormal, then there will be another gap that happens. If the doctor doesn't feel comfortable with the management of those test results, You know, in that situation, if genetics was already integrated, they would be able to give those test results.

And it doesn't finish there. You have to transfer the right embryo, which is, I think, the biggest. Biggest piece of that whole workflow that happens for months at a time. 

[00:22:34] Griffin Jones: When you say patient portal, Mili, are you talking, or when you say portal, are you talking about the patient portal through the EMR, or do the PGT labs have their own portal, or is there some other portal?

[00:22:45] Dr. Mili Thakur: So each PGT lab Because they're an outside business, outside of the clinical infrastructure, they have their own portals. And you have to have a username and password for networks. There could be an integrated username and password that the clinical team goes in and retrieves information every day. And each lab has their own way of submission of samples of requests.

So some labs will have a portal where you submit it. Others would use some sort of encrypted email. To receive those and then the same thing with the back workflow. 

[00:23:21] Sponsor: In business, more is often better. More clients, more growth, more success. However, Asian Egg Bank has found that less is more. Operating with a single production center and dedicated lab has led to better outcomes for Asian Egg Bank and its clients.

Multiple production centers can increase the number of donors processed at once and reduce travel costs. But Asian Egg Bank has discovered significant advantages in focusing on just one center. The primary benefit is control, control over protocols and quality. Different centers, even under the same company, may have varying protocols and laboratory approaches, leading to inconsistencies in egg retrieval and freezing.

A delicate process that thrives on uniformity. This single center approach allows Asian Egg Bank to perfect its donor stimulation protocols and egg freezing and warming techniques before they are implemented at partner clinics. This focus means the bank can quickly gather data and assess quality.

seeing immediate results in blastocysts, embryos, pregnancies, and births. The streamlined process reduces the learning curve and minimizes the variables that come with managing multiple centers. The results speak for themselves. Asian Egg Bank has achieved a 90 95 percent recovery rate and close to 60 percent blastocyst rate.

These numbers reflect a high level of quality maintained by concentrating efforts in one location. Discover the consistent quality advantage of Asian Egg Bank, including their blastocyst guarantee. Visit asianeggbank.com/for-professionals to learn more.

[00:25:13] Griffin Jones: So I want to come back to these gaps, but you've pointed me to something of reasons why.

This ideal process, the optimal workflow that you describe, Amber, where the couple comes in, the clinician decides they need PGT M, they're handed off to a genetic counselor who liaises with the PGT lab and the patient and the clinical team. What, if this is the ideal scenario, in your view, How, what percentage of clinics do you think are doing something close to what you're envisioning as the ideal scenario right now?

And then that's the first question. And the second question is for that percent that isn't, why aren't they? 

[00:25:51] Amber Kaplun: So I would say the clinics that have in house genetic counselors, I would assume it's very close to a hundred percent, if not a hundred percent that are using that optimal workflow. I think That the clinics that are likely not doing that, they may have a contract genetic counselor that they work with that sort of mimics that workflow.

Um, some places may have third party services that they work with, but there is always going to be a bit of a gap there because that is not someone that is directly employed by the fertility clinic and directly working within the fertility clinic. So how that may come up is just having knowledge about the, the clinics or the networks, policies, and procedures about.

Embryos that are eligible for transfer, not eligible for transfer, and being able to help set expectations through that workflow. 

[00:26:37] Griffin Jones: In your last episode, I think we talked about, we guessed what percentage of clinics had an in house genetic counselor. Remind me, was that like 20%? Was it less than that? 

[00:26:48] Amber Kaplun: Yeah, it was less than that.

I would say 10 percent or less of all of clinics that report to SART in the U. S. 

[00:26:56] Griffin Jones: And we, when, I don't even remember when we did that episode, was that a year ago or so? Maybe six, six months to a year, maybe? 

[00:27:02] Amber Kaplun: I think it was about a year ago, yeah. 

[00:27:04] Griffin Jones: How much has changed in that last year? Are we at 12 percent now or 15 percent or 20 percent or is it pretty much Pretty close to what it was this time last year.

[00:27:13] Amber Kaplun: It's probably pretty close to what it was. Yeah. I mean, with some of the consolidation and some of the network growing that we've seen, that has meant that some clinics have access to in house genetic counseling services where they didn't a couple of years ago, but it may not be a very large number of clinics that have actively decided to bring genetic counseling services in house since that time.

[00:27:32] Griffin Jones: Is it just the. The role of having the in house genetic counselor in house that allows this optimal workflow to be implemented, or is there also some kind of technical solution that's necessary? Because I'm just hearing, okay, genetics counselor, Liaising lab, liaising with IVF lab, liaising with patients, liaising with clinical team.

It just, that seems like a bunch of communication that could be really disruptive to workflow, that could easily get out of the channels because some communication's happening here and then, or also people might be waiting on things. So I could see Obstacles happening from that. Is there, is, is the current EMR ecosystem sufficient to support that communication?

[00:28:24] Dr. Mili Thakur: I don't think that is sufficient. Like in an ideal world, a solution would be that if there was like one integrated virtual system where you could, as a clinic, own that system, like you have bought that system and then you are able to have your staff, which is trained in genetics, hopefully a genetic counselor or a geneticist, go into that system.

Select the best test that is needed, and then go to the right lab, and then click the next thing, and everything comes back into that same portal, but instead of having different company portals that you have to open, it would be a portal that the clinic has, and then the clinic just goes in, and it goes back to their EMR, talks to the same EMR, and this is an ideal world situation where there is no restrictions on creating such a software, but With increasing number of cases, if you have to take a lot of IVF cases through and a lot of genetic testing has to happen for different tests, there's about six different tests.

that we do in our field. And so it's like trying to navigate through four or five different labs for each. I'm talking about 12 to 15 labs that are genetics. In an ideal situation, that's the solution. And from a genetic counseling standpoint, I think we have to talk a little bit, and Amber can like elaborate on this.

There are these roles. The scope of practice of each genetic counselor. So there's three different types of genetic counselors in our field right now, or genetic professionals to say. One is in house genetic counselors that are cross trained in the EMR that practice uses it and loads the doctor preferences.

Second type is the one that are telehealth genetic companies that are standalone practices, but they integrate In various different forms with the clinics. And the third one is the company genetic counselors, the genetic counselors from the genetic company. And lots of physicians are relying on genetic services or genetic counseling services from these genetic testing companies, which is invaluable at this time that that provides patients what they need.

However, that, the scope of practice of that genetic counselor is totally different. They are counseling the post test. counseling for the test. They will provide all options to the patient, they will give all the outcomes to the patient, but they don't know the exact situation of the patient. So they don't have clinical data with them when they're talking to the patient.

They have some clinical data, but they're not directive. And they're trained to be not directive because they're representing the testing company and the test results. And I think Amber can speak to it, how it's different for an in house genetic counselor and decision making and for a genetic counselor from a company.

[00:31:19] Amber Kaplun: Yeah, when you're a genetic counselor working in house, you have a good idea about your institution's values and how you approach certain types of results. So if I'm counseling a patient on PGT A results, I can say to them, these embryos are going to be top of the list for transfer. These ones we'll put to the bottom of the list.

These embryos are not eligible for transfer at our institution versus if you have a genetic counselor that is counseling on those results from a lab, they're just going to say these are the different findings that were observed within the embryo biopsies. You're going to need to go back and talk to your doctor to figure out which ones you can transfer, which ones you can't, and in what order.

[00:31:54] Griffin Jones: The last time we're on, when in our conversation, Amber, it was about the benefits of having an in house genetic counselor and Mili, your episode was about three different revenue streams that fertility clinics can leverage with genetics. Is there a way that you see this becoming the standard in the world?

A few years time, apparently it hasn't budged since a year ago when Amber and I first spoke, but is this going to be the standard as consolidation happens more and then we're left with maybe four or five companies that own 80 plus percent of the fertility centers in the continent? Is this going, are we going to see that more than 50 percent of clinics have In house genetic counselors.

How much of that battle is left to fight? 

[00:32:49] Amber Kaplun: I think we will, and primarily that's just because when you look at The rate of requests for PGT M compared to requests for prenatal diagnosis, for example, there are certain areas in the world where requests for PGT M are far outpacing requests for prenatal diagnosis.

And you also have greater availability of genetic testing in medicine generally. I do think that we are going to be seeing more and more families, more and more couples coming to us. Specifically for IVF and PGTM, but then as Mili mentioned, we're getting more and more patients who come to us for reasons other than genetic testing and something comes up along the process of the workup and setting that patient up.

I would say if you are a physician or a nurse, and there has been more than a couple times where you've looked at a PGT A report or a genetic testing report and you find yourself scratching your head, That's telling you that you need more support in this genetics realm, and there's going to be some point at which that means that needing that support is going to be hiring someone and creating a team that can take on those responsibilities for you.

I am anticipating that these bills that are in progress are going to get passed in the near future, which I think will really eradicate a lot of barriers that clinics do tell us exist. And I think also if you're Hiring a genetic counselor, you don't necessarily need to hire someone that comes into your clinic every single day.

I can tell you from the number of requests that I get, genetic counselors have a lot of interest in this area of practice. If you expand your search to potentially the whole state that you practice in, potentially out of that state, you're definitely going to be able find someone that wants to work that job.

Some of the Things that I hear about there not being enough genetic counselors, I can tell you I've heard people in my area with open positions have been having 50, 100 applicants for their job. So there are a lot of people out there right now, particularly because some of the labs are laying off genetic counselors.

There's a lot of people out there. It's a good time for hiring. 

[00:34:48] Griffin Jones: I know a really good genetics counselor out there who wants to get back into the fertility field. So if anyone is listening that, that needs really good talent, I do know an A player that is in that situation that you described, Amber. 

[00:35:01] Dr. Mili Thakur: Yeah.

And Griffin, just to add to what Amber said, is I, the way I envision it, Once there is consolidation has happened, and then these networks are now going to start to look into the internal processes, like once acquisition happens and they are settled down in terms of what they are doing, I think I see two ways of how this is going to happen.

Every practice that has to take care of their patients for the next five to ten years has to take care of their genetics. Otherwise, they're not going to be able to be functioning. I'm 100 percent sure of that. There are so many 

[00:35:35] Griffin Jones: Tell me what that, tell me what that means, that they won't be able to be functioning if they're not also involved in the genetics.

Tell me, unpack that for me. 

[00:35:42] Dr. Mili Thakur: With increasing number of cycles happening, so if a network is going to do upwards of a thousand cycles, right, and they are, there are networks that are doing five to ten thousand cycles a year. Imagine the number of data that's coming into their system. And once you do that much of high volume, a lot of complex cases are entering the system.

The more you're going to serve, the more complexity there is going to be. Each practice that wants to excel in their business cannot look the other way and say, okay, genetics, we'll just take care of it through third party genetic companies or through the genetic counseling testing companies, because soon you will have a case.

That is going to be a hurdle. It's going to be coming back to the doctors. As soon as the doctors see it, it's a business case for them. They're going to integrate genetics in there. But what we are trying to say to our audience right now is instead of going to that point where that thing happens and then you look back and you say, oh, we should now get a genetic counselor or a genetics team on our setup.

The two ways I see it is one, All networks should look into their internal process of how they handle their genetic workflow. And professionals like us are happy to consult with them and say, okay, let's look at your processes and where everything lies. But the second way is Centers of Excellence for Genetics in Reproductive Medicine.

That's another way of doing it. Preimplantation genetic testing As an 

[00:37:10] Griffin Jones: insurance designation? Is that what you mean?

[00:37:12] Dr. Mili Thakur: No, as a center. So inside of the network, which networks can own more than 10, 15 centers, one of their center is actually a center of excellence where for pre implantation genetic testing and the more important portion of that is for PGTM.

As Amber said, these are complex cases. They don't take that one hour consult, like on an average when I work up a patient like that, it's five to ten hours of my time. Your regular IVF team should be doing the infertility management of the patients, taking them through and Making sure, but these patients that need extra time and extra workup have to be in a different environment that has to, that kind of team, the one that I envision will have a geneticist on staff, would have an REI on staff, would have a team of genetic counselors on staff, and will then liaison with all of the different labs and coordinate that complicated care.

And once you've developed that model, you can take that model and implement it in any site of that network, right? So basically these are complex cases. And because of my virtue of practice right now, I'm seeing patients from 17 different states. I work with all PGT labs and I'm getting second opinion referrals from most of the REIs from around the country.

And those cases, even for me, who's like, Board certified in genetics take extra hours of work. I have to look up things and I have to talk to these companies and say, which kind of tests can we do for it? Is this test even possible or feasible? And then on the back end, I have to counsel the patient to say, okay, your family is unique.

This is something that is very complex. It's going to take us a month or two to even get you to be able to do this. That kind of workflow to be fully integrated into a busy REI practice is. It's difficult, so challenging to say the least. So as we see, and this is like a projection that's available online, we are going to see increased number of requests for PGTM and SR.

And for these first two months of 2024, every practice has seen that increase already. And this is going to increase even more. So we have to address it. I don't think we can look the other way and say, we're going to just do things how we have done it traditionally. 

[00:39:36] Griffin Jones: How do APPs fit into all this? Because as you're talking about developing the workflows, the workforce, you're talking about having centers of excellence, and then you're talking about the clinician being the first person to decide what test is necessary and that, or then, or decide if something's necessary to hand it off to the Gen X counselor.

But what happens as APPs are starting to do more of the new patient visits. They're the ones doing the workups and, uh, and then the REI is at a more global level where they're overseeing multiple cases and, uh, so how do nurse practitioners, physician assistants play into all this? 

[00:40:16] Amber Kaplun: Yeah, I can speak to that because we have a great team of APPs, you know, across the network where I am, and they're acting very similarly to the role that Mili is mentioning, identifying these cases and then in consultation with the overseeing physician, really sending the cases our way.

So the workflow looks very similar. It's just that, as you mentioned, that first point of contact, maybe with the APP, Versus an MD or DO, but it doesn't really change much from a workflow perspective, at least in our experience. 

[00:40:46] Dr. Mili Thakur: Yeah. The only thing is that the, at the ASRM APP summit, which we had last year, most APP felt comfortable with being.

That first person of contact with the physicians to like triage patients and like different levels of complexity and getting them to where they needed to be. A question arises when test results have to be given, when genetic test results, especially pre implantation genetic testing of embryo test results have to be given, if they are the usual type of results.

Most APPVs will feel comfortable, but as soon as the results are abnormal, say a couple went through IVF and all embryos are abnormal, and now with different genetic testing companies, there's different level of abnormal. So there's a clear aneuploid, there is low level mosaic, and high level mosaic. So those kinds of test results and then answering questions in great detail is something that would not be part of their scope of practice.

That would be part of a, either a physician, uh, trained in REI and knowing the complexity or a genetics professional, a geneticist and a genetic counselor, even nurses. And I don't think even anybody who's not well versed in genetics would be able to handle that kind of results. 

[00:42:05] Griffin Jones: I'd like to give each of you the opportunity to close the conversation with your thoughts.

And I'm thinking in the direction of how we develop this workforce as. Clinics are consolidating, we see that, and other segments of the field are also integrating. And so, we need, we need the infrastructure for genetics to mirror that, but we need the workforce to be able to fulfill that. Um, so, um. Uh, you can conclude how, however you'd like on, on this topic of how we build this infrastructure, but, uh, how do we develop this workforce?

What needs to happen for this infrastructure to come into your place? And if you can, what would, for those executives listening that are at the MSO executive level, What first step can they take? 

[00:43:00] Amber Kaplun: So I can speak at least from a genetic counseling perspective. First off, I would say that there has been tremendous growth in the number of genetic counseling training programs over the last five to ten years.

So there are more and more genetic counselors that are graduating every single year. And I think we are also dealing economically right now with a bit of contraction of genetic testing labs. So as I alluded to earlier, that means that there is a ripe workforce out there ready and eager to really dig in.

And as I mentioned, ARTIVF is a particular area of interest for many people. So I think really the first step for those executives and those MSOs is to be able to commit. to creating a genetics program. And after that commitment, I think consultation with people that are more experienced in this area to be able to carve out that business plan and the projections and things like that.

It's going to be really helpful for taking that first step and The Genetic Counseling Professional Group is always happy to assist in supporting people that are looking at starting a genetics program. We are obviously very committed to increasing the visibility and the presence of genetics programs within reproductive medicine to help ensure that we are meeting those levels of ideal patient care.

[00:44:10] Dr. Mili Thakur: I think from my standpoint, one of the key things that the, uh, Professionals in the field have to do is to acknowledge that genetics is here, it's growing, that these tests have to be taken care of and be mindful of the patient experience. Like it has to be completed, that workflow has to be completed to the point where we can get the patients to take the baby home, right?

The important thing is to have that vision that how to create genetics. As a workflow and develop it. The second thing is a commitment for the processes that are involved. Like Amber said, there's a lot of genetic counselors and genetic professionals who would love to be part of that team, but instead of cutting corners and making short decisions of, okay, right now, I just want these test results to be given for this next year, developing that process and putting those ground rules for your team as the, as the team grows.

[00:45:09] Griffin Jones: What are a couple of those ground? There are a couple of ground rules that you think of, if you will. Like what are those ground rules that, that should be established specifically to avoid cutting those corners? 

[00:45:20] Dr. Mili Thakur: So I think first is. Every patient coming into the fertility field, if they're coming with inability to conceive, should, there should be a process to take their history that is above and beyond what the doctor is able to do in a 45 minute or an hour long visit.

There should be a questionnaire. That questionnaire has to be made in collaboration with a genetics professional. So the right questions are asked and then they are somehow triaged. That is a gap that is very big in most clinics. So you can pick up the So who need that extra service. Then the second thing, that ground rule, should be that when we are taking care of a patient who needs a genetic test, ordering the appropriate test with the informed consent has to happen.

And then that informed consent is like a big legal important point is that informed consent is not just waving off and signing on a sheet of paper. It should be something that has embedded content inside the content. Like a video that the patient has to watch and be then truly be informed. So when they sign the paper, they know the pros and cons, which needs the pre test counseling.

Then in the lab, in the IVF lab, there has to be very straight ground rules of the processes of how we label embryos, how we store embryos, how the right kit is picked up. There should be, and most labs would have that process already, but it has to be even more. going with the higher volume and the complexity of the testing.

Then at the genetic testing lab, because these are all testing kits that are made by the lab, there has to be regulations there to make sure that quality control is well and reporting is done. Right now, each lab, by the way, reports their results in all different ways, so there is no single way of regulation of how reports come back.

There's different, uh, uses that they use. And then last but not the least, when the right embryo is getting picked up, like when there has to be a genetic professional inside of that decision making or the physician takes all of the responsibility of when the embryo is being thawed, because the lab that is going to be thawing is only given a number for the embryo to be thawed.

So I think it's very important to have all of those boxes checked off. And integrating the team of genetic professionals who understand this is easy for them would make it better for the practices. 

[00:47:53] Griffin Jones: You've persuaded me that integrating with genetics in this way with the clinical and the lab teams is necessary.

I think you persuaded me that it's inevitable and that the networks have to figure out a way to do it. I think from a, that they're going to need some, Some of the technology, some of the technology solutions that are emerging, the workflow softwares, the EMRs, the EMR alternatives that are emerging. And a lot of you hear those advertisers on this show.

I can't tell you which ones are better than the others, but you need to check them out. I would check out all of them. Every time you hear a new one on this show, do their demo. Click out that little form of whatever comes out, because I think what you're talking about for All of the different segments, lab side, genetic side, clinic side, being integrated absolutely has to happen as the networks continue to get bigger and people are going to need it.

Uh, the right tools to be able to, to actually implement that. And then I also want to plug the background for this conversation. Listen to Amber Kaplun’s episode about how to, how and why to use in house genetic counselors. Listen to Dr. Thakur’s episode about how to leverage three different revenue streams.

for genetics in your IVF practice. We're gonna link to both of those episodes in the show notes. Go back and listen to those, and I look forward to having you both back on, because I'm increasingly getting this feedback of this growth, Uh, in the genetics vertical, and we're, there's going to be more and more to cover.

And I'd like to get some updates on many of the tips that you gave today and how they're being implemented. Dr. Mili Thakur, Ms. Amber Kaplun, thank you both so much for coming back on the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. I look forward to having you each on a third time. Thanks, Griffin. Thank you. 

[00:49:58] Sponsor: We hope you enjoyed this session with Dr. Mili Thakur and Amber Kaplun. To learn more about the benefits of limiting production centers in egg banking, visit asianeggbank.com/for-professionals

Announcer: Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

227 The Biggest Strategic Issue Facing Pinnacle Fertility with CEO, Beth Zoneraich

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Growing fertility networks need more staff at almost every level of the organization. But they can’t get enough of them.

Today's guest, Beth Zoneraich, CEO of Pinnacle Fertility, presents her approach to revolutionizing the patient experience and enhancing efficiency in fertility practices.

Tune in as Beth explores:

  • How she’s refining the patient journey for optimal efficiency. (And why it involves the Ritz-Carlton)

  • Market and workforce factors driving the need for more streamlined processes.

  • Pinnacle's automation of EMR steps and improvements in patient intake.

  • Strategies for segmenting and training specialized support staff.

  • Navigating the separation between business and medicine in fertility.

  • The impact of private equity on fertility practices and standards of care.

Pinnacle Fertility
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram

Beth Zoneraich
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Beth Zoneraich: Why is sort of the industry changes in the industry dynamics affecting fertility? And why, why is it making it now the reason why these clinics need to change? And then in changing, we create these new operational methods, which focus on work life balance and. efficiencies because it's the only way we can go from being sort of a mom and pop, you know, fragmented industry to a scaled, able to give more people access to care, but efficient, you know, group of clinics is, is by making these changes.

And, and we need to make the changes in a way that works for sort of where employees want to be. 

[00:00:42] Kevin Ali: Hi, I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon, and at Organon, we're committed to engaging with leaders across reproductive medicine. So I'm excited to introduce today's guest, Beth Zoneraich, CEO of Pinnacle Fertility. 

Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon, Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com.

[00:01:04] Griffin Jones: Thank you, Kevin. You made me realize that I may have been mispronouncing Beth's name incorrectly in this interview, and I am correcting myself and I am correcting all of you. Beth Zoneraich. One of the things that fertility networks are supposed to do is to introduce operational efficiencies to the practice of REI.

Beth Zoneraich has been mapping the patient journey for many years, long before she was the chief executive of Pinnacle. So I ask her about what she's doing now to make the patient journey more efficient. And also, what are the market causes that make it necessary to make it more efficient? What are the workforce causes for needing to make it more efficient?

What is Pinnacle doing to automate steps in their EMR? What are they doing at patient intake to anticipate patient needs and desires? How does Pinnacle segment and specialize their support staff? What are they doing to train those staff? I press a bit on the separation between business and medicine.

Doctors say they don't want to be told how to practice medicine. People say they don't want to tell doctors how to practice medicine. I just don't think that business operations and the practice of medicine are completely separable. I asked Beth about that. I also ask about the private equity timeline.

I think there's too much evidence to the contrary that private equity just tanks the standard of care. I don't buy that, not across the board anyway. But I do think it might be the case that private equity backed companies don't make enough necessary investments for the long term because the timeline for the return on investment is too short.

I asked Beth about that too. When we talk about workforce, I think Beth is a little more generous than I am in comparing generational work ethics. But I think the point's the same that the only way you'll get even as much out of the current and incoming workforce as you did from previous workforces, let alone get more out of them is by using technology and systems to make them a lot more efficient.

Let me know what you think. Send me an email and enjoy this conversation with Beth Zoneraich. Ms. Zoneraich, Beth, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. 

[00:02:54] Beth Zoneraich: Griffin Jones. Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. 

[00:02:57] Griffin Jones: I'm I'm happy that you're here. Your fellow upstate New Yorker originally. So we've we've gotten to connect on that.

We also have gotten to connect a little bit recently on on some thoughts on operational efficiency. And, uh, and I do want to get into that and then what that means for the workforce. Um, but maybe we take it from your view of what's happening in the field. And why efficiency in particular efficiencies are necessary at this time.

What's the bird's eye view of, of what's happening that you think this is now necessary. 

[00:03:35] Beth Zoneraich: Thanks, Griffin. I, I love to talk to my own network and outside of the network about what a quickly changing industry, the fertility world is. And we have a lot of these dynamics going on in the industry that are hitting All at the same time.

And sometimes when you're in a clinic as a physician or as an embryologist, you, you feel these industry trends hitting, but, but it's pretty hard to see them in a global context and understand maybe why some things that are changing at the clinic are changing. So when I look out at the industry and look over the past 10 years, you, you really see huge changes.

The first is that within the clinic, delivering care to the patient has become a lot more expensive. Uh, it's become more expensive because we've added a lot to the process. So we've made our success rates and the science has exploded and, and our clinics are much more successful at getting our patients pregnant using things like genetic carrier screening and, you know, biopsying embryos and, and, and doing PGTA or PGTM testing on the embryos.

That's improved our success rates. But if you think about what the clinic needs to do, they're now doing a lot of genetic counseling they've never done before, coordinating that. And they're running more tests, which requires coordination with outside vendors, and then they're spending time in the lab biopsying embryos, and they have to now coordinate two cycles, first the retrieval and then the frozen embryo transfer.

So the amount of work required in the clinic that makes it necessary to get to one cycle is a lot more work and a lot more employee. lab, nursing, and doctoring time than we had had before. Uh, so while that's one big trend that's happening, uh, we also have a shortage of labor, so it's making that labor more expensive.

Um, that's really making caring for each individual patient tougher and more expensive and taking more time. So that's one big industry trend that's happened. A second is, at the same time that that was happening, more and more employers have decided that offering fertility benefits is a needed part of, of what they should offer their employees because everyone should have the right to have a family if they want one.

And so it's a wonderful trend to see more and more employers offering this cure. And with more coverage, more patients are showing up at our door wanting coverage. So it's, it's taking us more time to see them. It's more expensive to see them and service them. And more employers are covering it. But we're actually getting reimbursed a lot less on the back end for each cycle that gets covered.

So when you see all these trends happening, a lot of times what we're seeing is we go in and either acquire clinics or or come in to help clinics manage those industry trends. What you find is long wait lists of patients. It's hard to answer the phone. It's hard to get back to your patients and patients get increasingly frustrated with the clinic because they're not getting the care that, that they really deserve and that they're wanting to have.

And the staff of the clinics get super frustrated because they're working harder than they've ever worked before, trying to provide even better care than they were able to provide in the past, but they're getting yelled at all day by patients that, that are kind of angry with the process. And so what we're finding is a lot of people are either leaving the field or they're getting burned out.

For And they're not sure sort of where the future is going, and they don't realize that these industry trends are really what's causing a lot of this. So when, when we're in clinics, sometimes we'll hear people frustrated with doctors or frustrated with administration. And really what's happening is these industry trends are playing out every day in our clinics and making our employees feel stressed and tired and not sure sort of which patient they should see first and where they should head back.

[00:07:10] Griffin Jones: So one of the things that I wrote down that you mentioned is that things are taking more time now, what specifically is taking more time? 

[00:07:21] Beth Zoneraich: I think if, if we go back 10 years, right, people would come in and they would, Almost entirely be self pay patients. So they sign a contract and they would get started with their testing and their treatment cycle tend to be that treatment cycle would have been one cycle.

They would, they would coordinate that patient to have a retrieval and then X number of days later, they would have a fresh transfer. Now we've got to coordinate genetic carrier screening of, of sometimes one, one of the, um, parts of a couple of pretend both, you know, husband and wife and or, uh, two, two spouses.

Um, or an unintended, you know, partner. So some of the times we're doing the genetic, um, counseling and the genetic carrier screening, then we're coordinating a retrieval cycle. Then we're typically creating embryos, freezing them as we biopsy them and send them off for treatment. We've got to coordinate with an outside vendor and do that internally.

And we've got to get those reports back. So when you 10 years ago, we've added a lot more steps into the process. And we're now trying to coordinate with More outside vendors and and those coordination with outside vendors can mean lots of paperwork to fill out lots of faxes to get in Lots of attaching to charts.

So there's a lot of steps involved in making that journey for the patient work seamlessly now Unless we put a lot of care and thought and time and energy into making it work better 

[00:08:37] Griffin Jones: So how do you get, uh, so how do you introduce inefficiency into this dynamic? Because a lot of these things that have developed have been, I suppose, to increase effectiveness.

You know, now you've got genetic counseling, you've got genetic carrier screening, you have, uh, you've got more options for third party. Um, but everything you introduce, um, might Uh, lead to it's one more step. Um, how do you introduce efficiencies without introducing something that you're trying to make the inefficiency just one more step?

[00:09:16] Beth Zoneraich: That's a great question. We've actually spent years at Pinnacle now time studying and watching and process mapping the flow of the patient journey. And, and lots of people have done this, but we've tried to be really innovative Not just picking a medical record system, but then innovating that medical record system to kind of automate things along the patient journey path that makes it easier for the for our team and our staff to provide really, truly exceptional patient service while not stressing out the team and making their jobs better.

And whether that be helping them with, uh, prep sheets in advance for what patient's coming at eight and at 8. 15, at 8. 30, and maybe a picture of what that person looks like and any consent forms they need to sign and why they're coming to the clinic and any copays or deductibles they may need to have.

And sort of helping the front office with sort of a list of all of the employee, all of the patients coming in and what exactly is needed and getting them ready for that in an easy electronic checklist. It, it may be taking some of our vendors and integrating them into our medical record system so that we're not filling out paperwork anymore, we're just doing click, click, click and that order goes off to one of our, our key partners that we work with.

And making sure when the, when we get test results, they result back into our system and. If we have a euploid embryo, it's going to highlight green in our system on an embryo by embryo braces, or if it's aneuploid, it's going to highlight red and the results are going to be right there at a click of a button.

But that we use automation and technology to take some of the really difficult paperwork steps out of what our, what we're doing. Our employees are doing every day for our patients and automate some of that to make their job easier and more focused on providing the amazing patient care that they love to provide.

[00:11:04] Griffin Jones: You talked about answering the phone and the staff's working hard. Patients are getting angry, wait lists get longer, and then, and people are calling. What's your approach to. Patient intake and answering the phone and what can be automated there? Are we at a stage where we can have chatbots do a lot of things or we can have some sort of a I triage or what's the approach to think about that point of intake now?

[00:11:34] Beth Zoneraich: So we try and study intake from many different avenues. So we study intake first for why is the patient calling to begin with? Did we not anticipate the need of that patient in advance? and touch base with that patient before they needed to call us. So the first is, can we reduce phone calls by better educating our patients and better getting them prepped for their cycle of their appointments proactively so that they don't need to contact us because we've already contacted them and satisfied that need.

So we study our phone calls to see maybe we are getting lots of phone calls, for instance, here's an example from a lab because we had the wrong diagnosis code in and sort of labs that we were sending out were getting rejected. And so we need to go in and fix the diagnosis code. And then all of a sudden those.

Those calls will, will stop coming in. So those, those are easy ones that we try and solve. Then what we try and do is, is we've studied good service models. And so we've gone out and said, you know, outside of healthcare, who do we think of as having really good service models? So for instance, we've brought in the Ritz Carlton to speak to our teams twice now, two years in a row.

And Ritz Carlton defines good services, anticipating. The needs and desires of their customers for us, for our patients. And so beginning to pre think, if I'm a patient and I know the patient journey, or I don't know the patient journey, but we know the patient journey, and anticipating what that patient journey looks like and proactively reaching out in advance.

So if someone needs to be on day three of their, day two or three of their period, and we know their appointment's coming up, can we text them in advance to say, Hey, I'm Did you get your period? Are we still good for our appointment? Your appointment in two days? Or should we push it out a day and being able to really think through that before they show up maybe on the wrong day of their period and then say, Oh, I didn't know or we'll have to reschedule and try again a month later.

So when we can anticipate demand, we reduce those phone calls. And then finally, when, when patients do call us, we should be answering in the first two or three rings. We shouldn't, we shouldn't have them waiting on hold for long periods of time. And we should be able to answer their question in one answer.

We shouldn't have to transfer them five times. We shouldn't have to say, we'll get back to them. We should be able to answer them. intake and have trained staff that can answer their questions. And so our goal and and we're not at this at every clinic and in every place where we're operating, but that is our goal to get to is to be able to meet our patients questions and answers in a very quick format, but really anticipate and ahead of time answer their questions almost before they have them.

Our desire is to delight the patient. 

[00:14:02] Griffin Jones: What's your point of view on centralized call centers? Because my point of view when working with smaller practices was that the roles that front desk staff had weren't specialized enough. They were, they were pulled in too many directions and they had to be because they just didn't have the volume to have these four people are the people that handle new patient scheduling.

And these three people are the people that, you know, welcome new patients. And these Other people are the folks that do the insurance verification. And, uh, and so it's, it seemed to me that they We're kind of stuck in that inefficiency because they didn't have the scale to specialize. But as soon as they got to a certain threshold, I would recommend, okay, now I'll get a dedicated new patient line, make that a different line than your existing patient line, because they have very different questions, very different needs.

And to the extent that you can have people whose job it is, is just to deal with new patients. How do you view that delineation of responsibilities? 

[00:15:08] Beth Zoneraich: Yeah, Griffin, I, I agree a hundred percent. When I have sat at front office before trying to understand the patient flow, the first thing that I notice is the front office person who needs to greet our next patient or check out a patient that's leaving or talk to people in the waiting room.

It's very hard for that person to answer the phone. They, it's sort of like a gamble. When the phone rings, you don't know if it's a quick, I'm going to transfer it to someone. If it's a 30 minute, I'm going to do an intake of a new patient. You don't know who's on the other end of that call. And the front office person, of course, being service focused, wants to be able to greet the next person walking in with a smile and, and get them ready for their appointment.

So they get, they get nervous about answering the phone because they're trying to do an excellent job with the patient in front of them. So separating those roles, uh, quickly becomes really important so that somebody can be focused on in taking the new patient, answering all their questions and, and being able to answer that call within the first ring or two while not trying to be rude or have two conversations at the same time and give both people their full attention.

So we, we always try to have front office only as a backup on answering new patient only calls, but not the main place where new patient phone calls are, are. 

[00:16:20] Griffin Jones: I'll route it to when your network like yours, can that be done from one place across multiple practices in multiple geographic areas? What are the pros and cons of doing it that way?

[00:16:33] Beth Zoneraich: So because pinnacle operates from coast to coast, you know, we often have a three hour time difference. So one new patient call center for the entire country, I think might be difficult for us. It's not something we've gone to at this point. And we also have such a large network that You know, having smaller specialized groups that understand all of the different practices and physicians, there are definitely nuances.

Uh, Pinnacle does try and standardize more rather than less so that we can help with automation and help with technology improvement on the back end. Um, there are definitely still differences between the clinics in scheduling or times or, or some of the clinics are in batching schedules for IVF. Others run continuously based on size.

So we have not tried to centralize into one call center. What we've done is more regionalized. Uh, centers and or centers within a clinic, but just not having it all in the front desk position. 

Sponsor: Organon is dedicated to delivering impactful medicines and solutions for a healthier tomorrow. Guided by its mission of being here for her health, Organon proudly recognizes fertility providers around the world focusing on care equity. 

We believe everyone should have access to fertility education and treatment. By collaborating with providers, advocates, and communities, Organon is working to elevate fertility awareness, expand resources, and invest in innovative products that help more aspiring parents access the care they deserve. 

Every journey to parenthood is unique. Organon stands with you. 

Learn more about Organon’s resources at FertilityJourney.com

[00:17:28] Griffin Jones: You've been the top chief at Pinnacle for a year and a half at the time of this recording. You worked for the company for a bit longer than that.

What do you, uh, Uh, view as what were in, in that time period, what were the efficiencies that you prioritized first and why did you prioritize them that way? 

[00:17:48] Beth Zoneraich: That's a great question. So since I joined the company, uh, I think the main priority was to get everybody on the same technology platform so that we have a base in which we can grow.

So, clinics came to us on paper. They came to us in a variety of different EMR and billing systems, sometimes two or three at a time, and, uh, you know, we've, we've had 12 different, uh, groups join us, and through that, we've done nine different EMR conversions. And as of June of this year, every clinic of ours, uh, will all be on the same tech stack platform.

That's the same copiers, the same voice over IP phones, um, the same Microsoft Office 365 platforms. They will be on the same medical record systems, um, using the same vendors. And we've integrated all of those technologies together. That will give us, and has given us since we're almost there now, this foundation of which to start to build from, and we're just beginning to see what I think will be really exponentially increasing results.

Uh, you know, as, as an outcome from this, as a way of, of doing things to make our patient care and our service levels truly outstanding. 

[00:18:59] Griffin Jones: As you introduce these efficiencies, how do you think about the overlap of business operations with clinical care? Because I've become convinced over the years that you just can't totally separate those two different things and, and the tension between business and clinical over the years has been.

Well, you know, the clinician saying, well, we don't want somebody without an MD telling us how to practice medicine. And the business response has traditionally been, we don't, we don't tell you how to practice business or practice medicine. We, we handle the business things. And I, I just think that. That there's an overlap that can't be fully separated.

And, and I think if, if I was in your seat or Lisa's seat or Derek's seat or TJ's seat, or I think that in, and I'm a business person looking at this, like, I, I feel like I would be telling doctors, like, there's no way in hell you're doing ultrasounds. Like we're going to be doing. We're going to have sonographers do that.

And then you can tell me what safeguards need to take place. And then, and then you can also tell me what safeguards need to be in place for APPs to, to be doing these new pay, to be doing IUIs or OBGYNs to be doing retrievals, like you can tell me, but just looking at where the field is, where it needs to go, it's like, we, you're not, we're not gonna be able to stay in business in a handful of years.

If we can't figure this out. And, uh, and, you know, when you think about the number of, uh, of the percentage of self pay patients decreasing, and those reimbursements are often much lower. And so you've got to figure out the efficiencies there. Plus, we're only serving a fraction of the marketplace that needs our help.

Among other workforce inefficiencies that are coming into the place that, that we'll talk about some more, but I, I, you know, from my view, I would be like, like this, this way of being able to, to see more patients isn't totally divorceable from the way people practice medicine. And yeah, I think that I would have a safeguard of.

or a system for, for saying, okay, you tell me what needs to be in place in order for it to be clinically safe, clinically effective, um, not compromising quality of care at all. But like, this is the direction that we're going at from business. How do you think about that? 

[00:21:24] Beth Zoneraich: So, you know, I think I'm, I'm a little bit blessed in the sense that I'm married to an REI physician and I've been married to that REI physician for, 27, 28 years, and we started a practice together, so it comes very naturally to me to know that while there's always an intersection of business and medicine.

Doctors need to drive medicine 100 percent of the time. It's really critically important. I last had biology in the ninth grade. I don't have a really, uh, intelligent background in sort of telling a doctor how to see a patient and what to do. Um, but what I, what I found really large success at is being able to identify industry trends and analysis, use things that are happening outside of the industry, um, whether it be the Ritz Carlton or.

I mean, honestly, any of the, uh, case studies that you can read in business and studying other industries and bringing those successfully into healthcare, specifically into fertility. And I find that doctors are great problem solvers. So if doctors are presented with, um, this is just my experience, lots of good data and knowledge of the problem, then they're great solvers, um, and helping innovate the solution.

And then once some physicians have innovated, they're pretty good at working with other physicians to help, help people come along. Change, change management is really hard and it's really hard, you know, as the industry has changed so quickly to keep up with it. Um, but through the medical leadership board where, you know, at Pinnacle, we have one doctor from every practice sits on a medical leadership board and they make all of the decisions when it comes to anything medically about the practices across Pinnacle.

Uh, and no one from the business side votes on that, nor, nor should they. Those are medical decisions that should only be voted on by the, by the medical group. They've been really able to guide us quite effectively in, in meeting sort of these demanding, changing times, uh, but, but through a physician, you know, through the physician lens and, and being led by the physicians.

We, we have a similar board on the lab, lab leadership board. They manage all of our lab decisions and equipment purchases and, you know, and then oftentimes together, I will, you know, the groups will get together in person twice a year, they meet monthly. Uh, they make decisions together, like if we're picking a long term storage partner, that would be both a lab and a medical decision.

They would vote collectively. Uh, and then we have a business leadership board and their job is really to roll out and help solidify all the initiatives and And things approved by the, by the medical and lab leadership boards. Um, but while these sometimes conflict in general, uh, you know, it is critical to us that we remain physician led and that we still tackle the industry problems and the dynamics that are happening in the business.

And we're finding a lot of success with that. We have lots of really active, good negotiations and good, uh, good discussions, uh, but, but I, I do believe that the physicians are leading us through this and we're, and we're finding answers to those problems. in in ways that keep our patient care at the forefront of every decision we make.

[00:24:25] Griffin Jones: What about those things that, uh, you know, they might need to, like switch an EMR or they might need to, um, start using a software or something. And this is where I mean, where I just don't feel like we can totally divorce the business operations from what quality of care is, because, uh, I, there, there's someone that.

work with pretty closely and who's gone through IVF as a patient a couple of times and, um, had, uh, listened to, um, a couple of the advertisers on our show that have talked about introducing efficiencies. And she said, I wish that I had that because. Our, we, we felt like we were totally disconnected and, and things just fell off the agenda and, and people didn't follow back up with us and it felt disorganized.

Um, and she said, we almost, we almost quit our IVF cycle. And so it's like, that's a, that's like a business operation, but it. It almost affected the, the, a clinical outcome because it, she almost didn't stick with it. And so how do you, how do you think about that when you've got to get people to buy into something and they might say, well, I, I think.

You know, I'm used to doing it this way, or I think that it's too in my wheelhouse of being a clinician. How do you bridge that gap? 

[00:25:49] Beth Zoneraich: So we use, we use data, uh, to bridge a lot of those gaps. So when we have opinion differences across the network, which you can imagine with 50 REI physicians, we have a lot of opinion differences.

Like there's, there's no, I doubt that not everybody agrees all the time. We, we use the vast amounts of data since we're all on one system and have access to all this outcome data to test theories and hypotheses and opinions and try and put data behind it to try and see, well, does this, you know, specialized DIMM protocol really help or work?

Or does, Something else really a trend look like it's something we need to follow or not follow. And so we try and break down and listen to each to each idea. And then we have the doctors talk to each other. So that's why we have this medical leadership board. And if it's working successfully in seven or eight or nine of the clinics, you know, it'd be unusual for it to not work in the remaining clinics.

And so. Um, we encourage everybody at Pinnacle to travel a lot and visit each other in different clinics. So if we have a clinic struggling with a rollout or doing something, um, that another clinic is already trying, we invite one doctor to fly to that clinic and, and see it with their own eyes and watch how one doctor sees the patient to, to sort of help make the decision of could that work in a, in a different clinic.

We found that to be incredibly successful as a way for physicians and Folks in the front office and folks in our embryology lab to learn from each other. And it's, it's been, it's been very successful to date. And it's also brought the network closer together and made people enjoy working as a team. Um, even if one works on one coast and one works on the other.

[00:27:27] Griffin Jones: You find that it follows that bell curve of the The innovator to laggard bell Curve, where on the, the far left end of the bell curve, you got innovators and you've got your early adapters, and then you've got your late adapters and you've got your laggards. Do you find that, you know, you have a handful of people that are typically the people raising their hands to try anything, and then, and then there's a cohort behind them that, okay, after.

Those nuts have figured it out, then we'll implement it. And then there's a cohort behind them that says, okay, it looks like we're going in this direction and then, and then you've got your last handful that say, all right, we we've got to do this. Do you, do you find that it usually works in that trajectory?

[00:28:10] Beth Zoneraich: I do. And what's so funny is that works, but it's in so many different categories. So in some cases, if it's research, you have someone who's super passionate about research and they leave the network and research, and then they get everybody to come along and participate and do more studies. If it's on technology or innovation or the medical record system, I've got a bunch of early adopters and they will test it out and get together.

And they're actually on a subcommittee of our medical leadership board on on technology, and they'll get it together and then they'll present it. What's really nice, though, is when you have this functioning network, then If we're rolling out, like for instance, in June, when we roll out our last clinic on the medical record system, we will send in 15 plus people.

We'll send in physicians from two different clinics. We'll send in embryologists from a number of clinics. We'll send in front office people. And so as they're converting, they're not stuck with sort of. Somebody, perhaps from the technology platform sitting there training them, they, they get that for sure, but they get the rest of their network that understands how to see patients every day and the role that they're training to sit for a week with those same like minded folks.

And so when the doctors go to chart after their first new patient consult in the new EMR system, they'll be sitting next to another REI doctor showing them the way, uh, so that it, it's an easier transition and it's not as painful as it would have been otherwise so that we're not trying to self discover every time.

or make people go through the same pain points. We've also, as a network, gotten better at this. So our, our last, our last rollout in Seattle with over 400 employees went spectacularly well, went way better than the first rollout we did, um, with our first clinic. 

[00:29:44] Griffin Jones: You talked about the market forces that are are pushing this need for innovation.

Let's talk a little bit about the workforce forces that are pushing this need for innovation. I was just at the arm conference and one person there's one speaker there said That if we do nothing just based on the productivity of the workforce that's coming in versus the one that we've had, if, if we do absolutely nothing in terms of trying to see more patients, but even just to see the, the number of patients that we have, we'll need 30 percent more people in order to be able to do it based on productivity, or we'll have to see 30 percent less patients do 30 percent less cases.

In order to be able to see the same number of patients, do you agree with that assessment? 

[00:30:33] Beth Zoneraich: I do. And when I look at industry trends and data, we, we do see that it's part of the reason we've started our own embryology school. We are actively, um, considering and looking at rolling out sort of a OBGYN training programs.

We are very active in fellow recruiting, uh, and trying to convince, um, you know, other REIs to come join our network. We, we see very much the need to increase all of our specialized workforce and we spend a lot of time on innovative, creative career pathing for lower level, um, entry level employees into fertility clinics all the way up to navigator positions, um, looking at anyone with a bachelor's of science to increase the number of people entering the embryology field and, and just getting more and more people interested in, in servicing and caring for people wanting to start their families.

It's a pretty easy industry to get passionate and excited about. So that, that makes it easy to recruit people, but we see that as the number one strategic issue facing us is not having enough staff. It it's why the idea of using, uh, technology and integration. is so critical so that you reduce the burden on your staff and perhaps need less of them for that reason, even though there's no question we need more than we have now, but, but just making sure we have enough to fill the gap and that our training and culture and our ability to recruit and, you know, teach people, new people to enter into the fertility workspace is so critical to us.

[00:32:01] Griffin Jones: I think this person's point was that you'd need 30 percent more people just to get the same amount of work done, meaning the number of hours that people are willing to work, meaning the number like what they're just able to do. You know, if, um, the, the, the hustle for lack of a more precise term, uh, the, I would be, uh, this, I want, I put this out to any network listening to any EMR listening.

I would be so interested if, if people were to pull, uh, like five year age cells starting at age 35, because REIs finish fellowship at like 33 or something like that. So maybe like 35 to 40, 40 to 45, et cetera, you know, up until maybe 60 retirement age. Do you think If you were to look at that for if you were to pull all of your areas across all of your clinics, do you think that you would see like a gradual drop off from by by those eight cells?

And maybe we would have to like, uh, curve the data so that we were looking at it. Like when that clinician was, was of a certain age, you know, but, but do you think that you would see the younger docs doing less cycles than the older docs and seeing less patients than the older docs? 

[00:33:18] Beth Zoneraich: You know, I never looked at the data that way, Griffin.

So I don't know. Uh, what, what I would tell you is that I think not just with physicians, but But I, I think folks have grown up watching their parents work really hard and are sort of demanding of their employer a, a reasonable work life balance and, and there, there really should be no reason why fellows graduating from fellowship programs right now should not be able to both a, have personal interests like being a parent and being an active parent and engaged with their child and being able to go to their kid's classroom sometimes or make medical appointments and be home for dinner at a reasonable hour.

And be a really active, busy REI physician. Like, we should not be asking our fellows to choose between those two paths, maybe the way older physicians felt like they had to pick. And we shouldn't having to be asking them to work seven days a week and not take vacation days. We've, we've got to innovate the work.

So that these talented fellows can have both because, you know, people, if we're working this hard and passionate about allowing all of our patients having the right to be a parent, we certainly can't tell our own employees that they shouldn't have the right to be a parent and to be an active parent. I think it's a it's a fair request.

And so a good part of the reason why, you know, at Pinnacle we want some level of standardization and some level of a tech platform is to be able to innovate the work to provide a Physicians and lab staff and nursing staff. Uh, a better work life balance and we're finding, uh, we're finding a lot of success with that.

And if you go back to clinics that sort of went through these transformations with us in 21 and early 22, and you go back and, and speak to the wives and the husbands of the doctors. Um, they will tell you they've taken more vacations and had more free time with family than they had ever had before. And it's because we've innovated the work and I, we want to keep innovating that work so that, so that younger doctors want to join us and they want to join us so that they can practice world class medicine.

And be home for dinner with their, with their kids. 

[00:35:28] Griffin Jones: But technology is necessary in order to do that, right? Because otherwise it is an unreasonable request on their point. In my view, you know, for example, if, if they're saying, well, I want to make 500, 000 a year and I want to work 40 hours a week or less, and I want to be able to take six weeks vacation, and I want to have the four day weekend every month, and I want to be off for, uh, to be able to, to do that.

to pop out for those school events. Uh, and I want equity in the company. Uh, you know, previously you would consider those things like a trade off, like, okay, you can work less and, uh, and then you can go pick your, your kids up from school and take a little bit more vacation. You're going to make less. Um, but what's the saying a luxury one sample becomes a necessity.

And that's that's not unique to our eyes. That's true of every generation that's ever lived is that that generation had this. So we expect that less, um, without a whole lot of regard to the input that might have generated the output that, uh, they now set as the expectation. So the only way that it can become reasonable is if.

They are a lot more efficient using technology. 

[00:36:48] Beth Zoneraich: Yes, and I think sometimes when, when we talk to, you know, new doctors that are coming in, right? They're, they're perhaps protecting themselves as they look up and see someone who's worked seven days a week for 20 years and they don't want to sign up for that.

But I don't sense when I have those conversations that those positions aren't interested in working hard. In fact, they want to work very hard. They just want to be able to work hard and also have a life outside, and it's a fair ask. And so they want to be able to work maybe in their own way, or maybe not always from the office, right?

So could they do consults from home and miss like a really busy, crazy commute in, and or be able to take their kids to school and then be doing telemedicine from somewhere, and then maybe be in the office a little bit later and not spend two hours a day in traffic, or maybe they're not driving between three offices.

Or they're able to be home at a normal time to put their kids to bed and then they sign on to do some labs or to do some other things at night, but they don't have to be back in the office. But, but the ability to, to sort of manage the work so it fits into their lives as opposed, I hear that more than I hear, I just don't want to work.

That's not, tends to be the conversation that I hear these doctors asking about and, and I think I, I truly believe it, it should be the standard we're all setting is, you know, Is an ability to have both. I don't think someone should have to pick between a career in REI and, and a work life balance. I do believe there's a, I do believe there's a middle ground where they are able to have both, but I do believe to get there.

You need some technology and standardization to be able to do the work in a way that other people can help. Um, and that we're automating as much of the sort of paperwork as possible. Um, also for safety mechanisms, if we automate more, we make less mistakes or we have less of a chance of, you know, miscoding a name or something like that.

[00:38:40] Griffin Jones: No, as this technology is necessary to achieve that accommodation. What are the things in the pipeline that you're paying attention to that? Okay, if we're going to get there, it means that we're going to have to automate this. It means that we're going to have to be augmented by this. What are what are those couple things that you one, two, three, Think that in order to get to this where, Hey, you still want to make a lot of money, still want to do, see a lot of patients and do right by them.

You just want to do it way more efficiently. And you want to have this time outside of work. What are those efficiencies that we have to achieve? 

[00:39:15] Beth Zoneraich: So I think a lot of the efficiencies are, we have to get the work. Um, if, if we anticipate patient demand in advance, then in fact, they, they ask less questions.

We waste a lot of time in the fertility world. Where someone calls in and leaves a message, and then when they don't hear back, they send a portal message, and then when they don't hear back, they might call again or talk to somebody, but then you have three people, someone trying to answer the phone call, someone trying to answer the portal message, um, and, and however else they've engaged, trying to get back to that patient, and it leads to a lot of confusion and double work and triple work that we can avoid if we anticipate that patient's questions.

So first, we've got to reduce the work to make it more work. Automated and reasonable and, and, and that we're servicing the patient the first time or in advance, um, because that will then give us less to do. Second, we've got to use technology to be to help us. So if we're all on the same platform and we automate a bunch of things on the front end, or we integrate with front end apps and we collect more information online, and then we synthesize that information in a better way, we can make the work easier if we can.

Even innovate and present physicians with, you know, if they spend a lot of time pulling, you know, follow up consults or trying to get ready for a follow up consult, and they pull things from four different places, even if we can automate the pulling of those things to more easily put the information in front of the physician so they're not doing, you know, the work to go to four places to get it, but they're just making the physician call on what to do.

Those are the types of small innovations on the back end that we're actively working on to try and help physicians, uh, do the work that physicians need to do, but not do the work that they don't value. And, uh, so if you look at the types of things we're doing, we're attending AI conferences. We have three or four tests, uh, small innovations that we're doing with AI right now.

Um, we're integrating with, um, apps for intake that, um, will launch and announce here soon. We've announced partnerships with big genetic carrier, uh, screening, testing, and with PGTA and with, um, long term storage that we can integrate all of that into our patient ecosystem. So we've got a lot, we've got a huge data informatics and data team, and they are really spearheading sort of innovating the work, um, and those are the things that, that keep me busy, you know, many days.

[00:41:31] Griffin Jones: These innovations, be they small or big, they add up and they are an investment. This is a, a topic that I've, uh, that I've gone back and forth with, with, with different CEOs, with different people in different camps. I am not of the camp that private equity is bad because it, it, It's, it's going to squeeze everything out because another recent example of close, different close friend of mine went to a clinic, uh, that is not private equity owned is independently owned.

And it was again, another chaotic disorganized situation. She was very dissatisfied with that experience, went to another, neither of these are pinnacle clinics by the way. And they're also in totally different parts of the country. Um, but, uh, she went to another clinic and Our own by a bigger group was owned by a private equity group, and she felt that that was much more organized and efficient, had much better experience.

And, uh, I know the providers of both of the groups that she went to, and they're both nice people, but I also have a little bit of. Uh, a preview into their operations because, you know, yeah, I could see how that one is run a lot more efficiently. So, I've never bought that criticism of private equity funded groups in medicine that, you know, the, the, just gonna, Tank the standard of care because there are clear examples to the contrary.

Um, one criticism that I do tend to buy more is that the timeline necessary for returning the investment for limited partners and in a private equity model is Can be too much of a barrier for introducing a lot of innovation. Like if you, if you got a three to seven year timeline and you're looking at ROIs like 18 months, and, and so every CEO says, you know, well, we, we always look at the long term and I'm just a bit incredulous about that.

How do you view it? 

[00:43:33] Beth Zoneraich: So innovation comes in, um, in my mind, less than a Big Bang theory and more in small. Little innovations that add up to exponential results. So, you know, uh, There, there's no question that private equity has, has a timeframe for exit, but I don't find that maybe, maybe I'm lucky and I'm with a really, really good group, but I, I find a Pinnacle Fertility to be probably one of the most innovative organizations I've worked with yet.

And we're making really huge strides in progress. And, uh, You know, we do a lot of technology projects and I have a lot of staff in technology, uh, that, that are really focused on this and I found great support from our private equity group and, and encouraging this. I, I think, I think the good private equity firms and, and certainly ours fully understand that profit is a result of amazing patient outcomes and patient experiences.

That it is, you don't go seek out profit, you seek out amazing patient experiences and outcomes and the result of that is a profitable clinic. And, and so we're really focused very heavily on improving the patient experience and improving patient outcomes and investing in science and technology and research to the benefit of the patient.

Um, and again, I'm confident that profit will follow that, but it can't be the goal. 

[00:44:54] Griffin Jones: The conclusion floor is yours. Beth, you can recap anything that you'd like to talk about with regard to efficiencies and innovation, whether it be from a market need or a workforce need, or if there's might be something important that I forgot to ask you, uh, how would you like to conclude?

[00:45:16] Beth Zoneraich: I guess, Griffin, I would just conclude with a big thank you. I think your platform really brings together Some great leaders and thinkers. And I enjoy listening to sort of the trends in the industry and what other groups are doing and what some of the vendors and apps are doing. So, so I appreciate that.

And I appreciate you giving me the chance to come on and, and talk about sort of our view of what's going on in the industry and sort of Pinnacle's way of. of using technology and innovation to, to address some of those. So, so I, I just wanted to say, thank you. 

[00:45:46] Griffin Jones: That's Beth Zoneraich, CEO of Pinnacle Fertility.

I look forward to having you back on. Thank you for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

Sponsor: Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com.

Announcer: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.

Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

226 How Did Maven Clinic Become a >$1Billion Company? Featuring Kate Ryder, Founder and CEO, Maven Clinic

Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


How did Maven turn into a unicorn, a new company with a $1Billion valuation? How did they raise $300M?

Find out with today’s guest, Kate Ryder, Founder & CEO of Maven Clinic, as she reveals the strategies behind Maven’s extraordinary success and how she built a three comma company.

Tune in as Kate takes us behind the scenes of Maven, covering:

  • The secrets to making TTC coaching work within their business model (Even though its failed in so many others)

  • The formation and impact of Maven Managed Benefit (Their carve-out admin program)

  • Her vision for the future of managed care in fertility (And how traditional insurance may adapt)

  • Lessons learned from her time in venture capital that shaped her entrepreneurial journey

  • Her approach to hiring experts and building top-tier leadership


Transcript

[00:00:00] Kate Ryder: They know that, you know, we're very transparent in how we price and how we charge. And so they know that really that we charge on kind of the member experience, the clinical care management. And we, and as a result, you know, it's, it's not just kind of better clinical outcomes, better member experience, but it's a new business model that's more value based in an industry that was tipping very heavily into be for service, which is, you know, a bunch of models that.

Maybe make more money when more people go through IVF, which can lead to unnecessary cycles. And so, so that's something I think that also we challenged about the status quo and, and the market responded well. 

[00:00:41] Kevin Ali: Hi, I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon, and at Organon, we're committed to engaging with leaders across reproductive medicine.

So I'm excited to introduce today's guest, Kate Ryder, founder and CEO of Maven Clinic. As the driving force behind the largest virtual clinic for women's and family health, Kate has revolutionized access to care across fertility, maternity, pediatrics, and menopause. 

[00:01:10] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon.

Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the advertiser sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser,

[00:02:07] Griffin Jones: I go into some of Kate's background to help explain how Maven got to where they are. I jump around a bit in terms of timeline because it's such a large venture. It takes. Different angles to understand how it all came together. You know, like I say, in every episode with every company, I don't know how well they are run or what the market will decide about them in the long run.

So just try to ask questions and let my curiosity fascinate me. And hopefully they answered some of the questions that you were wondering about. Like what's this new TTC coaching that Maven offers? How is that different from other offerings in their fertility trend? Why are they able to make that work in their business model when other business models doing TTC coaching failed?

How did their carve out administration program Maven Manage Benefit form? How does Maven work with fertility clinics like yours? in their Maven performance network. How does Maven work with the traditional insurance companies? What does Kate think the traditional insurance companies will do as the fertility field and managed care in the fertility field really begins to expand?

What lessons did she learn as a venture capitalist before she herself became the entrepreneur? And what's her approach to hiring experts to join her leadership team of a company that's now valued over a billion dollars? Enjoy all this and more in my discussion with Kate Ryder. Ms. Ryder, Kate, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

[00:03:22] Kate Ryder: Thank you so much for having me. 

[00:03:23] Griffin Jones: I look forward to getting to know you some more. I look forward to getting to know Maven a little bit more. First, we have some very hard, we have a very hard hitting question that must go on the record, I'm told. When you reach for a bagel, do you reach for the top? 

[00:03:41] Kate Ryder: I typically reach for the top.

[00:03:45] Griffin Jones: So this is a Maven cultural question, I'm told. 

[00:03:48] Kate Ryder: It is. 

[00:03:49] Griffin Jones: But my problem with it, Kate, is why would somebody just go for the top or the bottom? If I'm going for a bagel, I'm, it has to be top and bottom. 

[00:03:59] Kate Ryder: Well, I, I think that, you know, our founding CTO was Zach Zaro of Zaro's Bagels. So this tradition started when he would bring bagels every Friday morning when we were like a small team of 10 people.

And we asked everybody this and I, it's just, people have such strong opinions. Do you eat the whole bagel? Do you eat the kind of, you know, the very bready top? Do you eat the bottom? And so I think it really reveals, reveals a lot. And you still ask the question. We do. Every time we have a board member or somebody kind of coming to an All Maven meeting, we always ask the question.

[00:04:33] Griffin Jones: I like it. I want to talk more about some of the new services that Maven has added in your fertility division, but I think that I might need to paint a little bit more context for the audience because Maven. And then there's other people in my audience that know very little about you all, that it's a name that they've heard.

You've made some big splashes in the tech. and finance newspapers, and there are parts of the sector that I think do a lot of work with Maven and I think there are other parts of the sector that still haven't interacted with you all much. And so, you know, my 60 second explanation to someone would be It started off as a women's and family health services platform, uh, digital clinical services, starting off direct to patient, has expanded to work with clinics in different verticals, has expanded to work with different, now with employers and, and being a benefits provider for employers.

What am I missing or how, what is your elevator? What's the better elevator speech of, of Boone Maven as? 

[00:05:38] Kate Ryder: So Maven’s a virtual clinic for women and families, and what we do is we cover everything from preconception and fertility care, through pregnancy, pediatrics, and menopause. You know, clients, we work with 2, 000 clients today around the world and across 175 countries.

And I think really where clients love working with us is we can be their front door to women's and family health. And so we see a lot of clients really leaned in both on the fertility side for the Benefits Administration as well as the maternity side because, you know, we drive outcomes in that segment.

[00:06:14] Griffin Jones: When you're saying clients in this regard, you're talking about patients? 

[00:06:17] Kate Ryder: No, we're talking about 2, 000 employers and health plans. 

[00:06:21] Griffin Jones: Okay, so clients on that side and then do you call, in clinics are they also called clients or do you just refer to them as clinics? 

[00:06:28] Kate Ryder: Yeah, our Maven performance network. So we work with, you know, hundreds in our Maven performance network, and that's really the contracted network through which we administer the fertility benefit and send our patients when we're administering a benefit for an employer.

[00:06:45] Griffin Jones: I want to go back more into your history. MAVEN, but first we'll start with perhaps what's more recent is adding on some trying to conceive poaching. But you already have a trying to conceive track or a fertility track, so how is this different from those other offerings in the fertility track, like your partnership with the Cleveland Clinic and, you know, there's And other things.

So what's new about this TTC coaching? 

[00:07:13] Kate Ryder: Sure. So it's something we're really excited about because everyone teaches you how not to have a baby. Most people do, at least. But almost none of us learn how to conceive. And then by the time, you know, people are ready to conceive, There's no clear place to turn and I think so if you think about a fertility product there's the administration component and that's that's kind of what a lot of people associate with a benefits product right you you say oh okay I can go to one of these clinics and my my employer or my health plan is going to pay for me and And I'm going to get my drugs shipped through this benefit and I'm going to get all my bills here.

But I think the other big thing is that if you think about the fertility patient, a lot of them, you know, don't yet know what pathway is right for them because of this lack of education that, that I kind of just mentioned. And so really are this trying to conceive coaching product is designed to help every member.

Get the full picture of fertility before they choose their pathway and then get the right pathway for them. And so what that may look like is someone could come in, maybe they're kind of really nervous about their reproductive health based on a TikTok video or things they've heard from their friends and, you know, they realize they have these benefits.

And so instead of just going straight to IVF, you know, they'll be able to talk to a Maven coach who can kind of take a larger step back and say, What are your goals? What's your health history? You know, maybe you don't need IVF. Maybe you need thyroid medication. Maybe you just need to adjust your diet or maybe you need to use ovulation strips.

So there's so many things that people can do to get pregnant naturally that, you know, oftentimes when people are entering that fertility journey, no one is being taught that. It's either you get pregnant naturally and you have no questions or, oh my gosh, do I need IVF? And so what we're trying to do is build that gray space in between.

[00:08:55] Griffin Jones: So is the TTC coaching funneling people to different types of diagnostics in tests? So how does it start? Like, how does a patient go through it? 

[00:09:04] Kate Ryder: Sure. So somebody kind of comes onto the Maven platform, they fill out an assessment, they fill out, you know, a little bit about their medical background, what their goals are, and then they talk to a conception coach.

And so the conception coach is going to assess, okay, do you need, should you go for a full workup? And, you know, do you need some testing? Or Are there just basic things that maybe you could try, like using ovulation strips, you know, that incredibly, it's a very easy thing. And a lot of people miss that step.

And so it's really kind of then becomes a one to one relationship between the conception coach and the member versus this kind of one size fits all model. And so the conception coach will work with the member to figure out what's the best for, for them. And, you know, it could be immediately that they go into IVF.

Because that is the right pathway for them. It could be, you know, get a bunch of tests and, and, and then adjust a few things. It could be trying medication and the conception coach connects them with one of our fertility doctors, reproductive endocrinologist. So there's so many different pathways and that's what we're trying to really drive, which is this kind of very personalized model of care.

[00:10:10] Griffin Jones: And if they do go to IVF to one of those fertility doctors that you connect with them, is that's the, What did you call it? Partnership of Excellence? What was it? The network? Oh, I'm David Performance Network. 

[00:10:20] Kate Ryder: Yes. 

[00:10:21] Griffin Jones: David Performance Network. 

[00:10:23] Kate Ryder: Yeah. It's a closed network of all the best clinics that we work with to send our patients to.

[00:10:28] Griffin Jones: How many fertility clinics are involved in that network now? 

[00:10:33] Kate Ryder: So over 400. It's always growing based on client need or certain geographies, but it's, it's US focused. We have a closed network in the US and an open network globally. 

[00:10:45] Griffin Jones: And so, for those folks that, that are, that are moving through that, that pathway, do you stay, can, do they stay connected with their MAVEN coach, the, throughout that process once they move to the fertility clinic?

[00:11:00] Kate Ryder: Exactly. So, you know, going through an IVF cycle, of course, they'll be working really closely with their doctor, but there's so many questions and so many things that happen, you know, outside the four walls of a clinic, and I think there's also things that, you know, this is, of course, both an art and a science, and so there's lots of questions that patients may have, you know, as they're going through things, maybe they didn't have a So, um, you know, when a patient is, you know, in a successful first cycle, you know, maybe they're hearing conflicting things from, you know, different doctors.

And so, and so our conception coaches are just there to kind of be that quarterback. And when they're actually going, you know, to a clinic to, to be able to connect them as well to, you know, other types of specialists who could be supportive. So, fertility nurses, you know, fertility awareness educators, dietitians, mental health, that, you know, all of these types of providers that support around the experience.

[00:11:50] Griffin Jones: This model of conception coaching prior to needing treatment, in many cases even prior to diagnostic, I think is really needed in the marketplace. I've seen other people attempt it, and I think I've seen other people even provide value. That's the patients that we're using really liked it, and sometimes I would see clinics getting referrals from those platforms.

I remember looking at a couple clinics referrals and seeing sometimes 5 percent of their patients would come from some of these platforms. But they couldn't make it work on a business model for whatever reason. Either it wasn't It wasn't something that the patient was going to pay for, it was something that the clinic might have fought them on an attribution.

The clinic didn't want to pay for it. And I saw this thing, it's like, okay, people are benefiting from this, but for whatever reason, product market fit, it isn't working. What do you think it is about the way Maven is set up that will allow this to work from a business standpoint? 

[00:12:49] Kate Ryder: Yeah, no, it's a great question.

We, you know, it's, it's part of our benefits administration product. So it's not a standalone feature, but it's, it's, it's, it's a really critical component that drives the, the clinical outcomes of an otherwise, you know, administration heavy product. And so we kind of, MMB, Maven Managed Benefit is what we call it.

And we call it kind of a next generation Benadmit fertility benefit because you have the, the design components, that you work with the client with, which is the clinic, you know, the clinic network design. We have the contracted rates with the clinics, you know, the, the, all of the, you know, administration that goes on behind the scenes when you're implementing a benefit.

But what was missing when it was just a payer doing this was, well, let's make sure though that the patient's And so, really, it's that combination of care and coverage that is so unique to Maven and ensures that, you know, this is a business model. Not only that's going to work, but it's, it's actually, you know, really, really outcomes focused, which is unique for, I think, the industry.

[00:13:57] Griffin Jones: So the TTC poaching, that's just for those that have the Maven Managed Benefit? 

[00:14:03] Kate Ryder: Exactly. I mean, that's the, it's wrapped around our, our management, our Maven Managed Benefit. Some, some clients, to be honest, if they, if they do administration through their health plan, they can still kind of bring this on as a wraparound.

So, you know, it still can be a standalone product, but, but mostly we see clients really excited about the integration with the coverage. 

[00:14:25] Griffin Jones: This might be a dumb question, but that's never stopped me from asking questions like that in the past. Are those that have maybe managed benefit, are they only those that get it through their employer?

Can freelancers and self employed people also get it, or is it almost always through employers that are typically, you know, similarly structured, you know, that, that get insurance by the, the normal laws of Affordable Care Act, et cetera? 

[00:14:53] Kate Ryder: Yeah, at this point, it's only through your employer. 

[00:14:56] Griffin Jones: This seems like it was important to add.

Did you see it, like, first as a Is there a benefit necessary for the patient or was it necessary for the, the employers because it's like, well, we have, we have all of these people and, and we might be paying for people that to go through IVF that don't really need it. How did the, what was the impetus behind it?

[00:15:22] Kate Ryder: Yeah, so I think the main impetus was, was that it was this, the patient journey, right? It was the patient experience. So many people just not knowing what to do. And it was our fertility doctors actually saying, I'm seeing all these, these patients and they come in and they don't need IVF, but they're either.

So anxious, they are misinformed and they're now thinking, oh, they have, you know, they took an AMH test and their AMH is low and, you know, that's just one input into someone's fertility profile. And, and therefore, you know, they're asking you to go directly to IVF because they have three cycles or, you know, and they have rich fertility benefits and they're, and they're, and they don't even need to, there are so many other things that they can be doing.

And so, I mean, it was. It was both a combination of the patients and the providers themselves. I know, you know, one of our medical directors, Brian Levine, and, you know, and, and Yael, who, you know, Salem, who's another medical director. And, you know, we were, we were definitely hearing some stories from them too, as well as just some of the fertility doctors who work at the clinics in our network.

And so we went on this listening tour of both the patient side and the provider side to understand like, all What's needed here? Because it feels like there's a major gap, and particularly as Gen Z and Millennials increasingly, and particularly Gen Z, is getting so much of their health information from TikTok, social media, there's, there's just, there was just a lot that kind of needed to be unpacked.

And, and, you know, they're getting all of the, all of these kind of scary stories of infertility that may or may not apply to them. And then they were kind of leaping to conclusions like, well, I need to go freeze my eggs now, or I need to go into IVF. And so this is where we really wanted to make sure we were taking a larger step back when someone was ready to, you know, start their family building journey to say, okay, let's just really give them that personalized support and that That evidence based support with a conception coach as the quarterback, but then also connected to the larger Maven network of fertility nurses, of doctors, of mental health providers to say, okay, let's figure out what's right for you.

And then we design your benefit or we work with the payer who designed your benefit. So we can actually then help you navigate what comes next if it is IVF that's needed. 

[00:17:37] Griffin Jones: Yeah, the younger the patient, typically the more nurturing they need in the process, right? I remember when started off in the field and people would say, you know, patients that come to us from scheduling an online form are more likely to cancel than someone referred by a doctor or someone that, you know, we've spoken to and has come in previously.

And I'd said, well, yes. But it's going to be more of that. You're going to have less people either coming through their OBGYN or less people calling you on the phone, more people that want to kick the tire in some way. And so for a long time, that's been really inefficient because it's not like we have a really good CRM that links to people's EMRs.

And even if you did, there's still a lot of nurturing that has to take place in, in that process. And I can see how you being spread out across the different verticals allows you to do that. Where does the virtual care end and the moving on to the performance network partner begin? 

[00:18:36] Sponsor: Organon is dedicated to delivering impactful medicines and solutions for a healthier tomorrow.

Guided by its mission of being here for her health, Organon proudly recognizes fertility providers around the world focusing on care equity. We believe everyone should have access to fertility education and treatment. By collaborating with providers, advocates, and communities, Organon is working to elevate fertility awareness, expand resources, and invest in innovative products that help more aspiring parents access the care they deserve.

Every journey to parenthood is unique. Organon stands with you. 

Learn more about Organon's resources at FertilityJourney.com.

[00:19:26] Kate Ryder: So, well, the virtual care never ends. We're always kind of in someone's pocket, which is really cool about Maven, but Really it's, you know, if, if they're working with a coach, let's say they're on some plan with the coach and you know, they, they decide six months is the right time that if they try for six months based on adjustments, based on ovulation tracking, based on whatever they need, if they're not pregnant, maybe that's the right time.

Maybe it's three months depending on their age. So again, there's no like one, you know, this is the pathway everyone follows because it is so unique to each patient. And. You know, I, I think, you know, for example, we have a patient who has PCOS, was told, oh, you're going to need IVF, you're not going to get pregnant naturally.

She worked with our, our care team and a coach, you know, for three months, got pregnant naturally. So, you know, her pathway ended at a natural pregnancy. We have another. patient who actually came to speak to our, our growth team a few months ago for, for a growth kickoff event. And she was talking about how she went to this one clinic and, and, and the, and the doctor, you know, did a few cycles.

It wasn't working. They said that, you know, she had unexplained infertility. She was 35. So not, you know, of an age where, you know, it shouldn't work. She had already had a kid at home. And so then she worked with someone on Maven and it was just like, well, maybe you should just try another clinic, you know, so that was an example where it was just going into it with a different doctor and that different doctor kind of said, hey, I think based on the protocols here, you are over medicated on your cycle with this clinic, let's try this new protocol and then sure enough, really successful retrieval, got five embryos, and two of them are her children today.

So, I think that, I think, you know, those are some examples where, again, it's, it's not a one size fits all, unlike, you know, pregnancy, where it's, it's just, it's a much more straightforward population, you know, every month you're gestating a baby. You have a specific profile, you're on a specific risk track.

Fertility, again, it's, it's, it's just, you know, there's ups, there's downs, there's, there's things you can do and everything works out. There's things, you know, you're, you really do need the IVF, but then you need the right clinic. So there's a lot of considerations that go into supporting our patients to get the baby that they need.

[00:21:43] Griffin Jones: Do they do testing when they're with the MAVEN care team prior to being referred to a performance network partner? Like, do you send them out for AMH or FSH testing or anything like that prior to sending them to a clinic? 

[00:21:58] Kate Ryder: Yeah, so we have some partners who we can send them AMH tests and we can, but we also will say, Oh, maybe you should go into one of our clinics and, and, you know, get an entire workup and then they'll, they'll, that clinic is already in our network.

So, you know, we'll then discuss the results of that together. So it really depends again on the patient. Some of them, particularly. The ones that are older who, you know, there's not a ton of time and age related fertility decline, you know, is, is a, is a very real thing that they could be experiencing. You know, that's when you want to kind of do things quickly, you know, for patients that are much younger that are still kind of just figuring it out.

You know, those are the ones that, you know, they might get our, we have an ovulation strips partner as well. They might try that. They might take an AMH test, kind of, you know, discuss, discuss all the results and, and there's a little bit more time, if that makes sense. 

[00:22:46] Griffin Jones: How did you build vertical after vertical?

And, and I'm really curious about this because going back earlier in your career, you were a journalist, which I find to be interesting as somebody who is building a trade media company and who acquires journalists. I think Did one of my journalists ever go build something like this? Yeah. It's pretty unique.

You wrote for the, the Wall Street Journal among some other publications and so I guess maybe to, to see how you, you added one vertical after the other. We have to, we have to start from the beginning. So 2014 begins Maven as this virtual family and women's health platform. What were the first offerings?

[00:23:25] Kate Ryder: The first offering was the, the telemedicine, right? So we started, we knew we were going to be a benefit. I had been very lucky to work in venture capital for the two years between being a journalist and starting Maven. So I had observed a bunch of digital health companies start, try to go consumer and realize that the better market.

was employers. So, so we were headed there, but we knew to have the real consumer DNA of product that we needed to cut our teeth and get that momentum early on from consumers. And we still have, by the way, that product today on the market, just because, you know, our mission is access. So if someone wants to download Maven and pay a little bit of money, you know, out of pocket for an appointment, they can.

So that was where we started. And then our first benefit that that we delivered to employers was a maternity benefit. So at the time this was 2015, 2016, it was really, you know, people just had these nine month phone lines through their health plans where, you know, you could talk to a nurse. The utilization was super low.

And so we brought in postpartum care and return to work support as part of a more holistic offering. And we packaged that up and that was kind of, you know, product number one on our benefits platform. And then fertility, I mean, you know, of course, not surprisingly, you know, and the WHO just said it was one out of six couples suffer from infertility.

So even in our first hundred patients, we started getting demand for fertility services. So we launched this kind of just fertility support wraparound product that had all the access to our specialists in 20, So it was pretty early in our, in our journey. It was very kind of maternity fertility back to back.

And then we expanded into benefits administration late 2019, early 2020 after demand from some of our clients saying, Hey, we'd love to just consolidate all women's and family benefits through, you know, one platform and it should be you. So can you build us this? And so we built. A light touch reimbursement platform called Maven Wallet.

And that was really for smaller clients. And it was also, you know, not just for fertility services, but if someone wanted to reimburse for doulas or backup child care, which was popular during the pandemic, you know, they could use that reimbursement platform for whatever they wanted. A lot of the, you know, sub medical spend.

And then, you know, again, we just kept hearing from clients and members, you know, they, they wanted full soup to nuts, you know, Administration and everything consolidated on one platform. You know, in the meantime, we had launched pediatrics, menopause, and so that's really what led to Maven Manage Benefit, which is our full, you know, fertility carve out platform that we launched, that we built last year and launched earlier this year.

[00:26:07] Griffin Jones: Benefits administration started in 2019, 2020 with this light touch reimbursement. All the even wallets. And you mentioned that some of your clients had brought this up to you. They wanted the N10 solution. Why, why you though? There were, there were some other people in the marketplace and yeah, but also there is the usual suspects of the traditional insurance companies and I suppose some others as well.

Why was it that they were approaching you to do this? 

[00:26:39] Kate Ryder: Yeah, I think two, two reasons. One, we're pretty obsessed with the member. I've had three babies myself on Maven and, you know, we're, we're a real technology company in that regard. So we have tons of engineers and we're constantly kind of following the member and building what he or she does.

And so, we're able to show that through engagement data. It's why, you know, all four National Health Plans also partner with us because, you know, the data that we're showing on the engagement side and the member satisfaction side is strong. And also, I think, unique, like, for example, we have pelvic floor specialists as part of our maternal maternity track.

You know, that's because That women need that. And there's not necessarily kind of like, wow, this, you know, people weren't ringing the bell with that, or at least the buyers weren't, but we knew the members loved that. And we were, you know, we've had those types of providers in our network since 2016. So just being really thoughtful about what members need and where the gaps in the care model are.

And then the second thing is, is the clinical side. So We're, we've always been very focused on clinical outcomes because the way to really partner with the system and ultimately help the patient is, you know, take one of these, this highest cost area of healthcare, which is the kind of fertility and maternity journey and, and drive real outcomes.

So when a lot of our clients and, and our payer, payer partners as well, started to see a lot of our maternity outcomes validated by claims and by third parties, you know, the fact that. We were reducing spend associated with NICU. We were reducing rates of C section and, and well driving, you know, a better and more engaged member experience.

I think it was, you know, and serving the menopause market in a thoughtful way and serving the pediatrics and parenting market in a thoughtful way. You know, we just earned the trust of our partners so that they were like, you know, we want, we want you to really kind of tackle what we're seeing in fertility.

right now at this moment in time, which is, you know, the system's still not totally working for members. The costs are going up every single year. And, and, and so, you know, and the industry is just changing a lot. Like you can't keep up. So can you, you know, is there, can you do something? 

[00:28:47] Griffin Jones: And so members is patients.

[00:28:48] Kate Ryder: Yeah, members is patients. 

[00:28:51] Griffin Jones: Making sure that I'm keeping all my, all my definitions. 

[00:28:54] Kate Ryder: I know to our clinical team, they're patients, to our product team, they're members, but yes, member patients. 

[00:29:00] Griffin Jones: Well, I'm, I'm probably also offending your training as an English major because I'm jumping all over the place and not starting with one thesis, but Maven is an entity.

I think you have to break the elephant from different parts in order to be able to understand it. And so I, I want to go back to what sort of the value thesis that you started with because as you're talking about, you know, sometimes we connect people with a pelvic floor specialist because that's what they need.

And so I originally may have been starting because partly because you have members, patients that have so many different needs and they're often left to their own devices to be able to find all of the different providers and such that they need. So tell me a little bit more about why this isn't just.

Answered by going to an existing health system, wherever it might be, and I go to one specialist, and she or he refers me to another, and then she or he refers me to another, and I'm all in the same network. Why isn't that it? Why isn't that the case? 

[00:30:00] Kate Ryder: Well, I think maybe what, yeah, what you're, what you're kind of getting at is like, why, why do people want something new if like, it's people are kind of doing this already and, you know, referring specialists and whatnot.

But I think the other way to think about it is that we, we have a really unique business model where we are. are incentivized to do what's right by the patient and, and put them on the right pathway, regardless of, you know, whether they go through IVF or not. And so we don't, we don't, with our clinic network, we don't take markups from clinics.

So we're very agnostic. If somebody goes through a cycle versus goes through kind of a natural conception pathway. And so I think that is another, another thing that from the payer and the clients they really like because they know that there's not gonna be hidden fees and hidden markups across drugs spend across cycles.

They know that. You know, we're very transparent in how we price and how we charge. And so they know that really we charge on kind of the member experience, the clinical care management, and we, and as a result, you know, it's, it's not just kind of better clinical outcomes, better member experience, but it's a new business model that's more value based in an industry that was tipping very heavily into B for Service, which is, you know, a bunch of models that, Maybe make more money when more people go through IVF, which can lead to unnecessary cycles.

And so, so that's something I think that also we challenged about the status quo, and, and the market responded well. 

[00:31:34] Griffin Jones: Is it not enough, like I live in Rochester, New York, for example, and it seems like University of Rochester Medical Center owns everything. They, they own the system my wife works for, they own, uh, the primary care provider that I go to, I went and saw an ENT, they own that.

So is it not the case that, that someone can just find all of the specialists that they need in, in one place through a, through a health system? Because it seems like in addition to the employer side that may even also helps with this, this need to, to connect people to the different solutions that they need.

Why isn't that the case in a place like where I live, where it seems like a group owns every, you know, a, a clinic in every specialty that there is? 

[00:32:15] Kate Ryder: Yeah, so I would say what's, what would be unique about that, as obviously it's, you're probably part of an academic medical center, right? And it's, it's one system.

And so I don't know the specifics of the Rochester market. I would assume, are there more, is there more than one fertility clinic in Rochester to go to? 

[00:32:33] Griffin Jones: I think there might be one other lab. There's one lab within the academic system, and then there, there's at least two other offices, but I don't know if those two other offices have labs here in Rochester.

[00:32:47] Kate Ryder: Got it. Okay, well then, I mean, I think in that, in that sense, In that system, patients are going to want second opinions. They're going to want to better understand things. If you're in kind of a one provider system, there's lots of pros in that it's more transparent, it's probably more seamless on the administration side, it's less confusing, but then You know, a member or patient, you know, they might want to have second opinion, something might not be working for them.

And so Maven's network on the telemedicine side is able to give them that, which I think is really important. 

[00:33:23] Griffin Jones: How does Maven interact with the traditional insurance companies, if at all? 

[00:33:29] Kate Ryder: Well, we're partners with all of them, right? Aetna, Cigna, Anthem, United. So we, for Maven Manage Benefit, we would, we always would need to be checking whether, you know, where someone is against their deductible.

So we, so we are integrated with them in that regard. If someone, you know, wants to buy components of our platform and various products, oftentimes they can actually buy them through the health plan because we are partners. So if they wanted to buy Even Maven Managed Benefit is available through some health plans, but if they wanted to buy the maternity product, pediatrics, menopause, our global product, you know, they, they can do that.

So a lot of clients, particularly some of the smaller ones, really like to do that. It's easier from a contracting standpoint, from a security standpoint, you know, it's just one addendum. So, so yeah, so we'll, we'll see a lot of, a lot of people kind of, you know, take that option given the, the partnerships.

[00:34:23] Griffin Jones: I'm going to ask you to speculate, so I know that you're just totally speculating, but for me, from someone that doesn't really know the insurance space well, I just see these large companies like Aetna, United, Blue Cross, etc. losing a potential segment of their business, and maybe it's just too small for them, and that's why the Mavens and the Carrots and the Progenies and the Kindbodies have filled into some of that space, but if David Sable's right, and we do get to be a 200 billion dollar industry in the next decade or so.

Do you think that they will come back? Do you see the Uniteds and the Blue Crosses and the Aetnas, etc., coming back for the fertility benefits that they're not currently getting? We providing? 

[00:35:07] Kate Ryder: Listen, I, I think it's a, it's a great question. We, what we see at least, uh, and from our, from our plan partners is that they, they also follow what the client's asking for and what the member's asking for.

So. You know, we've, there have been so many gaps in women's and family health that it's, there's a lot for the payer to kind of catch up on while they also have all these other priorities that they're working on. So for example, when menopause came up, like no one had a menopause product built out. And with smaller companies like Maven, we can, we can build that product.

faster, we can figure out very quickly, because we're a technology company, we can A B test and figure out very quickly what the member is looking for, how to drive that engagement, how to make the member happy, get them symptom relief, how to make the client happy, get their people supported. And so, so that was an example of, you know, it's not necessarily an example of, you know, fertility, but it's an example of this whole category being so underserved that that's kind of what we do in our specialty.

And so, you know, as we've continued to deepen our partnerships with the health plans, I think there, it really does kind of work on both sides because they come to us and they say, Oh, we have our clients asking for, for this. And, you know, right, right now, for example, doulas, doulas is huge in the market right now.

Everyone wants a doula benefit. Well, we do that. We can do that for our partners. And so. We also help our, our plan partners really be able to provide their clients robust benefits. So whereas maybe there might've been some duplication like on the maternity product, for instance, because, I mean, that product's been in the market for eight years because we were able to demonstrate cost savings and, and member satisfaction, then, you know, Some of the plans and hopefully all of the plans one day, we're able to say, okay, you know what, like this is, you take it, you are our partner for so many other areas of this and you're demonstrating real, you know, validated outcomes and so we're fine you taking it because it is, to your point, it's just a tiny little sliver of a service that they provide and they do at the end of the day, like they also are a client service business, just like we are.

You know, we are. And so, so anyway, so I, I think when it comes to fertility, it just depends, you know, fertility is not a standalone. I think what we're really going to see is fertility is part of a broader women's and family health strategy. And so really it's, you know, you have to, you can't just do fertility.

You have to kind of do it all. 

[00:37:37] Griffin Jones: I was not planning on asking you this, but I just thought of it as you were saying that I've had more geneticists on the show recently, and they are starting to convince me that reproductive medicine and genetics will, are, you know, they're, are no longer going to be siloed in the future, that those two fields of medicine are going to be much more integrated than they are now.

How do you view that? 

[00:37:59] Kate Ryder: Thank you. I would tend to agree with that. I think there, I know there's a lot of discomfort right now a little bit because it's so new and people are wondering are we entering a Gattaca type world, um, but when the technology is there and if you can kind of prove safety and efficacy and ultimately give patients choice, I think that, you know, People will be more comfortable with it over time.

Now, you know, I don't know how people are going to feel about actually manipulate, like, genomics and manipulating, you know, certain traits and attributes. Like, I think that's, is that Gattaca 2? I haven't seen Gattaca in a while, but it's like Is there a Gattaca 2? But, but certainly I think There is increasing, like we're already doing it, right?

If someone has the BRCA gene and they don't want to pass that gene and trade on to their children, like what a, what an amazing thing that they can, they can do. And so I think more and more people are getting comfortable with that. So I think as more and more, there's more and more patient stories and, and it will become more, more mainstream.

[00:39:05] Griffin Jones: You think genetic counseling is an offering that you all might one day offer? 

[00:39:10] Kate Ryder: We do offer genetic counseling. 

[00:39:12] Griffin Jones: So how does that work with the, uh, with the, with the Maven managed benefit, well, I should say with the TTC coaching? 

[00:39:20] Kate Ryder: So part of the TTC coaching is, you know, you have your conception coach who's the quarterback, but then you have this broader Maven virtual care network that you can help your patients get their questions answered from.

So we have over 30 different types of coaches. of specialists in that network. And I met one time, someone was like, there's no way you have 30 different types of specialists. I was like, Oh, I can list that because there are so many, you know, whether it's a surrogacy coach or an egg, you know, an egg donor consultant, well, genetic counselor is one of them.

And so again, like, whether it's for fertility or maternity, quite frankly, because if you have a baby and you might, and, and, and there's, You know, they come and there's, there's some genetic anomaly that they're born with. Like you actually do want to have a genetic counselor who's talking with you in conjunction with maybe some of the other specialty doctors to understand what your options are.

And so, so yeah, so we have a few great genetic counselors through Maven that as patients kind of raise their hand and say, this is what I'm looking for, our, our coaches or our care advocates can, can link them up. 

[00:40:23] Griffin Jones: I've come as a, as a small business owner to be just so impressed by people who build much larger enterprises than my own.

Because I know even building a small business, like, man, this is tough, like there's so much to learn. Drinking from a damn fire hose so often and, uh, you know, learning how much you have to learn of a given thing and you, and there's so many different things that touch your business. You started originally as a journalist in business journalism, then you became a venture capitalist.

Were you, from the beginning of your career, were you viewing those as steps to get to Entrepreneurial executive leadership, or did you, just like everybody else, kind of go to college, maybe think of just like one step ahead of you, and then that one step led you to see more? Which better describes your career trajectory?

[00:41:20] Kate Ryder: Well, I grew up with a dad who was an entrepreneur and my aunt was also an entrepreneur and my mom would help both her, her sister and my dad. So I grew up in a very entrepreneurial family. I've always been pretty, pretty focused and disciplined, but it wasn't necessarily for entrepreneurship. In the very beginning of my career, I wanted to be the Next female Hemingway.

And so I moved to Spain for two years, right after I graduated college. 

[00:41:47] Griffin Jones: And I woke up at six, 

[00:41:50] Kate Ryder: I did go to quite a few and was shocked to see that one of the dishes served in the bars next to a bull rig was like bull testicles. That is a delicacy in Spain, particularly New York. You got to get steered somehow.

I tried it once anyways, but, and so I woke up every morning at six and taught myself. How to write. And it wrote a terrible, terrible piece of fiction during that time. I thought, hey, you know, I think maybe I love to write, but I, I then, you know, was a journalist and pursued a lot of, a lot of journalism for a bit.

And, Really when that industry started changing a lot with the internet, you know, the, a lot of local papers were folding, a lot of things were going digital, a lot of, you know, the ad models suddenly, you know, didn't make as much sense and business models were kind of up in the air. That was when I really kind of thought, okay, maybe, maybe I don't want to sign up for this industry long term.

One of my mentors also was like, you should jump ship now while you're so young in journalism. And so that was, I tried to start my first business off the back of one of the stories that I had written for The Economist out in Southeast Asia. And that moment, it was nothing to do with healthcare, it was a travel business, but that moment, I, it felt really good.

And that was when, you know, my, my father jumped in and said, you'd be a good entrepreneur, but don't, go learn on someone else's dime first. And so then I, that was where I, I did the two years in venture capital and kind of, you know, it was all timing, right? I fell backwards into covering digital health.

And then it was also right around the time that my best, first friends were having kids. I knew I was going to have kids very soon. I started my journey with a miscarriage, which was very unexpected. And so that, you know, MAVEN was really kind of came from that time. 

[00:43:35] Griffin Jones: Learning off of someone else's time and under their tutelage, I think is such valuable advice that I did not take that I wish I did.

And when I think of Doing things differently in hindsight. When I think of going and learning under someone else, I often think of going to the operator and trying to get as much access to them. And so, like, you could have gone and been the chief of staff for some CEO somewhere or, or, or someone to be.

You decided venture cap. You tried. 

[00:44:03] Kate Ryder: I tried. I got rejected for all those jobs. 

[00:44:06] Griffin Jones: Because they wanted more experience? 

[00:44:08] Kate Ryder: Yeah, I was living in London, it was the time of the first Eurozone crisis, and you know in America, it's, it's, it's more normal for people to jump around between careers, but it's not as common in Europe.

So I, I applied for over a hundred jobs at Google and all these small companies, like I'll do whatever, and it was actually, I got very lucky that the only job I got was at this venture capital firm. 

[00:44:34] Griffin Jones: So, it was on your radar to go work for an operator, it just didn't pan out. Oh, very much. 

[00:44:38] Kate Ryder: I tried. 

[00:44:40] Griffin Jones: If you could do it again and you had the ability, do you think you would have been able to see more as working under an operator?

Or did working for a venture capitalist give you more of a view? If we're sticking to that same time frame of you've got two years and no more. 

[00:44:56] Kate Ryder: I would say that I would choose the Venture Capital mainly because I, I made tons of operate operational stakes that I had never hired anyone before starting Maven.

So it would have been amazing to get some of that experience, but fundamentally, you know, as a, as a founder, like your job is to make sure everyone gets paid every two weeks. And so I take that job really seriously. And, and so, you know, maybe one could argue that. I had to learn on the dime of the VCs who funded me in the early days, but I'm a fast learner, so , so you know that, and they's still around, right?

[00:45:32] Griffin Jones: They'll, idea is they're gonna make it back . 

[00:45:36] Kate Ryder: But yes, I, I think it was helpful to learn how to raise capital under, you know, build that network. That was where our friends and family around came from in the early days. So, so that was, I, I would, I would choose that. I think I got very lucky to get that job in bc.

[00:45:51] Griffin Jones: You got that experience with the financiers. Did it also give you experience with different operators? Like, could you, did you interact with their portfolio clients and you could like get to know some of those founders and see what they were doing? 

[00:46:03] Kate Ryder: Yeah, exactly. I got to attend board meetings as an observer.

It was at a time where the, it wasn't as, you know, the index venture is the fund now, you know, they're a big mega firm, but back in the day, you know, it's It was more, you could walk into any meeting you wanted on a Monday and watch any company pitch. And then I got to know a lot of entrepreneurs as well through that, through that time.

Some of them invested in Maven and became angel investors and mentors. So, so that was also very helpful. 

[00:46:33] Griffin Jones: I know you can't give too many details probably, but as specifically as you can be, what were some lessons that you pulled out from there that, you know, lessons that you think of that were very useful to you in starting Maven, either that you wanted to replicate because you saw something worth emulating or things that you That was a mistake that they were never able to re come from, and I want to avoid that like the plague here.

[00:46:57] Kate Ryder: Well, I think it was really clear, even from those Monday meetings, that when I observe entrepreneurs pitching their products, is the best entrepreneurs really cared about their product, and they knew their product, and they were, you know, consumers of their product, often. And so, that's one That was something that I just, I couldn't, I couldn't just go start, you know, a business with a product I'd never use.

And so that was the, you know, I, that was one of the, I think the very early lessons I took. I had to A, really know the product, B, the user of the product, but then also deeply, deeply care about the problem. And you know, as the next journalist, like this is an endlessly complicated story. It's why in the, you know, in the beginning of this podcast, you know, what are the journeys?

It's like, gosh, the journeys are so different patient to patient. And I've. I've spoken to hundreds of them. I can't, you know, maternity is a little bit more linear, but not fertility. And so, so anyway, so I think, and then the business of healthcare is just endlessly complex. And so it's certainly, I think it was that, yeah, that was a, that was a lesson that I took very early, which I think was great.

Clearly the right lesson 10 years later. I mean, you know, I I'm still very energized, but I, I, I, some of my other founder friends are very tired after 10 years. 

[00:48:11] Griffin Jones: Yeah. Well, I, you're going to need that energy given, given, uh, you know, what you've, you know, building the company into a billion dollar valuation to the.

And now how many employees do you all have right now? 600 corporate employees. And then you said, was it 2, 000 clients? 

[00:48:29] Kate Ryder: Yes, we have 2, 000 clients and tens of millions of lives covered. 

[00:48:34] Griffin Jones: So you're going to see that energy for as long as you're at the helm. You have good people helping you. I think the only one at the leadership level that, well, you mentioned, I know Dr.

Levine pretty well, great guy that may have connected us in the first place. I've gotten to know Dr. Shah. And I enjoy corresponding with him. How do you get people like this to come work for you at such an early stage? Because I see it all the time with companies and some. I really struggle to get that talent and they can come in with a boatload of money and they can get some people, but it just doesn't like totally gel together.

And when you have these people, and you mentioned 30 different specialties, you know, you need people that are deep experts in those areas. And why do they want to come work for somebody who's not already a deep expert in that area? That like assembling that team is, is really, really hard. What, how would you describe your strategy in doing that?

[00:49:34] Kate Ryder: Well, I mean, I just feel endlessly grateful. I think there, you know, there's, there's no I in what we're doing. It's all a we. I may be the founder and the face and I, and so is Neil, you know, I'm so happy he shares that burden with me. But, you know, we, we tell the story. So, I think it's a really good story externally, but at the end of the day, I mean, it's our incredible team that's doing everything behind the scenes.

And I think what unites us all, I mean, it comes back to culture and values. Um, you know, I think we all really care about the patient and changing the game for the patient. So, and everyone has a horse in that race, whether they are the patient, whether they're, you know, brother or sister or mother or father or family member or friend was the patient or whether it's just some bad experience they've had in health care and they really want to see things change.

And so I think we are authentically mission driven. I'm very authentically mission driven. And, you know, I just try my hardest and try to hire people that are way smarter and better than me at, in every, every, every regard. 

[00:50:34] Griffin Jones: Well, there's more we could dig into with that, but by the time I have you back on, you will probably have done a whole bunch of other things that have been in the news and that'll be worth unpacking.

I look forward to having you back. In the meantime, as we conclude, my audience is fairly broad in the fertility field. It's a lot of network execs. It's a lot of REIs. It's a lot of lab directors. There are also people that are venture capitalists and private equity folks that are entering the fertility field.

And so, the, the gamut runs pretty wide across those three spheres. It also runs fairly wide from junior to senior. How would you like to conclude to our audience? 

[00:51:16] Kate Ryder: Yeah, listen, I think we're, don't accept the status quo, it's, we're at such an exciting moment in time with so much fertility innovation coming online.

So much coverage and an entire industry that now looks at fertility as part of essential care, which is why so many companies in our space are having so much growth, so much new technology with AI and, you know, and whatnot. And so, so yeah, you don't, you don't have to accept the status quo when there's, there's this much change and this much opportunity that we can really design an industry that gets every patient the outcome that he or she deserves.

[00:51:51] Griffin Jones: Hey Ryder, CEO of Maven. Thank you very much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. 

[00:51:56] Kate Ryder: Thank you so much for having me. 

[00:51:57] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon. Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility by elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions.

Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

225 Donor Conceived. What Third Party IVF Programs Can't Afford to Ignore with Melissa Lindsey

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Are you considering the broader implications of third-party IVF in your practice?

Today’s guest, Melissa Lindsey, Founder of the non-profit Donor Conceived Community and a member of the donor-conceived community herself, delves into the ethical and real-life consequences of third-party IVF. She offers a much-needed perspective on how clinics and egg banks can better serve donor-conceived persons

Tune in as Melissa discusses:

  • What clinics and egg banks are doing wrong (and what some are doing right)

  • Why Everie isn’t scared of the DCC (Instead taking a proactive interest)

  • Last year’s legislation in Colorado

  • What’s fair for donor-conceived persons to expect vs. what someone can require of their own biological parents

  • The real-life consequences for a donor-conceived person (False medical history, denied genetic testing, etc.)

Donor Conceived Community
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter (X)

Melissa Lindsey
LinkedIn


Transcript

[00:00:00] Melissa Lindsey: I know it's an industry, I know it's profitable, I know there's all these goals for expansion and scaling. When you scale a practice, it can be harmful to people and puts them at a disadvantage for their life. Span, it's important to see where you can fix that before you scale it. And some banks don't have practices that even meet the standards within healthcare.

Many of them do not keep their records because they're not required to. So when a parent goes back and asks a question, they just say, oh, we don't have that anymore because they weren't required to keep it. 

[00:00:37] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Everie Egg Donation. Everie Egg Donation is pleased to bring you Melissa Lindsey, Founder and Executive Director of Donor Conceived Community, who provides emotional and social support to Donor Conceived People, DCP, facing identity discoveries.

To learn more about Everie head to www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics, that's www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:44] Griffin Jones: Consequences, ethics, there's a lot of those to consider when it comes to third party IVF isn't there? You are helping intended parents. You are serving donors. And though you're not involved in obstetrics or pediatrics, you are part of delivering a product, and that product is a human being. The real life consequences for donor conceived persons are many.

We didn't even get into many of the craziest real life examples. I guess that will have to come in a future episode. And you're involved whether you like it or not. How much input do you want in the matter? These are issues that I talk about with my guest, Melissa Lindsey. She's a member of the Donor Conceived Community Lowercase, and she's also of the founder of the Donor Conceived Community Uppercase, a 501c3 organization.

They were inside the ASRM conference with the booth last year, and it's probably not clear from our conversation, but Melissa was not Outside, with the folks that I and possibly yourself quickly walked past. False medical history, erroneous information in the EMR, denials from insurance companies to do genetic testing to assess risk.

These are some of the consequences that Melissa talks about. I ask her what some clinics and egg banks are doing wrong in her view. What are other clinics and egg banks like Everie doing right in her view? Why isn't Everie scared of this community? Why are they interested in being proactive? We talk about last year's legislation in Colorado, and I ask Melissa, what's fair for donor conceived persons to expect compared to what someone can require even of their own biological parents?

I don't have all the answers. I think there's an ethical discussion to be debated in good faith about what's truly fair for all parties involved. But the more third party IVF you do, The more donor conceived persons come into your world, hoping that they don't expect any kind of information or resources from your ag bank or your fertility clinic is a bad strategy.

Hoping that they don't expect any kind of information or resources from your ag bank or fertility clinic is no strategy, and ignoring them is a bad strategy. I would really like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Email me or comment on the social posts and enjoy this conversation with Melissa Lindsey.

Ms. Lindsey, Melissa, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:03:51] Melissa Lindsey: Thanks. I'm happy to be here. 

[00:03:53] Griffin Jones: We connected, uh, a little while, uh, back because oftentimes I don't have people from outside of working in the fertility field connect with me and, and every once in a while a patient will reach out or maybe someone else will reach out because they enjoy being a bug on the wall for Our type of media, and you don't come from the patient side or the donor side, you come from yet a third category of folks.

And then your name was brought back up to me recently, but we have not covered much about the donor conceived community on this show. And I think that the field should be aware of what's going on. But let's Maybe start with just a view of how did this community come together? Like, how did donor conceived persons find each other?

Like, what is their, is there an organization? Did you just connect with each other on social media? How long has this been going on? Give us the overview. 

[00:04:57] Melissa Lindsey: So I, first of all, I am a donor conceived person. I found out when I was 39 years old through a chance conversation and a 23andMe test that my dad, who I always assumed was my biological father, was not my biological father, and that I was sperm donor conceived.

I had a lot of questions. I went to the standard first layer of questions of people who are experts that I thought might be able to help me, including my family doctor, mental health provider, Google, looking for resources of what does a donor conceived person do. I didn't actually even know the phrase donor conceived.

I could only find sperm donor baby, it's like that was where I was frozen in time as a sperm donor baby. So it took me a while to find. any information. I called a lot of clinics, I called a lot of banks, and I had the assumption coming from my background in marketing and customer service and sales that this would be part of the community that people would be addressing from a customer service standpoint of obviously we made this person, so what, what are the resources for this person when they need information?

Number of siblings or medical history or what am I made of? And I was very surprised when I was calling banks and clinics. And talking to healthcare professionals, where do you send these people once they have questions? And the answer was, well, we don't have anything for them. And that really surprised me because everyone knew that we were going to show up on the scene.

So, where were the resources? And I thought I just wasn't good at finding them. So, I kept looking, but I couldn't help but take note of this, what appeared to me, to be a big gap in resources. So eventually I figured out that I was called Donor Conceived and I also found a Facebook community of called We Are Donor Conceived and there were a lot of people sharing their experiences there.

I really learned a lot in that space. It was also a bit overwhelming because you're hearing from people every day who are going through discoveries or have questions that they can't find answers to. I saw a lot of themes in the experiences of donor conceived people. At the time, I was planning to go to grad school for occupational therapy.

One of my main goals at that point was to help people recover from Whatever hardship they were facing and live the best life they could based on this hardship. And I started to really see an overlap in a lot of donor conceived people were facing hardships that impacted their everyday life. And I decided to start some peer support groups for people to have smaller conversations, to hear each other's stories, to share their expertise.

And I just thought it would be a side thing, a few peer support groups for people to get together. It was during COVID, so people were getting more adept at spending time on Zoom to make those connections, and it also offered people a bit of privacy to have those conversations. I didn't anticipate it taking off the way that it did, and soon I had a wait list and more groups, and then I was leading five groups a week for donor conceived people to have these conversations, and I realized that I would be doing this forever if we didn't help the parents Talk to their kids about donor conception.

And in listening to the parents, I learned that they weren't getting what they needed from professionals who were helping them grow their family. And so the mission kept getting a little bigger and broader as I saw the need. And so I finally realized that this calling that I had stumbled into was really a place that I could make a difference for a long time.

And so I started Donor Conceived Community as a 501c3. where we want to make the world a better place for donor conceived people. 

[00:09:18] Griffin Jones: What information and what resources specifically was it that you were looking for? 

[00:09:24] Melissa Lindsey: Well, one example is I had spent my entire lifetime assuming that I had a predisposition to Some medical issues, some cardiac, some cancer, some mental health concerns, and I was pretty vigilant about watching out for those.

So when I went to my family doctor and found out that my paternal medical history did not apply, I was talking to the medical assistant and said, I'm not sure what to do now. And she said, I don't know. This is fascinating! I've never deleted someone's paternal medical history before. I have no idea how to do it.

Let's ask the doctor. So then, I asked my doctor that I had a great relationship with to, I gave him the news. Surprise, my biological father isn't my biological father. I'm actually a sperm donor conceived, and he said, wow, you know what, when I was in residency, they asked us to donate, and I am so glad I did not, because who knew 23andMe would be coming around the corner, so I'm so glad I didn't donate, but you know, at least you know that it was, you know, probably somebody screened, that your parents really wanted to have you, and you know, Well, just put unknown for your history, although I'm not sure how we're going to update the electronic record side of it.

And so to this day, I still have cardiac conditions that pop up as predispositions. I can't get rid of them, but I've lived my whole life assuming that they were in place. But the question I asked the doctor at the time is, what if there is something? that I'm missing there because it's not, he said, well, just put average risk for everything.

And I said, what if it's not average? I don't know if I should be on the lookout for breast cancer or ovarian cancer. I don't know what things could be coming down the road for me. And there were no answers for that. I asked about genetic testing and he said, well, it wouldn't be covered with insurance because it's only covered if you know you have a risk.

So I would have had to pay out of pocket for genetic testing to assess my risk for cancer. Cancer and cardiac. And it's also a myth that doing genetic testing covers all of that because even a genetic counselor would let you know that fam, family history is one element of genetic testing. They can't just test EV for everything.

They still wanna know what's happened. If you have that information available, what's happened among your genetic family? I was so nervous about how many siblings I had. I had a story that I thought back to when I was in college. People used to stop me and say, oh, I saw you in the quad or I saw you in the cafeteria.

And I'd say, that wasn't me. And so there was this person for several years that people would say, you, you know, you have a doppelganger somewhere here at school, which I thought was really interesting. And you always think, what does this person actually look like? My senior year, last semester, there was a convocation.

Once a month for our school and I looked down like six bleacher rows and I saw this person from the side that looked just like me and I, I was like that's the person everyone's been talking about and I couldn't make my way to her before the group scattered but as soon as I found out I was donor conceived, I thought what if that was my sister?

[00:12:56] Griffin Jones: Did you ever find that out? 

[00:12:58] Melissa Lindsey: I don't think it was. I did get some information that means that that's unlikely, but I'll never know for sure. I do have relatives that, it turns out I was living 15 minutes from my uncle at the time, my genetic uncle, I just didn't know it. And, but he doesn't have any daughters, so I don't think it was, you know, It could be just a fluke, like we all have doppelgangers that we're not related to, but those are the kind of moments that come back for someone who has this discovery.

And the reality is nobody can answer the question how many siblings you have. And so it's a very overwhelming thought for a donor conceived person to, not just in late discovery, but for people who've known their whole lives they're donor conceived, but they don't know who their siblings are or where they're located.

[00:13:54] Griffin Jones: EMR information, insurance authorization, these are two implications to second and third order consequences that I never would have thought about. Uh, sure. And so there's, there's a lot more to this. There's a lot of implications for this. Not knowing if you're donor conceived and not having that associated information.

I want to come back to that CHANCE conversation, but before we do, the people that brought this conversation back up to my attention, it was Aisha Lewis from Avery, they're an egg bank, and I think that they're going to sponsor this episode, but they do not have editorial control. So if, if you like them, if you like other people, if you, if you don't like them, like you're allowed to say whatever the heck you want, but it does make me curious of, about egg banks and clinics of what are they, what are some egg banks and, and clinics doing wrong in your view?

And what are some doing right in your view? 

[00:14:58] Melissa Lindsey: Great question. So many. Many banks are looking at their potential customers, focusing on the fact that they really want to have a baby, focusing on the fact that they have possibly been through a very long, expensive experience to try to grow their family, and in their effort to Provide or meet that need, they are bringing their patients to the point of a positive pregnancy test with the goal of a healthy baby and not paying attention to the fact that a healthy baby will become a healthy child and a healthy adult and a person who is donor conceived for their entire lifespan and there's the feedback from the parents now is You know, we want to be set up well for parenting across the whole lifespan.

We don't want to have these disadvantages just because we needed to use third party reproduction. We, we shouldn't have to wonder if our child has a hundred or two hundred siblings. We shouldn't have to wonder if our donor profile is correct. We shouldn't have to wonder if the information that the donor gave voluntarily was, you know, checked or not to be valid or true.

We have so many people who share the experience of the donor profile, you know, the, the university was made up, the degree was made up, the, the ethnicity was not accurately reported, the, and whether that was intentional or not, some of those things could be validated with a little bit of effort. And so the, the practices that are challenging are when it becomes our only goal here is a positive pregnancy test and a healthy baby, healthy pregnancy and delivery, and we're, as long as we get them there, we've done our job.

And the other challenge is when it, you know, I know it's an industry, I know it's profitable, I know there's all these goals for expansion and scaling. When you scale a practice, can be harmful to people. and puts them at a disadvantage for their lifespan. It's important to see where you can fix that before you scale it.

And some banks don't have practices that even meet the standards within healthcare. Many of them do not keep their records because they're not required to. So when a parent goes back and asks a question, they just say, Oh, we don't have that anymore because they weren't required to keep it. 

[00:17:46] Griffin Jones: They all say they screen very thoroughly.

They all say, you know, when I, when I, because many of them have advertised on the show and I think, I think the ones that have advertised in the show are, are probably the good ones or at least that's, that's how I perceive them and, and, you know, they tend to be specific when they talk about what they're screening for, but, but everyone that you talk to with regard to ag banks says, you know, we screen the most thoroughly.

Is that not the case? 

[00:18:16] Melissa Lindsey: Well, I think. One of the challenges, we screen the most thoroughly. It depends on what they're calling thorough. I mean, some, some banks would tell you they screen thoroughly, but they don't verify if the person is who they say they are because they, that would take too much time and they don't have, it would be too expensive, it would drive up the cost.

You know, we may see resistance to even taking a state ID sometimes to validate the identity of a person. We see people who talk about genetic testing or screening or they'll say we follow the standards and they imply that those standards include a certain type of genetic testing when the FDA standards haven't really changed since then.

The 90s, so it's not the protection for parents that they assume is in place. And so going from one bank to another, very different practices, and parents don't know that. And so when, when, when banks say we're screening thoroughly, that means something different in different places, and parents don't know that.

[00:19:26] Sponsor: In the world of assisted reproductive technologies, Everie Egg Donation is at the forefront of known donation, redefining the donor conception experience with equity and transparency. Everie is dedicated to giving the donor conceived community the opportunity to know their lineage. Everee Egg Donation's unique Mutual Match system empowers both donors and intended parents by giving them an equal voice in the process, fostering deeper connections and transforming the traditional donor conception experience into a collaborative journey.

Everie is setting new standards in the world of egg donation, ensuring that donor conceived individuals have the choice to know their origins. Discover how Everie Egg Donation is leading the way in supporting the donor conceived community and how you can be a part of it at www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics.

That's www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics.

[00:20:42] Griffin Jones: So if egg banks are doing it right, and if Avery is one of them, what are they doing? 

[00:20:49] Melissa Lindsey: They are making sure that donors understand the implications of donating, that they understand that they will have genetic offspring or biological children or genetic children out in the world.

They are making sure that the donors are prepared to disclose that information to their own children someday, to their future partners, that this shouldn't be a secret and they should be prepared to talk about it. If there's so much stigma around it for them, it's probably not a good idea to donate.

They're doing psychological interviews or screenings and testing their meeting with a mental health provider to make sure that they understand the implications so that they can make a true informed consent to the procedure that they're going to go through and, and then doing the genetic testing that they're going to go through.

Uh, ASRM recommends, or that the guidelines recommend, because they're not required, it's a recommendation. So they're following those recommendations. 

[00:21:57] Griffin Jones: It seems to be it's about informed consent for the donor, or at least it starts with informed consent for the donor. What about the people like you that were conceived from donors who did not get informed consent?

What's, what is fair to those donors, and fair to The people conceived by those donors. 

[00:22:20] Melissa Lindsey: This comes up a lot because if people donated when they were told it would be anonymous, that was the technology at the time, right? Nobody knew that DNA sequencing was going to become a thing and that consumer DNA testing was going to happen.

I do, I find it interesting when people say, well, that wasn't what we were told was going to happen 40 years ago. 20 years ago, 15 years ago. And some of those people are even medical professionals who are experiencing the benefits of here's how we used to do this surgical procedure, and here's how we do it now.

So we have all these advances in technology that we benefit from daily. We aren't saying, well, when I started my practice 20 years ago, this is how we did it, so I'm not going to innovate. I'm going to stay in the same place. With my processes, we have facial recognition, we have Google Maps, we have all these abilities with technology that we have to keep up with in every other aspect of our life.

So, recognizing that anonymity and donor conception is gone really shouldn't be isolated from all the other places that we're experiencing advances in technology. We can do things in 2024 that we could not do in 2020 or 2010. That's the reality and that's true of all kinds of decisions we make in our life where there are implications for those decisions that we couldn't foresee and we have to adjust to that.

So I don't know that there's any contract that could be created that It takes away the impact of technology because we, that's the reality of the world that we're living in. I could have a photo of someone that now I can do facial recognition software and that's not just true in donor conception.

That's true because photo, because facial recognition exists, so. 

[00:24:32] Griffin Jones: Is it the right thing in your view that if, if a donor, you know, let's say that, you know, this is a donor back in the early 80s and had no idea that they were ever going to be known, was told that you're just going to be completely anonymous, this is between the biological parent, or excuse me, between the intended parents and the child, and you're just helping a couple in need, and you're just, you know, you're You're just a servant in this moment, and then you're out of the picture.

If that was the person's expectation, is it fair now to just, to, to require that their identity and their information be disclosed to the, to the child, the, the donor conceived person? 

[00:25:20] Melissa Lindsey: So I think it, I think require would be the, the place I would say that's probably too strong of a word. I think understanding that it's possible and understanding, understanding that it's likely that the identity will be discovered is, is really important for the clinics and banks.

and existing practices. I think one way through that is there are a lot of donors who they made the decision very quickly or because of financial need or without understanding the implications and now they're curious too and they would like to make their information available. understand the implications of that donation.

They are curious about what happened and so they would like to make their information available or maybe they just understand the implications of family medical history. They are often going back to try to find a place to make that information available and they're, and either sometimes, I mean often the place isn't in practice anymore, but they register with like Donor Sibling Registry or other, or they contact the bank or clinic and say, can I make my information available?

And that's one practice that I think we really need to see increase is that the bank's having a mechanism for somebody to come back and say, I did this under anonymity, but I don't, I want to be available if they want to reach out to me and being willing to host that mutual contact or facilitate that I think is an important piece and we see that in other places where anonymity is held for a certain time, but then both people can opt into knowing each other.

We see that in, you know, organ donation. We see that in other places where for a certain time, you're not going to know the identity, but then if both people agree to it. So I think that's one element that could really be helpful because we do know that the donors also are curious after the fact. 

[00:27:30] Griffin Jones: Tell me about the conversation that you mentioned that it was 23andMe and a chance conversation.

What was that conversation? 

[00:27:40] Melissa Lindsey: The details are a little left open for interpretation, but the story that I heard was that my parents, when they're planning to use a donor, had planned to tell us, and so they shared that conversation with their decision to use a donor with family friends. The family friends thought that we already knew, and so they just made a remark about finding our biological father if he was still alive, and that was not information that I even knew.

My dad passed away when I was 15. So, the thought that there would be a biological father possibly alive in the world was very confusing at the time, but, and I didn't know what to do with that information, so I took a 23andMe test and started to try to find out what I could, but I was Also, not sure if I even wanted to know at that point because I, it was just a big surprise.

[00:28:42] Griffin Jones: The 23andMe test came after the conversation. How did the conversation get brought up? Did this family friend just one day say, Hey, he had taken a 23andMe 

[00:28:53] Melissa Lindsey: test and was talking about his 23andMe report and then just saying kind of offhandedly, Oh, you could do this too. You might find your biological father.

[00:29:04] Griffin Jones: But it was just a throwaway comment. It wasn't, you had never talked about this with this person before? You know, this, presumably this was a family friend that had been a present throughout your life, but this was the first time that this person ever mentioned it? 

[00:29:19] Melissa Lindsey: Well, so one interesting thing, this is a very common experience for donor conceived people, is I call them dog eared comments, where you Start to look back throughout your life and notice other comments along the way that start to make more sense and you can't even remember why you remembered the conversation.

So, I remember at one point, so I wanted to be a doctor growing up. That's, I wanted to be a family doctor and that was kind of the thing I talked about continuously from 6th grade until my freshman year of college, I'm going to be a family doctor. After my dad passed away, I definitely He was my biggest supporter, and I just probably didn't even realize at that time how much I was going through.

But this family friend said, you will be a doctor. And I thought, why did he say that with such conviction, with such conviction? Sureness. So later, when I learned that my biological father was a family doctor, I thought he knew that. He knew he had this extra little bit of information that I didn't have at the time.

Of course, you know, going through college at that point and doing career counseling and the fact that my dad had been in sales, you know, it seemed like this mismatch a little bit that I was so interested in becoming a family doctor, so I didn't have that information at the time, but that was one of the conversations along the way that, and they also seemed to marvel at how much I looked like my dad.

So that's another comment. Wow, you even have a dimple on the same side of your cheek as your dad. That's just crazy. It's really crazy if you know I'm not genetically related to him. But, at the time, I was just grateful to have a dimple on the same side like my dad because I really missed him, and so that was a nice thing to carry on, so.

[00:31:24] Griffin Jones: Comments that add up over time that, you know, just as one offs, it's like, okay, that could be anything, but when you get more information, it almost sounds like pieces of a puzzle that you're starting to arrange together. 

[00:31:39] Melissa Lindsey: And that's such a common experience for donor conceived people. In fact, that's one of the major elements in the peer support group is putting together those pieces, and it comes with some hardship for donor conceived people because they realize how many opportunities there were for the truth to come out, when it didn't.

And that includes, yeah, I had a conversation with my mom, I need to update my family medical history, at what age did grandma have her heart attack? And my mom said, oh, you don't need to worry about it. I was like, why wouldn't I need to worry about it? You know, what kind of cancer did my uncle have first?

Was it testicular cancer that spread to the, you know, or was it colon cancer that spread? And I was trying to find out which one and she said, you don't need to worry about it. Why? Why would I not need to worry about it? And that would have been a chance to tell me the truth, but it was, it was too hard and, and also they didn't have any resources and nobody had gone back to all these parents that for 10, years, the industry said, you don't need to tell.

And nobody's gone back to those parents. Nobody's equipped them to say, hey, we gave you the wrong advice. You need to have these conversations with your kids and here's some places to start. Even now, if a parent of a donor conceived person went to their pediatrician and said, what are some tools and resources that you can share with me to talk to my kids about how they were conceived?

There is nothing on the American Academy of Pediatrics website for how to talk about this, which is crazy when you think about how big the industry has become. There are no tools or resources. For a parent who does want to figure out how to talk to their children about it. And so, one thing I'll add, because I've talked about this late discovery piece, is there's a big myth in the industry that this is only a challenge for people who are not told that their donor conceives, or they are not told.

Late discovery, as we would call them, which is really untrue, but I understand because I had the same assumption. I thought I was going to be helping late discovery people like myself, and so the more I listened in the community, the more people were asking, do you have a group for early disclosure? Do you have a group for people who've always known?

Do you have any resources for keeping track of 30 siblings? Do you have any resources for telling the sibling that doesn't know? So I've known my whole life. But I have five people who've reached out to me in the last year who didn't know. What should I tell them? How do I, how do we keep track of our medical information and keep it private?

How do we welcome a new person into The sibling pod, what language should I be using? Like, there's all these questions that they have, even though they've known their whole life that they're donor conceived. So this is not just a challenge for late discovery. 

[00:34:48] Griffin Jones: In order to get to this discovery, the consent that has to happen for both the donors and the intended parents, what is the, after that informed consent is achieved, what are the What, what is the reasonable expectation of what should be disclosed to to donor, to donor conceived peoples?

Because does it mean, okay, if I'm, if I'm a, if I'm a donor conceived person, I should be able to see how many siblings I have by the donor. Do I need to do as, as a donor that is like other donor conceived siblings? Do I need to be able to see the siblings that that. donor had with their family, you know, that there are, that, that are their legal children.

Tell, tell us about what, about what the expectation should be. 

[00:35:40] Melissa Lindsey: Well, I think we can look to the recent law that is in place, well, it has passed in Colorado, which is at 18, a donor conceived person would get the information for the identity, the identifying information of the donor, so at least they know who it is.

They also would have access. to the updated family medical history because that bank, clinic, or agency is going to make an effort to reach out every couple years to the donor to get the updated family medical history. So, that donor conceived person would have access to the updated family medical history, which may or may not include the history of that donor raised children.

At that point, they might have children of their own, and they might say, these conditions have changed. I've shown up with my children that I'm raising, but they hopefully would have updates on this is what happened to, you know, with my mother or aunt or father. So that updated family medical history, the identifying information of the donor are two of the minimum thresholds that we would ask for.

Another one is to just know that there's a limit to how many times this donor's sperm was used. And so there's a 25 family limit. in place for this Colorado law to say the bank or clinic has to make an effort to limit to 25 families so that that donor conceived person isn't wondering if there are 50, 80, 100, 200.

They would have a reasonable limit. in their mind of how many siblings are out there. Now that's a family limit, so that could be two, three, four children per family, but at least having some upper limit of the possible number, and that 25 is still really high. We, there are banks like Sperm Bank of California that have a much lower family limit, and parents are often looking for that, to have that lower family limit, to know that there are 10 families, and Also, banks or clinics can offer services to those parents to help them connect and communicate among that sibling group, which is what many parents choose to do.

And they would know then the identity of the other families, if they happen to be in the same elementary school or high school together. They understand if they're going to college together, but they can also start to make those connections if they choose to. That might help with their identity formation too of, you know, Oh, I have a half brother who is interested in the same thing as me, or I have two sisters who, you know, one, one story that was shared, a donor conceived person contacted some siblings.

They were late discovery. They didn't know they were donor conceived, but the rest of the sibling group did know, and they grew up together. So, yeah. They had gone to each other's graduation and to weddings and gotten together once a year. And so they were the newcomer to the group. But part of that newcomer conversation included lots of conversations of, did you have the same experience?

And it was really simple and sad and touching to find out that This person, they asked, did you have really bad acne in high school, in college? Yes, I did. It was so, I felt so insecure, you know, it was such a hard thing. And they shared that many of them did, but the sibling group got to share which medication worked best for them.

So early on, the oldest shared it with the younger, and then they, got an intervention that worked really well for them. And so this person, like, I went through college and still didn't land on this medication until this point later. And they all expressed the sympathy of, gosh, we wish we would have known, we could have told you which, which medication worked best for our, our variety of acne that apparently was genetic.

And so it's just a simple thing, but parents sharing You know, when they start walking, and when their teeth are coming in, and when they're learning to read, and what sport they are interested in can be really valuable, um. 

[00:40:13] Griffin Jones: In that Colorado legislation, is there a requirement to disclose to the donor conceived children the siblings that they have that are not donor conceived?

[00:40:25] Melissa Lindsey: No, it's, it's not, it doesn't require even identifying the siblings who are conceived through donor conception. It just has the limit of 25 families. 

[00:40:35] Griffin Jones: With regard to medical history, um, medical history could be like, This gigantic pool, it could be a, it could be a shallower pool if we're talking about more general categories.

I don't, I, I don't know what rights I have as a child, and, and I'm going on the good faith assumption that both of my parents are my biological parents, though you did the same thing. But I don't know what rights I have for, like, to, you know, to get medical history from them. So, how is the depth of what, you know, the Colorado legislation, for example, asks for and what someone who is able to ask of their biological parents asks for?

[00:41:22] Melissa Lindsey: Yeah, this comes up a lot, especially with ASRM, you know, what rights should a donor conceived person have and are they, is requiring them fair if they aren't required of everybody else? So, you know, I, I didn't have rights. Nobody can force my mom to tell me her medical, family medical history either. Um, So, I think that's true, nobody's required to share medical history in the area of not assisted reproduction, um, but I, I think in general, this is where the privilege piece of it comes in.

We don't recognize the privilege we have when we have it. And so, when we have the privilege of being raised generally around the people that we are genetically related to, we don't notice that that's the norm because that's what everybody is experiencing. And then we have sympathy for the exceptions and we have practices in place for the exception.

And so there are people who are adopted, there are people who have misattributed parentage, there are people who are single, raised by single parents who don't have, or just for a variety of circumstances, don't have family medical history, but that's known. It's known that you're missing that information.

You're not operating under the assumption of false medical history and walking through your life with false medical history. So, it's one thing to say to a doctor, I don't know, it's missing. It's another thing to say, this is the medical history and have it be false. For donor conception where there is a system in place to create a person where we have the choice To provide medical history or not, if we know it is ideal to have the medical history for a person to have early prevention, diagnosis, treatment, then we should be making a best effort to provide that for a person, especially if someone's profiting from it.

So if you have a system in place that people are profiting from, you should be making the best effort to set that person up. for what you hope would be happening in, in the other cases of good medical practice. And so we know that genetic counselors and healthcare providers would like to have three generations of family medical history.

That's the intake. for a donor. Three generations of medical history. So we should be setting up donor conceived people so that they're not systematically at a disadvantage to the rest of the population. And again, we say general population because are there exceptions? Yes. Some people don't have their family medical history, but we shouldn't set up a system That creates that problem for everybody who's donor conceived.

And I think, too, it really, it isn't fair to say if you're a single parent or you're an LGBTQI plus parent, your children should just automatically be missing half their medical history. That's just the consequence of your family building choice. You don't get to have The same family medical history that heterocouple would have if they had unassisted conception.

So I don't think it's fair to put all those parents at a disadvantage. 

[00:44:56] Griffin Jones: Speaking of ASRM, I'm not speaking about the organization, I'm not speaking on I really don't know what their relationship or position has been. I'm speaking about the conference and the attendees at the conference, including myself, who I think were scared of the donor conceived people that were, that were at the conference just because I didn't know anything.

And I think many other people didn't either. And then whenever you see people You know, in attendance, protest is probably a strong word, but there was, you know, there, there were signs and there were, there were people, and we live in a day and age where everyone wants you to join their social cause immediately.

And even if it's a good cause, it's just like, how can you not be part of our cause immediately? And then, and so you want to avoid it. You know what I mean? Like if, if India, you know, wiped off Sri Lanka from the map right now, and everyone was like, how can you not join in the Sri Lankan cause? I'd be like, because I need to learn so much more about it.

Like I needed to learn about the history of the North of Ireland before I could ever, you know, for hours upon hours. And it took me years to do it before I even had like, okay, this is what I really believe about this situation. And so I'd say all that just to say that. Many people are like, I'm just, I don't know what's going on.

I'm going in, I'm going into the conference. And one thing that brought this back to my to is one you connected with me on LinkedIn. I was like, oh, she seems nice. She seems friendly. And then, you know, I was talking with Aisha Lewis from Evry, and I could tell like, oh, Iisha is not scared of them. Why isn't she?

Like, what, what? Like, why wasn't she nervous about approaching this topic? 

[00:46:45] Melissa Lindsey: There's so much in that question. So I think it's easy to lump all donor conceived people and all donor conceived experiences together when in reality it's just a collection of many experiences and there's a big range on those experiences.

So one donor conceived person cannot speak for everybody's experience. And so, but I think it's similar If we, if we listen in the industry with the same, same goal that we've been listening to fertility patients, which is they're going through hardship, they're feeling desperate, they're feeling like they're out on the margins, and there's a lot of grief and loss and confusion and desperation there.

So, we recognize that parents are coming into this, or intended parents are coming into this. Feeling very vulnerable. That's true for donor conceived people too. And so when you have people in communities who are feeling like they're not heard, feeling like they're ignored, feeling like they haven't been seen, while they're experiencing hardship, it's not surprising that there's strong emotion there.

And that strong emotion can be scary for people. Especially, and I think this is kind of the underlying piece, it's you. When you're, when you see something that is a blind spot for other people, it's very easy to assume that they just don't care. When, when we're trying to talk with professionals in an industry and the industry says, you're not our customer, you're not our clients, we don't need to worry about you, that's gonna cause some anger.

Like, we don't care what happens to you. Because, you're not our customer. So that's part of the intensity behind the protest was some statements that were made by ASRM of, you're not our customer. And some of donor conceived people, they're going through fertility treatment and third party reproduction themselves.

Like just because you're a donor conceived person doesn't mean that you're not going to be a single parent or need gametes in your family. The idea that donor conceived people shouldn't matter because the parent was the customer, I think that has caused a lot of tension in the conversation that honestly doesn't need to be there because donor conceived people are literally part, they are the success rates for a third party reproduction.

So if there were, if we weren't here, there would be no success rates. So I think, I think the reason Ayesha and some others have wanted to work with you donor conceived community is because we are solution oriented. We want to solve problems and we understand that this industry, we're not trying to get rid of donor conception.

We're not trying to drive up the cost so that it's. It's unattainable for people for growing their families. And we, we do think that by providing some support services, this really can be better for everybody. Providing education, providing support, and really helping speak into the process and the policies and the structure could really help make this better for everybody involved.

And so we want to center the donor conceived people, but we understand that there are parents and donors and professionals who do want to do the right thing. So we just want to help that happen for those who are listening, who do care. And so I assume, I can't do anything about the people who don't care about donor conceived people.

I can tell my story, I can tell other stories, but I trust that there are many professionals out there who want to do the right thing, they just don't know. And so when I, when I talk with Aisha, I know that she cares about building healthy families. So let's have conversations about how we can do that.

And You know, I'm gonna go into that conversation looking to work together to find solutions. 

[00:51:21] Griffin Jones: I want to give you the concluding floor. And prior to recording you had mentioned, uh, a professional group that, um, that is, is coming to be. Um, you can conclude about that. You can con conclude about anything I didn't ask you and I should have.

The floor is yours. 

[00:51:37] Melissa Lindsey: So, in the effort to help professionals learn more about what, how donor conception impacts donor conceived people and really all the, all the things that, um, we could do together to help improve the well being of donor conceived people, we started DCC Professional Group and it's a multidisciplinary group for embryologists, genetic counselors, fertility doctors, marketing professionals, anybody involved in third party reproduction.

We have this learning space. It's 175 a year. We have webinars once a month and then we have all kinds of materials and resources that professionals can use to give parents, to give donor conceived people when they reach out with questions. So we're making that learning space. We have it available now and it's on our website www.

donorconceivedcommunity. org forward slash professionals And we would love to welcome members here so we can help make the world a better place for donor conceived people. 

[00:52:38] Griffin Jones: Melissa Lindsey, thank you very much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast and sharing your thoughts on this topic.

[00:52:45] Melissa Lindsey: Thanks for having me. Pleasure to be here. 

[00:52:47] Sponsor: We hoped you enjoyed this session with Melissa Lindsey, and now understand the benefits of known donation, the mission of Everie Egg Donation. To learn more about Everie head to www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics. That's www.everiedonation.com/for-clinics.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

224 The Best of Fertility Network C-Suite

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


Since 2019, Inside Reproductive Health has conducted over 220 interviews, featuring prominent physicians and executives from numerous fertility companies.

Among them, nine CEOs continue to lead their respective Fertility Clinic Networks or chair their network’s board.

Together, their networks have overseen an estimated 1.6 million IVF cycles and other reproductive treatments that have resulted in over 2 million pregnancies,

This is an episode you don’t want to miss as we showcase:

  • Gina Bartasi and the only three things she believes matter in healthcare

  • Dave Burford sharing his battle-tested sales advice

  • TJ Farnsworth’s entrepreneurial journey and his perspective on the necessities of field wide collaboration.

  • Dr. Kshitiz Murdia’s reasoning on why doctors make good CEOs

  • Marc Segal’s perspective on private equity and its place in Fertility’s future

  • Francisco Lobbosco’s first 100 days as CEO and the power of listening

  • David Stern’s steps to finding the right financial partner (Hint: It’s like a marriage)

  • Lisa Van Dolah’s philosophy of transitioning nurses into executive leadership roles

  • Andrew Meikle discussing the power of perspective (Both patient & entrepreneur)


Dave Burford, CARE Fertility
Website

Gina Bartasi, Kindbody
Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

Dr. Kshitiz Murdia, Indira IVF
Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

TJ Farnsworth, Inception Fertility
Website | LinkedIn | Facebook

Francisco Lobbosco, FutureLife
Website | LinkedIn

Marc Segal, US Fertility
Website | LinkedIn | Instagram

Lisa Van Dolah, Ivy Fertility
Website | LinkedIn

David Stern, Boston IVF
Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram

Andrew Meikle, Fertility Partners
Website


Transcript

[00:00:00] Griffin Jones: Since 2019, Inside Reproductive Health has conducted roughly 230 interviews and counting featuring prominent physicians and executives from numerous fertility companies across the world. Among them, nine CEOs continue to lead their respective fertility clinic networks or chair their networks board.

Together, their networks have overseen an estimated 1. 6 million IVF cycles and other reproductive treatments that have resulted in over 2 million estimated pregnancies. 

Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon, Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com.

Announcer: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.

[00:00:28] Kevin Ali: Hi, I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon, and at Organon, we're committed to engaging with leaders across reproductive medicine. I'm proud to help introduce the best of Fertility Network's C Suite.

For the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:00:43] Griffin Jones: Thank you, Kevin. Our best of reel begins with the CEO of Inception Fertility and the Prelude Network, TJ Farnsworth's vision emphasizes the power of collaboration among networks and clinics to advance the fertility field. 

[01:00:00]Now you're at the head of one of the largest fertility networks in the Western world, and it didn't exist five years ago, and so talk about that speed. 

[00:01:07] TJ Farnsworth: Yeah, so I think that, you know, we opened our very first practice from scratch. We didn't want to inherit, you know, ideas, not that ideas from established practices are bad. We've got some fantastic practices as part of our network that have been around for 20, 25, 30 plus years that bring a ton to the table.

But we wanted the opportunity to be able to experiment with things and ask the questions of why are things being done the way they are? And the answer being that's just the way they're done is always a bad answer. There may be a lot of great answers, but that's just the way it's always been done is never a good one.

So That allowed us to challenge what we can do and experiment. And then we also have the, we look at it as the best of both worlds. And then we have practices as part of Zora Network that have been around for, you know, with Eastern Fertility Specialists in Houston, which was our first acquisition practice.

They've been around for 25 plus years, you know, to the President's Network with RBA and TSC and NYU, bring a ton to the table. And the idea that we can bring the knowledge base From all of these places, people that are challenging the norm and saying, why can't we do things differently with de novo development from scratch operations to establish practices that have been doing it in such a way that really does work and those work for a really great reason.

And that way we can take the best of all worlds and combine them together. It's sort of been a unique approach. To how we grow the business, it's allowed us to grow into, you pointed out, you know, one of the largest networks in the world, and we're very proud of that. And mostly we're very proud of the fact that the way it came together, because it came together in such a way that lots of different people bring a lot of really great talents, really great experiences and really great processes to the table that we can blend to create the best of all worlds.

I'd love to see a whole lot more collaboration with our industry. You know, I think that coming out of a different specialty, I am surprised at all a return at how the lack of collaboration that exists between all of the big national networks and the independent practices in terms of sharing best practices, what can we be doing to make them successful?

You know, to the extent that the other national networks are successful to the extent that other independent practices are successful. That's good for me. That's good for inception. That's good for all of us as an industry. We want to see people be successful. And you know, we need to focus less on our competition amongst ourselves and more on our customer as our patient.

And that can be done through greater collaboration. 

[00:03:39] Griffin Jones: Rather than dictating from the top, our next guest engaged with staff across all levels, gathering insights to guide future life's growth. Hear how Francisco Lobbosco spent his first 100 days as CEO of FutureLife. 

So that leads you after your 100 days to recommend changes, and you said that they accepted all of the changes you proposed. What were they? 

[00:04:01] Francisco Lobbosco: So listen, so I went on by having, let's say, Um, one strong mandate, which was not imposed by anyone, but I could read it through my first a hundred days. Future life from a medical perspective is very well positioned and our medical outcomes are it. Fantastic. Francisco. Now you know that don't touch that.

Right? So let's, let's make sure that whatever you do, you don't mess up with the medical excellence that we're having in the business because that is what describes us. But then I went on and said, okay, so one of the things I'm asking is why are you here? And I'm getting different, different views, all great views, all great answers.

Um, and especially when I go around clinics, the purpose is there. What I was missing was this little trick on asking the same question around support center and saying, why are you guys here? And perhaps we were missing that, you know, to verbalize the, the purpose, the mission, the vision, the values of importantly, the values of future life.

So I went on and asked, why are we here? And then I went on and asked, what are we, uh, what are we setting ourselves to achieve? I, what our strategy is going to be in the next five years. And then finally, how are we going to. You know, just go through that strategy. So the why, the what, and the how. Um, so quite simply after my 100 days, the first thing I did is to grab, um, collect a number of associates across clinics, different roles, support center, different roles.

And we set ourselves with support of a, um, of an agency to define the future life purpose. Why is future life here? What's our vision of the world? What's our mission? And most importantly, what are our values? Um, and obviously we have clinics, as I said to you, that were quite independent and they are still independent for many years, very successfully.

And some of those clinics have strong statements in place. And my purpose is not to, my mission is not to change those statements. But to have a united voice on future life and why is future life here to, to, to drive that core identity. So we've done that. And actually, I'm not sure when, when this podcast is going to go live, but I'm flying to Barcelona tomorrow to the first global leadership summit, where we're going to introduce those.

Those statements to everyone, to all our leaders in clinics. And then obviously we're going to introduce the strategy. And the strategy, as you can imagine, is something that together with my management team, tapping into the medical advisory board, tapping into some key opinion leaders from country, we developed and we put on a paper.

And that strategy went through my supervisory board, of course, in June, and that was approved. And now we're going to introduce you, introduce a strategy into, into the FutureLife Society again at the end of this week. Um, and that is how we're going to go through that strategy and what is important for us to achieve.

And this question of why do we have a group? What is group going to do different than the clinics we're doing until now independently? That's a very important question that needs answering quite fast. Um, the synergies that we'll have a group. Those roles and responsibilities between, okay, clinics are doing this, fantastic.

How can groups support the clinics on, on being better at that, you know, at that quality of care? How can we help the clinicians in particular, the, the EMTs, the embryologists, the nurses to have more time with patients? Instead of having, you know, non value added activities or non value added time. So that's the purpose of group.

And that's what we're setting here to, to, uh, to achieve through the how. And finally, and with this I finish, um, it's all about, as I said earlier, to keeping that medical excellence in place. And therefore we introduced. Literally two months ago, our medical advisory board to the CEO, uh, which are 10 of our 10 of our great, uh, associates, you know, medical doctors, embryologists.

Um, and we'll get together once a month, um, and they have three different topics in the agenda that they need to help us, um, drive just as a final thought from my end, which is something I said to my team quite often. Um, I know that people like you Griffin, most of your listeners, if not all have been, have been in this sector in this space for, for quite some time.

And you're very familiar with it. Um, but sometimes it's good to have someone external timing, uh, reminding On how powerful it is to work that you guys do on a daily basis. And I'm talking about everyone working in clinics, right? So um, this goes for everyone working in a clinic, MDs, embryologists, nurses, receptionists, coordinators.

It's just fascinating what you guys do on a daily basis. I mean, your job is to put smiles on people's faces. Um, so my last words would be encouraging you to continue going. Um, I think what you're doing helps the sector in particular Griffin, uh, and for everyone else out there, just, just keep going. I think, um, we, or you in particular, uh, are changing the world one baby at a time.

So big thank you from my end. 

[00:09:16] Griffin Jones: Boston IVF says that in order to take good care of patients, you have to have a business model that takes good care of their providers and staff. Listen to David Stern discuss the vital steps to finding the right long term financial partner. 

[00:09:28] David Stern: And you know, one of the important things, it sounds a little corny, um, but the Boston IVF, our model is we want to do what's right for the patient first and foremost.

So we believe, and this is instilled because the physicians founded the practice and I'm not a physician, I'm an MBA, but I can tell you, I don't mess with the lab and I don't mess with the physicians. because those are the two most important assets that we have in our company. And I'm never going to tell an embryologist if they want to use a certain media and they want to use a certain microscope or an incubator because they get better success rates.

It's in my interest as a business person to make sure we get the best success rates that we can because our patients are going to be happy. Our referring physicians are going to be happy. Everybody's going to be happy. So I'm not going to cut corners and say, Hey, I got a great deal on this media. From A, B, C media factory, and it's not the same quality as Irvine or Cooper, but you gotta use it because we're saving money.

Same thing with catheters. We have physicians that choose different catheters. We don't have one catheter. We let the physician who's doing the transfer use the catheter they feel comfortable with. It costs us more, but the physician feels like they're doing a better transfer and they're more comfortable doing it.

So who am I as a business person to tell a physician how to practice or an embryologist how to practice? When you're dating someone, your first date is not about getting married. You have to date someone, see if it's a right fit and then get married. And I think we approach it the same way. We want to date our practices that we're going to partner with, see if it's a good fit, see if the culture is right.

See if we have, you know, commonality and an IVF center that's being approached by anybody, a strategic, a private equity, venture capital, whoever. Should be doing the same kind of due diligence. Is there a cultural fit? Do you agree on what the midterm and long term goals should be? Where do you see yourselves in five years?

And having a very open discussion about what that looks like and, and talking about who makes the decision. Does business trump medicine or does medicine trump business? And those are important discussions to have before, you know, on those dates, um, before you get married. I was, you know, with COVID, we've gone out and it's very important.

We go out and we do site visits. We want to look at the IVF center. We want to talk to the physicians. We sit down with them. I can't tell you the number of deals that we haven't won, where the other party that wins has never set foot in an IVF center that they're buying. They've never met the physician face to face.

It's all been on Zoom and they do a video tour. And if I'm spending that kind of money, Now, granted when private equity is doing it, it's not their money. It's someone else's money, but it's kind of like going in to buy a house and doing it on a Zoom video and never walking in that house. That's kind of scary.

Um, and so if a physician, if I'm a physician selling my practice and I never get to meet the person and they never come to see what my practice looks like, I would think long and hard about, are they the right partner for me?

Sponsor: Organon is dedicated to delivering impactful medicines and solutions for a healthier tomorrow. Guided by its mission of being here for her health, Organon proudly recognizes fertility providers around the world focusing on care equity. 

We believe everyone should have access to fertility education and treatment. By collaborating with providers, advocates, and communities, Organon is working to elevate fertility awareness, expand resources, and invest in innovative products that help more aspiring parents access the care they deserve. 

Every journey to parenthood is unique. Organon stands with you. Learn more about Organon’s resources at FertilityJourney.com

[00:12:39] Griffin Jones: Here, Chairman of U. S. Fertility, Mark Segal, delve into the enduring presence of private equity in the fertility sector, emphasizing the significance of aligning business goals with a genuine passion for solving critical issues in the fertility field.

[00:12:52] Marc Segal: Private equity is no question. Private equity is here to stay, right? It's not going anywhere. Um, and it will, there will [00:13:00] always be this need for capital and equity. Um, and I also, I also believe, you know, These innovative, uh, in physicians want to be something part of something larger than than themselves, right?

Um, and so finding the right fit. Yeah, is is, of course, paramount. Um, I would say that I've seen in my career again, uh, private equity. make very poor decisions and very poor business decisions and in some cases, you know, destroy practices, um, and, and, and the culture that they may have created. Uh, but I've also been very fortunate to be part of a group, be part of groups that I think have driven real value and innovation that's benefited both just both physicians and patients.

I believe, you know, the group that we are affiliated today called Amulet Capital is exactly that. I've been very, very impressed. And as I said, I've been involved with many different private equity groups. Um, I think there's this misconception about, uh, uh, that private equity, you know, what the does is.

drive down, drive costs and it's, uh, and therefore that impacts quality of medicine. I think that's a, that's actually a false. narrative. I think it's a false assumption. 

[00:14:34] Griffin Jones: You think it's false that it drives them up or because they're seeking profits or, or drives them down for efficiency? Which one of those do you think is a fallacy?

I think it's, I think 

[00:14:43] Marc Segal: it's a false narrative that, that driving down costs, driving down costs drives down quality of medicine. Um, Where I think private equity and again, maybe larger groups succeed is in the ability to drive to drive costs in an efficient through efficiency. Right. And, and, uh, and to me, driving down costs, which hopefully at the end of the day implies driving down price to patients or driving or driving access through increased payer contracts, etc.

Leads to better access to patients. And in fact, if you look at the larger groups, you look at, you look at the, you know, pregnancy rate outcomes, it completely validates the point that the larger groups are driving, driving innovation, driving pregnancy rates, doing different things that I think others are taking note of and trying to learn from.

Um, so, um, I, I do think it's, you know, at the end of the day, yes, you should do your homework and you should pick your right partner. Um, because not everyone's the same, not every private equity is the same. Um, but I, I, you know, I am a believer they're here to stay. I'm a believer, I'm a firm believer that they will, That they will continue to add value and make change in a positive way, not a negative way.

What is it that I need to do to kind of grow my, my practice? in order so I can maximize the valuation, uh, or potentially exit that type of thing. And, um, and what I think, and I would say this is actually all businesses in general, this is not specific to physicians or even healthcare, but, but, you know, when you've got, uh, when you've got a founder and entrepreneur that has started a business, it may be a family owned business,

If they are, if they start or have started having the conversation, you know, if they, if they're thinking about, I want to sell my business in a year's time, or even two years time, it's probably too late to have that to start thinking what I need to do. To maximize value, the conversation or the thought process about maximizing value has to occur much earlier on because it's part of a strategy.

It's part of a mindset, you know, of this is what I'm after. This is where I think I can build it. This is what I and so it's really to maximize value. It's a five year process. Now again, here's the calculus. Do I, do I spend, uh, do I spend the next five years building, hopefully, you know, doubling the size, tripling the size of the business that I have today and will valuations remain where they are today, right?

That's the big question. Because no one knows what tomorrow brings. No one knows what, what valuation, what interest rates and valuation and how much it's private equity will want to participate five years from now. Um, and so I think the calculus you have to make in all of this is, I'm either in it for the long term, if I'm only focused on, I want to figure out what the exit and how to maximize value so I can exit at some point, I actually think it's the wrong conversation to be having with yourself, right?

If I'm that entrepreneur, I think you've got to be driven by, you What are you trying? What problem are you trying to solve? What? What motivates you? What gets you to get up? You know, um, out of bed every morning. I want to do the kinds of things that you do. And you've got to love it. You've got to have a passion for it.

I mean, I know that I wouldn't be doing this for 25 years. If I didn't feel excited and passionate about it. 

[00:18:43] Griffin Jones: Our next leader, CEO of Care Fertility, Dave Burford, sheds light on the imperative of enhancing business processes to improve the patient experience. One of the biggest criticisms about so much external finance entering this field of medicine is the that there is a financial pressure and sometimes an oversight on operational quality.

There's operational improvements to be made for days in this field. There's, there's no shortage of those, but there is also the reality that there. It's a way of looking at things where it can be just looked at from a spreadsheet without the consideration of actually making the operational improvements.

And you had to at least experience some of the other sides. So what were a few of the surprises that awaited you? 

[00:19:37] Dave Burford: I think first and foremost, um, finance is very good on spreadsheets. Operations is very bad on PowerPoints and spreadsheets. Operations is about people and it's about process. And you only really can deal with one when you understand the other.

And so if I take us back to cares challenges at the time, it was very much around, um, a business that was geared up to, um, serve the clinic rather than the patients. And that's okay. When you've got a lot of demand and not much supply, but when, when that dynamic changes slightly and you've got more competition in town and you've got other people that are doing things in a more dynamic way, and actually.

The challenge is bringing in, um, supply or patients, then you've got to change your processes to adapt to that. And you've got to be more patient friendly and you've got to be more, um, Uh, adaptive and fluid in the way that you deal with things. And so, yeah, you can only really do that by talking to the people on the ground, talking to the staff, understanding what their challenges are, and then adapting the processes to meet the demands of patients and the needs of staff.

Um, So it was, for me, it was nice to get away from the, the laptop and the, and the, and the, and the PC and to actually talk to people and understand what is it that is the challenge here and that's best supported by a bit of data, if I'm honest as well, because sometimes anecdotal conversations only take you so far and you need to have a bit of skepticism about what you hear and then you need to look at the data and say, well, actually, look, we've got a thousand people calling us at The seven o'clock at night, you're telling me that patients don't have a demand for late night calls.

But why have I got a thousand, why have I got a thousand people ringing me when the lines are closed and it's just tweaking then some of those operational processes to meet those needs. Um, generally not that challenging, but, um, involved, yeah. Sales side device is critical and these advisors do an amazing job, but it's when it's a very fast six week process and highest bid wins kind of thing.

It might be perfect for some sellers, but in my experience, what you'll find is that there's sometimes a misalignment after the sale because you didn't really get chance to talk about what it is that you want and what it is that they want and how can you, it was a very quick, it was a very quick process.

And so this is. Quite often somebody's lifetimes work, right? They spent 20 years building this business. Why not spend a little bit longer just getting to know who it is that you're going to be partnering with after the, after the deal would be my main advice, really, to, to people. And then, as I say, my passion and, and cares passion, having done lots and lots of these acquisitions over the years is to really understand what it is that people want, uh, and then to try and tailor that deal to suit them.

[00:22:38] Griffin Jones: Dr. Kshitiz Murdia, CEO of Indira IVF's CLIPS, revolve around the importance of standardizing protocols across the entire network of doctors, emphasizing the need for consistency and quality. 

[00:22:50] Dr. Kshitiz Murdia: I think that brings me to another important point, Griffin, is around the doctor recruitment, as to how we have done it.

Because. Ours is a B2C brand and patients are coming to Indira IVF and not to a particular doctor. I mean, patients don't come with a mindset that I have to go and meet such and such doctor or get treated by such and such doctor. They just see Indira IVF, they would come to Indira IVF, and then they would get to know who is the doctor treating them.

And every other day we have a roaster, so somebody is consulting today. Their pickup might be done by a separate doctor. Their embryo transfer might be done by a separate doctor. It's as per the schedule or the roster in the clinic. Uh, so it was our responsibility to ensure that we have similar protocols, similar outcomes across all the doctors because that's what we were doing.

One patient could be meeting two or three doctors in the clinic at different points of time during the same cycle and the protocols should not differ. The language that they speak should not differ. And that's why we started this Indira Fertility Academy back in 2016, which is one of the world class setups in training in fertility.

Our training center has been recognized by, recently by British Fertility Society. Our training center is recognized by Merck Foundation in Egypt. They regularly send, uh, uh, African and Indonesian and Malaysian, Vietnam, all the Asia Pacific doctors for training. We run a fellowship program with them for three months.

And 99 percent of the doctors who are working with us, I've been trained through our own fertility academy and same with the embryologist also. And once we got a hang of it, uh, we understood that, you know, IVF is not so difficult. It's not a rocket science. You know, every gynecologist and a life science, uh, a postgraduate could be trained into either being a IVF doctor or an embryologist.

Uh, either ways. Uh, we developed a structured program and we understood that there are 15 or 20 steps during the whole IVF cycle. Once you have an SOP around each and every step, you just hammer in the training that you just need to follow the SOP. Don't bother about the final outcomes. Final outcomes are bound to come.

And we've been very successful. I think the average age of our doctors is 35 or 36 in spite of, you know, a few doctors being with us for almost 10 years now. Uh, so that gave us a very good handle on expansion because. See, expansion, the major limiting factor for any clinical enterprise or an organization to expand rapidly is not funds, it's not infrastructure.

You, everybody has deep pockets, everybody has private equity money. You can fund a hundred centers in one year. You have the infrastructure available. You can buy spaces, you can rent them, you can do. I think the critical bottleneck for any organization could be having skilled manpower, you know, and then there's always shortage of manpower in whichever field you go.

And we decided that we would not struggle with this part. Let us create our own skilled manpower and let us not depend on the market, uh, uh, to get skilled manpower. The idea was to select somebody working with the company for, for, for last few years, because. You know, when DA invested, we were only at 50 center, we were the largest in the country in terms of number of centers, in terms of doctors being trained, in terms of business and, and the overall top line.

I think the idea from DA's side was, uh, nobody has done, uh, good work in the country in India in the IVF suite apart from Indira IVF. Let us have somebody from the group internally, uh, and promote them to the, to be the CEO. And I think because of, uh, uh, some of the diligence is being done on the company before DA invested.

Uh, so there were a couple of private equities, uh, looking at us and in all the big force coming and doing diligence. So I got exposed to many more financial aspects, many more HR and marketing aspects as well. And, uh, so I think, I think it was. Because everybody, all these shareholders thought that I had a very broad based idea about the business and not just the medical function.

Uh, and, and, and obviously we are very strong believers that a medical organization should always be headed by a doctor because that gives you much more leverage. In terms of talking to the doctors, because ultimately all these, uh, businesses are built on the ground in the clinics and not sitting in the corporate office in your air conditioned chambers and working on excels or laptops or you can't build a business.

Their business is actually being done at the clinical level by the clinicians, by the nurses, by the embryologist. So you would need somebody who could have that wavelength of talking to these doctors who the doctors would also respond to and respect. Uh, and it's not just about number, number, number that you need to clock certain revenue.

You need to clock certain number of patients being treated. It's always more to do with the medical outcomes and how do you treat and how do you excel in, in the overall outcome. So I, I, I strongly still feel, uh, that a non medical person, uh, one sounds very commercial to the doctors. Uh, doctors would not give that much of respect because.

Again, they feel the other person has no knowledge about medicine and is just come here and just telling us all the numbers on Excel. And we feel it's not like that. And, you know, Patients are different. The actual clinical life is different. So I think a good balance, uh, uh, between the medical and the financial work is required when you want to control the doctors.

And when I say control, because ours is a very different culture and DNA, it's not doctors independently practicing in their own. world and they have a different protocol and they have a different business mindset. All of us, uh, all the two 50 plus doctors run on a single platform, run on a single protocol.

Everybody, uh, is, is, is in very. Close touch, I would say, and everybody's using the similar protocol.

[00:29:13] Griffin Jones: How many nurses, what percentage that you've worked with over the course of your career, which is a lot, do you think have it in them to be an executive? And do not say a hundred percent, do not say all of them. I don't want it. I want any kind of fluffy millennial feel good answer. I mean, if you work with a ton of people, ballpark, what are the percentage, uh, that you feel like really have it within them that they could be not manager, not director, but top C-suite?

[00:29:47] Lisa Van Dolah: Anybody that sets their mind out to do it can do it, but you have to be willing to, to learn, um, and step out of, uh, Kind of a comfort of a clinical based mindset. And I think, um, many nurses don't want to have anything to do with that. They went into the profession, um, to be a clinical focused expert and they should, that's amazing.

Um, and they should continue to explore that, how they can continue to contribute there. Um, you know, there's only so many individuals that went into nursing originally that then look at organizational, um, Uh, you know, goals and organizational, you know, success as being something that are even interested in, in being responsible for.

So, you know, we all can contribute at every level of nursing, um, to that organization success, whether or not you want to be the one that's. that's thinking about that 100 percent of the time is, you know, it's only an interest of certain, certain individuals. And, you know, but I don't think any nurse should limit themselves, um, to that possibility if that's something they're interested in doing.

If this is a role that you want to learn, we'll be here to support you. And so if it's something that you want As a nurse to step into something that maybe is outside of what you perceive to be your training. I think you need to seek that opportunity, um, and ask for those around you to support you, um, in learning things that maybe you don't have any experience in yet.

Um, and I think nursing, um, has tremendous foundation to offer you the skill set. Uh, in a variety of roles, whether it's administrative management, leadership, um, or, you know, like you said, project management, sales, marketing, business development, all of those things are, are, are ways training, teaching, um, for nurses to, to advance their career.

And so it's not just one path, but I think nursing has tremendous foundational, um, value that, that you can build on if you're interested in. 

[00:31:58] Griffin Jones: The three things that matter in healthcare are patient experience, patient outcome, and cost, according to our next leader, Chair of KindBody, Gina Bartasi. Here, Gina stressed the value of team collaboration and employee well being in delivering exceptional patient care.

[00:32:11] Gina Bartasi: Really? Only three things matter in healthcare? Any kind of health care, but specifically fertility, um, patient experience, patient outcome and cost. It's the only thing that matters to the patient, patient experience, patient outcome and cost. And by the way, it's the only thing that matters to the employer.

And what I have found after building and running the largest care navigation firm as a care navigation or middleman or an insurance company, um, Um, you cannot effectuate change in those three areas. An insurance company or care navigation firm cannot affect member experience. They cannot affect outcomes and they cannot affect costs.

Only the doctor's going to set his reimbursement rate. He's only going to decide how many embryos to transfer. Only he can decide how to give that patient bad news, whether that's, um, uh, diminished ovarian reserve diagnosis or a failed IVF cycle. But in order to really effectuate change. And really change kind of how patients go through the process.

You have to be in the doctor business. So today the employers are issuing RFPs. Um, I think in the beginning, uh, large tech companies on both coasts are really in the Valley kind of started this fertility benefit. But today you see requests coming in from very, very large employers in retail and manufacturing and automotive.

Like again, it's moved from kind of a nice to have to a must have benefit. Employees always come first. They have to because the employees will take care. If you take care of your employees first, they will take care of your customer. They will take care of your patients. And that's when we're talking to doctors, you know, and doctors say, well, I used to do that.

You know, we want the doctors to know that we can train and teach. nurses and front desk managers and practice managers to be just as kind and just as empathetic to that patient that the doctor can. So again, employees always come first as it relates to the lab. 

[00:34:11] Griffin Jones: Talk a bit about how you use the brand for culture.

[00:34:15] Gina Bartasi: Yeah, I think, um, a lot of it starts with humility, right? The brand is humble. It's not anybody's last name. It's not, you know, um, and our culture really starts with this humility, right? So those two things are ingrained. I think, um, it's not just humility to, it's a vulnerability to it. Um, you know, uh, It's also our brand and our culture.

We do embrace risk. You know, we tell our doctors, we're like, embrace risk, do something crazy on TikTok. Can you tell a doctor to, or a scientist embrace risk? They're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm a doctor. I don't embrace risk, except that if you teach them, we're not talking about embracing risk when it comes to, a prognosis of an onco patient.

We're talking about taking risk as it relates to the brand, as it relates to culture, allow yourself to have fun, allow yourself to smile, giving devastating news. Another failed pregnancy test is hard. It's hard. And we're so glad you're empathetic to your patient. But outside of that, how can we make you smile?

How can you be cheery and yellow and optimistic? And so we believe that there's a lot of similarities that brand and culture do go together. And I don't think our brand would be as successful if our culture wasn't so strong. And I don't think our culture would be so strong if our brand wasn't so strong.

And there's a, I think the other thing that I would say about culture and brand is team. Right. Um, I think too often, you know, healthcare people and doctors in particular may think solo first, like I'm a doctor and hierarchical and solo. And those are not things that belong in our brand or our culture. We don't do anything singularly.

Not any of us. And, and Dr. Beltsos would say the same thing. And Beth Eschbach, Greg Poulos, none of us do anything by ourselves. And that's intentional. We make group collaborative decisions and same thing with our brand. It's, it's, it's, we invite feedback. We invite constructive feedback, constructive criticism, because we want to get better every day.

And again, that goes back to our brand and our culture. 

[00:36:25] Griffin Jones: Andrew Meikle, Executive Chairman at The Fertility Partners, challenges traditional paradigms as he advocates for financial awareness and entrepreneurship in clinic management. 

[00:36:33] Andrew Meikle: I think that, um, you know, the typical practice owner is not an entrepreneur, and they're not typically very business savvy.

Some are, and they're doing exceptionally well. This space has grown 10 percent compounded forever. And, and, you know, No disrespect, but almost anyone can do well in that sort of a setting, especially when supply is not meeting demand. So everyone's doing well. Um, almost everyone's doing well. I think there's another level.

It's not just about revenue and EBITDA, you know, our mission and, you know, I'm a healthcare provider at heart is to drive clinical outcomes to use science, collaborate with stakeholders and our group to, to drive clinical outcomes, to be more successful for our patients. And as well to improve, dramatically improve the patient experience, the patient journey.

So it's pretty simple. All of our decisions are made, um, You know, based on those two things. And I think there's a tremendous opportunity to professionalize some of the areas in the space. Um, when you look at, at management, for example, I think there are a lot of people doing a lot of great things, but it's, it's sort of doctor first, it's not patient first.

So we're flipping this, um, profession on its head and looking at the management and the operational efficiency and effectiveness of, of clinics. We're looking at Uh, you know, lean processing from a patient perspective. We're looking at, um, sort of value innovation from a customer perspective. It's gotta be driven by, um, by the patient.

We have to serve the patient. Um, and I, and I think it's largely the other way today. So we, we have a completely different lens and I think most groups, um, we're investing for the longterm. Um, we can get into private equity if you want. I am now. Back. We are now backed by private equity. You got to be careful who you choose, who you partner with.

You got to be careful who you marry. You got to spend time. You got to do your diligence. You got to go on dates. Um, and you have to be, um, ruthless in your due diligence because it is a life sentence. I don't know how to turn a physician into an entrepreneur per se. I think you have to have the fortitude for it.

You have to be able to delegate tremendously because you need to see everything from 60, 000 feet and not be too in the weeds. Um, I think an absolutely critical element and some Something that I see as a weakness generally in the space is a lack of, um, financial, um, awareness, a lot, a lack of operating the business, uh, with financial metrics.

Um, people in the space seem to look at it in the rear view mirror rather than in real time. You know, our organization, we provide a full P and L every month. Month by the eighth day of the next month. So our partners can see what they've done in their business and and uh, How it relates to the strap plan that we've worked on them for going forward.

Um, so I think you know We don't have enough time, but I you know, I mean a start would be Definitely start reading some, some books, you know, um, there's a ton of great information on entrepreneurship out there. Gerber has a whole series. Uh, uh, you know, those things are very helpful, but, but you really have to take yourself out of the day to day equation, be able to see it from 60, 000 feet, have the best, most independent.

You know, brightest people you can working for you, um, actually, you know, executing on things. And I think that's a big first step. There are tremendous opportunities out there to, um, to partner with various organizations if it, if it suits you. And I think it's just really important to, you know, Have your house in order before entering into that do your due diligence find the right fit um, and look this this profession right now, is it incredibly, um, is that an inflection point it is changing and If you want to change, you might, you might look to join an organization that, um, aligns with your values and they can help you.

They could support you, um, to implement changes in your clinic, to drive patient flow, to, um, to make your life easier so you can provide the best possible medicine. 

[00:40:56] Kevin Ali: In today's episode, we learned how various leaders are working to evolve the landscape of reproductive medicine. Working together, we can drive innovation to help improve the aspiring parent's experience.

I'm Kevin Ali, CEO of Organon. Thank you for listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Organon, Organon is committed to championing care equity in fertility. By elevating education, expanding resources, and investing in innovative solutions, Organon stands with aspiring parents on their unique journeys. Learn more at FertilityJourney.com.

Announcer: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, nor does the Advertiser's sponsorship constitute an endorsement of the guest or their organization. The guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.

223 The $1 Billion Project to Automate the IVF Lab. Updates on the collective progress in the R&D Pipeline with Dr. Jacques Cohen

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


When will embryologists be robots?

Dr. Jacques Cohen, Chief Scientific Officer of Conceivable Life Sciences, walks us through the research and development currently underway for the automation of the IVF lab.

Tune in to hear Dr. Cohen discuss:

  • The next potential game changing innovations in IVF

  • His opinion on time-lapse incubation and its future in the lab

  • What the FDA doesn’t like about AI solutions

  • The $1B project to automating the IVF lab

Dr. Jacques Cohen
LinkedIn

Conceivable Life Sciences
IVF 2.0
IVFqc
LinkedIn
Instagram


Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Jacques Cohen: You don't go to a dentist hoping that your root canal is going to work or not. You go to a dentist and expect it to be a hundred percent successful. Maybe you got a little infection, but that can be treated, but you want it to be a hundred percent successful. And that's what we want in IVF. We want things to be a hundred percent successful, not 98%, not 80%, or what it is now in some clinics over 60%.

No, we want it to be a hundred percent. And we really want that as soon as possible. So, I think all this technology that we discussed today will play a role in that process. 

[00:00:33] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Future Fertility, the global leaders in AI powered oocyte quality assessment. Discover the power of magenta reports by Future Fertility.

These AI driven reports provide personalized oocyte quality insights to improve treatment planning and counseling for IVF ICSI patients. Magenta can help you to better identify the root cause of failed cycles and counsel patients on next steps to optimize treatment. Download a sample Magenta report plus four key counseling scenarios and see the difference it makes in patient care.

Visit futurefertility.com/ivf. That's futurefertility.com/ivf.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser.

The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:49] Griffin Jones: When will all the embryologists be robots? Soon enough, probably, but that's my speculation. For a more measured walkthrough of what's in the research and development pipeline, For the IVF lab, I bring in veteran lab director, veteran scientific director, Jacques Cohen, Dr. Jacques Cohen, as I should say. And many of you know him very well.

He is now the chief scientific officer of conceivable life sciences. They're working on fully automating the IVF lab. I have Jacques walk us through what they're doing at conceivable at other companies that he's involved with. And I have him walk us through what is preliminary, what's well established, and what's in between.

Is time lapse going to be a must have for embryologists within the next couple years? Dr. Cohen has an opinion. What does the FDA not like about AI solutions? Jacques tells me why and I never knew that. If PGTA and vitrification were among the biggest game changers in the IVF lab in the last decade, what are the next two?

Dr. Cohen walks us through what he thinks might easily be a collective 1 billion project in automating the IVF lab. Enjoy this conversation with Dr. Jacques Cohen. Dr. Cohen, Jacques, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:03:00] Dr. Jacques Cohen: It's a pleasure being here with you, Griff, and really looking forward to it.

[00:03:04] Griffin Jones: Maybe the pleasure should be mine because people say Jacques Cohen is a legend. Jacques Cohen is a legend. And I've worked in the field for nine years. And I think 2023 was the first year that we met in person. So I'm, I'm interesting to, to see if the legend lives up to the hype in this conversation. But many of our listeners are familiar with you already.

And I wanted to go through oftentimes, you know, sometimes I go into the past cause I'm curious about what led to the developments that got us here. I'm more interested in looking at what are today's nice to haves in terms of what's in the R and D pipeline in the IVF. lab that you think are going to be tomorrow's must haves and tomorrow might mean three years from now.

It might mean 11 years from now, but I want to explore that with you. And so maybe just give us a, maybe we just do a little bit in the past are what are a couple things that were nice to haves in the IVF lab a decade ago that are now must haves that any, that the vast majority of them. Embryologists wouldn't even, you know, want to operate in the IVF lab if they didn't have these things.

What are a couple things that were, were nice to have just a few years ago that are now must haves? 

[00:04:27] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Yeah, well, it all depends. Well, first of all, that depends, and it's a very good question, but it depends on, on where you are in the world. The philosophy, let's say in Japan, where there's a lot of IVF and a lot of programs, and they're very advanced.

It, it, it very much depends where you are. So, in Japan, they would focus on, on strictly single embryo transfer, nothing else is allowed. They would focus on minimal stimulation, which is done in this country, but only in a few laboratories and a few clinics. So it very much depends where you are. In the U. S., I think in the last 10 years.

The technologies have been kind of the same of the years before. It's always hard to give, to have a hard cut, right? Say it's 10 years, it's a 12 years, 15 years, but in, in that ballpark, I see, I think the most important things to do nowadays are, are, are fitifying at the blaster stage, incredibly successful that took, you know, honestly, that took from the early 80s, the first paper on, on, on, on, uh, Embryo fritification in an animal, in a mammal, that, that, that was, that was published in 1985.

And the results, frankly, were intriguing because nobody had thought it could freeze that fast, but the results weren't great. And that's why for many years, decades, really, nobody looked at fritification. And it's only in the last 10, 15 years that that's been implemented worldwide. Uh, and, and nowadays, uh, It's considered a must to have, not only for spare embryo freezing, but maybe freezing all the embryos.

Because one thing that is obvious and has become obvious slowly over time is that the cycles where the stimulation occurs are good for the ovaries and you get multiple eggs. Well, it's not good for the uterus and, or it's not optimal for the uterus. I should say, because of course there are a lot of fresh embryos that have never been frozen and are being transferred for like the stimulation cycles that just implant.

So that's one area. The other area that is very much now driven in, in, in. in IVF in the United States is of course PGTA, pre imaging genetic testing for aneuploidy. That has had seen a slow process as well. I think we're now close to 50 percent of all cycles where PGTA is being performed. So, some clinics, it's completely routine, and they do a big case as PGTA.

Other clinics are more careful or more selective, I should say, and do it maybe in a proportion of patients, whereas in some clinics, it may not be done at all, but the average is close to 50 percent in this country. It's very different from the rest of the world. There we kind of stand out, and this has not been happening overnight.

The data is very good. The data that we have gotten over the years is coming very slowly. There has been tremendous debate back and forth. Debate isn't finished yet, particularly internationally, on PGTA. But we see major advantages of this in this country, and particularly because it gives you a higher chance early on in your adventure as a patient having having MBLs transferred because what is striking with the, looking at the data now from, from SART, what is striking the, the, the, is that A lot of patients don't come back after one or two attempts, irrespective of their economic or insurance situation, they just don't come back.

And so you want to, you want to strike it when the iron is hot. You want to get an embryo transfer now, or the embryo is frozen and you get an embryo transfer in a couple of months or next month or three months from now. That is when people are not just motivated, but not exhausted yet, and yet unfortunately A very exhaustive process and most, and most, and most patients experience it like this.

Not everyone does, but most patients do. I think those are two areas where these are now considered must haves. You don't have to do PGTA in each patient. Also it's expensive and it's, it's, it's cumbersome. It's very time consuming for ambiologists and doctors and nurses. And so we want to maybe do it a bit more selective than some clinics do, but I do think it's of the total package.

It's not going to disappear anytime soon. So those two, fitification, PGTA, and, and they go hand in hand. I think PGTA wouldn't have happened on this scale without the success of fitification. They're very much tied in together. So those are two examples. 

[00:08:58] Griffin Jones: Your point that what is a nice to have in some areas might be a must to have, must have in other geographic areas and vice versa.

Makes me think of what I've been starting to learn about time-lapse incubation. I'm not a a scientist, I'm not an embryologist, so I don't know enough about the cost benefit. But all I can observe is that for some people, time lapse incubation appears to be an absolute must have for some people. It, it, they would, they would never work in a lab that didn't have TLI.

And there are many countries where TLI is the norm, but in the United States it seems like it hasn't really taken off. So can you tell me why that is? 

[00:09:42] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Yeah. Thank you for bringing up TL. I, I probably, uh, I'm, I'm more leaning towards the people who, who couldn't do without it. Not necessarily because I think it improves pregnancy, although I don't see a reason why it shouldn't.

It's nice to leave the embryos alone for the entire period. Um, you're, you're sitting in, you know, the embryos are basically in a, it is a robot, it's an incubation robot, and, and they're being photographed every few minutes or. Or every minute and each one at a time, you get a timeless video at the end. What is really, really good about this.

You have a permanent record of that patients and BOS at all times. It also, these incubators have been sought through with so much detail that they kind of are. on the high end side, and they have very, very good results. So, so why it hasn't happened in this country as much as, let's say, some countries in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, and then England?

I think, I think that is because maybe of the expenditures, and also we are very much data driven in this country, and that's because we have the luxury of looking up our own data. The data of our competitors and clinics in SAR and the CDC, and that is something, don't take it for granted because there is only maybe five, six countries in the world where we have data reporting that is, that's mandated.

And, and, and in most countries, and particularly in Europe, you, you see some data reporting, but it's very, very cursory. And so when we look at those other countries that have data reporting and we compare it, we try to compare it, it's a difficult process because there's so many other factors involved when you analyze data.

But if you try to compare it. I think we're a little better per embryo. I think we're a little better than, than let's say most of the European countries. And I know I'm sticking my head out here and I hope, hope nobody from Europe is watching. But if you are, I think that is the reason why we haven't jumped onto time lapse because all the time lapse, the initial five, six, seven years all came from European countries.

And but I, I think time lapse is, is here to stay. I think this is now the norm. But the reason I didn't mention it is because you set that 10 year limit and time lapse is now 15 years. We've had time lapse for 15 years, hundreds and hundreds of papers. I think it's pretty convincing. Um, things have been discovered we didn't know about before and there's still a long way to go.

So I think time lapse is not going to disappear. Yeah, I think it's the standard to leave the embryos alone while they're being watched by a machine. It's just a wonderful thing. You don't have to take them back and forth to an incubator. It's, it's, it's, it's an absolute must, but you know, they're expensive and they have to be maintained.

So there's an extra cost as well. I don't know if clinics charge an extra fee for it. I would be, that would be unusual, but maybe, maybe that is the case. I'm not, I don't know enough about that, but yeah, at least it drives up the cost for the clinic as well. Definitely. It's not just the investment. 

[00:12:46] Griffin Jones: Is, is the use of PGTA somehow related to adoption of, of time lapse incubators to that other countries don't, or they use time lapse incubators more because they don't use PGTA.

I've heard something like that, but I don't understand, but I don't understand the rationale. Can you explain that? 

[00:13:07] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Well, there are a few papers that have suggested that if you look at embryo development using time lapse, not using, using the, the archaic manual systems, if you use time lapse, there is a correlation with euploidy.

is normal chromosome detection and abnormal chromosome detection. It's being debated. There's very few papers about this, but that's one of, you hear people, indeed, you're quite right. You hear people say, well, specialists say, you hear say, well, I do, I do time lapse. I don't need to, I don't need PGTA. I hear that less the other way around, but I hear, hear that, hear you say, hear that.

that occasionally, but I think, I think our reaction in this country of not using time lapse is mostly associated because we have the data to show we have so much detail. There's so much information going inside a CDC that's not published in the national report that you do not see in the individual clinic reporting of SARC, which is fairly extensive, very detailed.

It's not, we don't see that in any country, including, including the UK. But it has been data reporting for less, less time, but data reporting nationally has been happening in 1988. It's quite an, in 1987. I mean, it's, it's, it's unbelievable, 35 years of it. And, and if you compare it to our Southern neighbor, Mexico, where there are a lot of good clinics.

There is no national data reporting. That is the norm for, for 80 or 90 percent of all countries in the world, including the ones that do a lot of IVF, including China, where there probably now is much more IVF than anywhere in the world, and including India. But there's also an enormous ton of patients.

Tons of patients that are being treated there, although the accessibility for the country's population is very, very limited because it's all, it's all out of pocket. So it's still a small population, but because it's so many people, there's a lot of IVF cycles being done. None of that is nationwide reported.

We do not know how well these clinics do. 

[00:15:10] Griffin Jones: I want to make sure I understand this relationship between the comprehensiveness of data reporting and time lapse incubation. Is it that other countries where there isn't this national level of reporting where they can see other clinic success rates and the other data points?

Is it, is it they're getting something from time lapse incubators that, They're getting a level of data from time lapse incubators that that they need because they're not getting from a wider pool of data. Or is the United States, because we have a wider pool of data, we're not convinced by the value of time lapse incubators.

I'm, I'm, I want to make sure that I understand the relationship and I don't think that I do. 

[00:15:56] Dr. Jacques Cohen: No, no, and I think that maybe I've, I've slightly misled it, misled you, because, because listen, you need to know the data in order to go forward and understand how well, how, how, where you, where you lag or how well you are doing.

You need to have data, data feedback so that you can compare with your colleagues and other clinics. Time, that's data and actual fact. It's not really entered in the SART data reports in the, you know, that, that would overload the system so much because timelapse, as you know, generates an enormous amount of data on, on an M, on the individual embryo level, on the individual oocyte and sperm level, the data that goes into SART and other national reporting sites in other country.

is, is limited or none. So that, that data is very independent from, from the argument I made, which is, you need to know that data. And I think that data has driven this process. In our country, we've just looked at like, look how we are doing. We have a national report. And if we look at that national report, yeah, we are slightly better than other countries.

I only, Do the comparison looking at individual embryos, because if you look at it on a patient level, well, some patients will have two embryos, quite a lot still. Most will have now one embryo, which is what has changed in the last 10 years. But it's difficult then to compare. What you really have to do is compare on each embryo that's being transferred, how many led to live births.

How many implanted, how many led to live births. You're going to get a live birth rate per embryo that's transferred. And if you compare that to other dead populations that are out there, I think we are clearly better corrected for confounders and confounder is a factor that affects the outcomes.

Maternal age is the most important confounder, but there are probably hundreds. My colleague of mine called Rusty Poole from Texas has, has published this years ago and he came with more than 200 co founders and he was probably being modest. There are probably more, in other words, those are all factors that affect the outcome.

So, it is a little difficult to look at another country and say, well, this is what you're They're not doing as well. But if we just look at if they report on maternal age groups, we can make the comparison. And that's what we do. Often counties will only compare patients over 40 and lower than 40. If you look at it per age, 35, 36, 37, 38, they compare all age groups.

You see that drop off in panacea rate and an increase in abnormal chromosomes. and aneuploidy. Highly correlated with each other. That's why we have gone to the PGTA route. We, and also the sync. We think we're syncing PGTA because, yeah, you may be, you may be living in a country. So I'm originally from the Netherlands and in the Netherlands, you get three free treatments for everybody.

It's for everybody. You have three, three treatments. That is three egg retrievals. You can have 10 transfers, all included and free. So you could have 12. Okay. Also there, you see a drop off and how patients returning. It's just, it's just, it's striking that not everybody necessarily the pleats, all the embryos that have been frozen.

It's striking. And that may even be, they may, it may even have PGTA. So they know they have no embryos that look nice, that have normal chromosomes and they do not return. And so, therefore, you need to get, you need to get the first shot is the most important thing. The first and the second, the second attempt are the most important.

Some patients react differently to this. I'm, I'm, I'm not trying to generalize. Some patients say, well, no, I'm going to go for this. I will take a look at every embryo that I have and have that transferred one at a time. And if that doesn't work, I'll have another act of retrieval. But that's, that is not the norm.

[00:19:45] Griffin Jones: Do you think that time lapse will become the norm in the United States, that it will be a must have in the next some years that Embryologists will demand it if they if they've gotten a taste of it elsewhere And they then perceive it as the is the standard or do you think it will continue to be an option?

[00:20:06] Dr. Jacques Cohen: That, that is a hard prediction to make. I think, I unfortunately don't have the data saying, well, how many clinics out of the 400 clinics, how many of those have time lapse and use it all the time? 

[00:20:17] Griffin Jones: I'm guessing it's less than 20%, right? And I don't, I don't know. I don't know how much it is, but it's probably, it's maybe 10%, maybe between 10 and 20.

Yeah. That's, that's a, that's a guess. 

[00:20:28] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Yeah. But let's not forget that if we would know those numbers, which we don't, if we would know that number and would know how much it is in the Netherlands, right? So how many, how many time lapse clinics are there in the Netherlands? How many are there in the UK? Well, there are frankly, we don't have the numbers.

We think everybody in Europe is using time lapse, I can assure you they don't. And it's the same for them saying, well, every, every, every patient in the United States gets PGT-A. They were saying that about us 20 years ago, and it was only a few percent. Right. And now it's just climbing up to 50%. So it's hard.

So once you know those numbers, it's always striking to see that there's not necessarily the norm and that it's just the frequency. Their frequency is probably higher than ours. But I think, I think you have to, now, now we're driven by large clinic networks. And, and, and so they often look at the bottom line and time lapse is more expensive, not just buying an incubator.

The incubator is just one expense. It's just embryology spent more time analyzing the data that comes unless you have a fully automated process and data analysis, which, which, which involve AI, artificial intelligence, and those packages have been approved in Europe or are used. experimentally and they have not been approved in the United States necessarily.

So the European clinics have much newer versions of their software and AI analyses than we do. We, we still have to do it kind of by hand. I think that may be changing and maybe I'm a few months behind and it was approved, but it's very difficult to get. An IVF related AI or any clinical AI that's based on, on, on machine learning, uh, and neural networks.

It's very difficult. to get those, uh, approved by the FDA, simply because the FDA loves algorithms that are stuck. So in other words, it's the same algorithm that's approved, but if you're changing the algorithm because you have AI feedback, well, then you have an intelligence system. And that they, they haven't gone into that very much in that they're, they're, they're worried about it, I guess.

I, it's hard to tell, but I think that they're worried about it. So. The Europeans have that advantage over us. They have more updated time lapse software than we do. So that is a big difference. 

[00:22:44] Sponsor: In IVF, the sperm, embryo, and endometrium are all evaluated to set and optimize treatment plans. Yet we remain in the dark about oocyte quality, a critical factor in successful outcomes.

To date, IVF There has been no standard of care for assessing oocytes. At best, general age based estimates are provided, which incorrectly assume that all patients of the same age have the same quality. This creates so much untapped potential for clinicians to better manage patient expectations for success, while creating treatment plans tailored for each patient's unique oocyte quality.

Future fertility has addressed this gap in care, enabling your clinic to drive a superior patient experience while optimizing IVF outcomes. Future Fertility developed the world's first clinically validated AI powered Oocyte assessment. Magenta, made for IVF ICSI patients, integrates seamlessly with any lab, with or without time lapse, to deliver objective and personalized Oocyte quality insights.

Magenta leverages the industry's largest oocyte dataset to provide oocyte quality scores that directly correlate with blastocyst development and blastocyst quality. These unprecedented insights are a game changer in helping you uncover the root cause for unsuccessful cycles, enabling you to plan more precise strategies for future cycles while delivering a superior data driven patient experience.

Let Magenta become your partner in fertility planning, transforming the way your clinic approaches treatment and counseling for IVF ICSI patients. Visit their website today at futurefertility.com/ivf to receive your free sample report plus four key patient scenarios where Magenta Insights can transform your treatment planning.

That's futurefertility.com/ivf.

[00:24:56] Griffin Jones: Is it that European regulators have accounted for the machine learning feedback in algorithms and they, they have a different criteria for, for algorithms where the FDA? prefers one set algorithm or, or what, uh, or already set algorithms as opposed, as opposed to adjustable algorithms.

Is there a difference in, in how the European regulators look at it? 

[00:25:22] Dr. Jacques Cohen: That, that I don't know. I presume there is. There's one or two countries, there may be more that have said, well, let's see, let's wait and see about this and accept it as it is. I see the UK is one of those, whereas in the U S it's no. No, no, we're interested and we will evaluate this, but we need to know more about it.

So I think the FDA is more conservative than the European regulators, but I don't really have numbers and it may be different from country to country, but I know some countries have said, well, let's, you know, let's look at, let's not panic, which is what we do about AI a lot. We panic and we say, well, this is going to take over from us, so it's going to do.

funny stuff. You know, you don't get checked GPT, you know, but it hallucinates, as they say, well, AI packages in healthcare do that too. And I think, I think you can avoid that because you can have a very solid mechanism that, that catches that. And those AIs are not comparable to the large language model, but I think the Europeans have a more, a little bit more open minded about AI than we are.

[00:26:23] Griffin Jones: As we look into the research pipeline, does it make sense to talk about robotics first or to talk about AI first? 

[00:26:31] Dr. Jacques Cohen: They go hand in hand. Yeah, they go hand in hand. So, so the, the, the time, some of the time lapse incubators, this doesn't apply to all time lapse incubators, but, but some of them have, have, it is a robotic system, right?

You put a little dish inside an opening and then that dish is taken away and goes inside incubator and it's photographed all the time. And AI is applied to it, at least to one or two of them. Or two types of incubators. And, and, and you got basically a reading tells you, well, we recommend that you transfer the following or freeze these four embryos and recommend that you can choose one of this is the best one.

According to us, but it doesn't mean you have to do that, of course, but that, that level is, is very different from what we have and where we are. I hope that answers your question. 

[00:27:19] Griffin Jones: So it, well, they, they go hand in hand and, and whenever there's a chicken and egg question, I remember that I remember a quote that David Sable told me like two or three years ago.

He said the entrepreneur's job is to solve the chicken and the egg. And so our, right now is our, where are we further ahead in your view? Are we further ahead in the development of the robotics or are we further ahead in the development of the AI? Bye. 

[00:27:48] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Okay. So just, yeah, no, very nice. It's a very good point.

We, I see, I think, uh, I think there's a lot of effort in AI and also now a lot of effort in robotics. Robotics started earlier. The first papers are from 2007, 2008. Uh, mostly coming from Montreal from new songs, a program professor, you saw at Toronto university, you know, at, at university of Montreal and, and, and he and his group have been building this up for the last 15 years slowly and more and more interest now, at least five, six efforts in companies that have started up in the last few years, starting different aspects of IVF or studying the entire IVF process and see if all of it can be automated or maybe should you just focus at one particular aspect.

AI is, has had a tremendous interest because robotics. It's on a different economic level, robotics is relatively expensive, whereas AI is very doable. And you can, you can develop nice AI packages for relatively limited amounts of money. And so there are a lot of AI companies, uh, David Sable, you just mentioned him, he and his colleagues calculate that the.

There was a few months ago, there were 35. Uh, I wouldn't be surprised if we're over 40 and also wouldn't be surprised that the researchers missed several of them because they are basically, basically not noticeable. These could be companies or, or clinics or university groups that are not noticeable because they haven't published yet or they haven't really been loud enough as a matter of speaking and they're being loud enough that you know about them.

There could be as many as 50. So that is an explosion and most of them focus on embryo selection. Well, I can tell you that, that, that it's going to end up in the typical civic and valley frequency, 95 percent of them will fail. Maybe higher, but this cannot be sustained, particularly because they're competing with established methods.

The established methods are time lapse, morphology analysis, development rate. If you don't lose time lapse, there are other methods and also PGTA. So you're going, going up against 40 years of IVF and to see that replaced overnight, it's just not going to happen easily. But what is nice about an AI is you can just ignore it.

I think AIs need to be either for free or affordable. It's very affordable. So if PCTA means that you charge, let's say, 100 per MVO, an AI should be a few dollars per MVO. Also free. That's, that's my opinion. Because all of this is just somebody's opinion. An intelligence system that's looked at a lot of data and has come to conclusions that are maybe holding up or not.

We don't, we don't have enough papers yet that it is really making much of a difference. I've been involved in one effort and that seems very interesting. But. That's just one and a couple more that have been published, but you know, the advantage of AI is it's simply to, it has to be simple in terms of installing.

You just download a program and you get an interface to work or your, or your system in the lab and it shouldn't involve hardware. So it's very easy. It's just like an app on a phone, but you need input of data, morphological data. You need Maybe photographic or video data input, but if it's time lapse, then you need that kind of input, more, more hard, more computer hardware needed.

If it's just still pictures, it's very easy to do, and you really literally could do it on your phone. And then you get an opinion, and if you don't like that opinion, as an embryologist or a doctor, It's usually nowadays that, that's a, that's a team decision which I'm able to transfer or which I'm able to solve first.

Then you, then you, you can use an AI. If you don't like it, you got another AI. And if you like them both for different reasons, and you have tested two, why not use them both? Then you have two opinions. That's all it is. It's an opinion and it's an assistant. It's not, this is not what you should necessarily be doing.

You, you're, you're, you're. You're the end point of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. AIs cannot compete with you, but they can do one particular thing, one particular thing very well, particularly if they are based on experience of other clinics and you may be in a small clinic and you could use that experience and that, that, so it is democratizing in a way the solutions that you're building in the IVF lab by making use of an AI or it is an assistant.

So that's. A very big, big difference with robotics, where you have to develop, you have to imitate what an ambiologist is doing, what the lab technician is doing. The lab technicians that we, that, that are nowadays, they have been trained for years and experience counts, and you can just see that in a lab.

You don't see many publications showing. results of embryologist expressed of how they perform in the, in the lab, but it can assure you there are differences. And of course, as a lab manager, a lab director, you try to minimize that, but it's, it's, it's, it's, it's amazing that the robot is basically being put in place, replacing that kind of experience.

I personally think it's doable and I think it's going to happen. The timeline, I'm not sure about. Some of these applications could be a couple of years away. Others may take longer. It's hard to say. I hear all sorts of numbers out there. Some people think it will take a generation or two. Others are saying it's going to be a few years.

The truth, the truth we'll find out later. This is going to happen. There are some procedures that embryologists either don't like doing. Or maybe not so good at, you know, you get tired in the lab. When you do a lot of procedures, you get tired and you have good days and bad days. A robot, if it's well developed and well tested, it doesn't have good base, good days and bad days.

It doesn't bring out what it's experiencing at home into the lab. It doesn't look at this phone and pick up the phone or text. It's not distracted. It's, it's, it's an idiotic system that's very, very focused on one particular task and, and that, and that's how you use it. And then it can be very, very helpful.

We developed the sperm selection AI. I don't see if you, once you have had that, I think that is such a wonderful thing to have. It, it, it actually makes your decision faster and you know, you know, you can use it all the time. But you can ignore it. And that's the beauty of AI, whereas if you have a robot in place, well, you would have to stop the process and go into the robot and take the embryos out, or the eggs out, and interrupt the process.

So a robot has to be very, very well tested before it's implemented on a routine basis. It's a very different process. I, I, I think it, it will literally take hundreds of millions of dollars to develop robotic systems. And it probably, if you add it all up, and once you're done, let's say in five years from now, you add it all up, what all our efforts have been, this could be a billion dollar project, maybe more.

So, so AI, where if you can get data from different clinics, you're in, you're in a good place to develop an AI product that could make, could make a difference. Thanks. 

[00:35:04] Griffin Jones: So, when you say that you think that the AI should be either affordable or, or, or very, very low cost or free, do you mean as, uh, as a pass on to the patient?

And do you mean for as long as it is simply as good as an opinion as, uh, an embryologist or a clinician? 

[00:35:27] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Yeah, it goes both ways, right? So if it's a, if it's an add on cost to the clinic, it often is passed on to the patient and discounted. I think this is on a level that it shouldn't be. I've always been surprised that if you are able.

at some point in time to make maybe a difference with a new technology in terms of success rate, whether that's higher fertilization, whether it means that you can get more embryos to develop by changing things in your culture system. We don't pass that on to our patients directly. But there's sometimes these, these develops, like PGTA is of course a good example because it's so labor intense and costly.

But there are others, like assisted hatching used to be in the past, and, and clinics would charge a fee for something that takes a few minutes. And I don't think, I, I personally never felt comfortable about that. I think that, that is, that's often a decision of administrators, but the practitioners may not feel comfortable about these things.

So, we need to tinker on the, with the culture system, which is still the major. research line that exists, right? We're talking usually about sexy things like robotics and AI, and gametogenesis, artificial syntax, making synthetic sperm and eggs. I mean, those are the big sexy projects out there. Most of our research is about how can we make things better and safer?

And those are spreading tiny little steps and suggestions in the scientific literature. And that's where we focus most of our energy. It goes back to your earlier question, because that's really, that's really improving the culture system is never going to change. We will always think of Mr. Culture system.

That is a research line. That's incredibly important. Big breakthroughs in the last 40 years in that area. But because You know, if you change the culture medium ingredients and test different culture media against each other, and I've been hundreds of those trials, people don't get overwhelmed by that.

The lay people out there, they don't, they don't see that as something they're necessarily interested in, but that's why we got better. The cultures making changes to the culture systems, why we have gotten better over, over the decades. That will, that will not stop. That's not going to stop. That's going to continue.

[00:37:44] Griffin Jones: Will the AI not get to a point where it's better than an opinion, where it's better than the average opinion of the average embryologist and average clinician? Will we not get to a point where the AI has the closest to certainty? 

[00:38:00] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Well, that's a loaded question. It all depends on, on what your end point is.

If your end point is helping an, uh, an ambriologist setting up instruments and timing themselves, uh, you could develop an AI. We have developed an AI that's tracking the ambriologist. And I think there, you're probably going to say at some point, well, this is your guide. It's basically somebody who's keeping the books, right?

It's telling you, well, that those tools are, this tool is not looking good. Get another tool. You know, you need to position this differently. Oh, well, one second. You don't see there's a hole in this zone of Pellucida, you know, their AIs can actually take over and, and, or take over, help you to, in such an extent, you're going to ignore it.

Definitely. The decision AIs, those that are not observing and just helping you, but are making decisions, not necessarily for you, but making decisions like this is the best sperm. This is the best ag. This is the best embryo in their opinion. That's an opinion. Is that going to be equivalent to what you would come up at some point?

Yes, I think it will be. I think it will not only be an equivalent, it will be better than what we have come up with. But this is a development. Is that going to be a year from now? I'll be very surprised. Five or 10 years from now. It's going to be, it's going to be there. And look how long it take, took to get PGTA somewhat accepted in this country.

It took 15 years, maybe longer. With AI, it's going to be in the same timeline. So for every, every clinician, every embryologist to be, to accept that technology will take a long time. Uh, but I have little doubt that it's going to be at least as good as what we do, if not better. 

[00:39:46] Griffin Jones: Are you using it right now in the IVF lab, or do you use it to grade cases?

[00:39:51] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Yeah, I'm not running an IVF lab anymore since, since at least a year. But when you're consulting? Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I definitely, I definitely suggest it. There are AIs you can get for free or for very little. There are some that are charging hundreds of dollars per embryo. I don't understand that. It's a changing algorithm.

And I, I don't understand why it has to be that expensive, certainly wouldn't have cost that much to develop. So, so I think, I think should be for very little or for free. And I, I am consulting people say, well, these should get for you for very little or for free. And you could use several of them. That's, that's my advice.

Don't, don't use one embryo selection AI, but use several. If it's, if it's reasonably priced or for free, then that's what you should do. And you got, you got, you got, and then you can basically keep track of that data. See what you thought as an embryologist, for instance, what did you think should be transferred?

What did the two AIs think? And then you can get some analysis later on. You've done a thousand of those after a year or two years and then analyze that data. See if it has worked for you. Are you just kicking AI out, right? It's just turning over an app, just turning over an app. It's not a big deal. I think, I think a lot of it should be for free.

[00:41:05] Griffin Jones: With regard to robotics, you said that this will end up being a hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly a billion dollar project to fully automate the IVF lab. How far into that billion dollar project are we? 

[00:41:22] Dr. Jacques Cohen: I think we're over 100 million, but they're probably between 100 and 200 million right now. I mean, if you just look at Overture, that's already 150 million, I think, so, so we're probably at a quarter, quarter, quarter billion or 300 million in that ballpark, and I really don't have figures.

You know, that's the amazing thing, really, really hard to find out, but we're already probably 300, 400 million up there. I'm changing the numbers as I speak, but, but, but it's, it's a, it's a guess. I think within a few years we'll be at a billion. That, that's, so that includes all the companies. That doesn't mean that the, that one company that is serious about robotics is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, that you could actually focus into robotics.

And if you only are interested, let's say in, in finding eggs during egg retrieval to automate that process, you're probably looking at procedures that probably could be quite inexpensive to apply. But if you're looking at a fully automated robotic. Existation, which doesn't exist yet, or at least has not been published.

There you're looking at a massive amount of AIs, and you're looking at very intricate, very, very subtle and tested robotics and automation. There you're probably looking at a relatively expensive instrument to develop. So that will cost you many, many millions but yeah, if you look at the total effort, really a billion is not so you know, I'm being pushed back all the time when I say this, but is it really if you're already up to 300 million now, by the end before it's fully automated, which I think will take a while, fully automated will take a while.

Easy to predict it will be. 

[00:42:59] Griffin Jones: And so within that system, what pieces have we established in the last two to four years? And what pieces are still missing? 

[00:43:12] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Okay. So what we have established are preliminary data in most procedures, except for one. And that is tomorrow, the tomorrow system based in New York City.

I'm on the advisory board and I've been associated with them since the early days in 2018. So they have developed two robots that will label embryos or their little devices that they're held in during the verification process and cryo store all the samples. So cryo storage, which was which has been notorious in terms of mishaps over time.

These, these refrigerators, we call them dealers. These refrigerators can fail as all machines can. And so they, they are under a very harsh and then a very harsh environment and they will fail at some point, but it could take 20, 25 minutes before, before these fail. When that happens, it's a disaster. Also, what happens a lot, it's a lot of errors being made.

Because there are all sorts of good reasons for that. Almost all labs will have errors, at least in communication or errors in, in, uh, in the data processing of individual embryos and eggs. And so it's very common. So we want a more secure method. And RFID chips, which is of course an electronic way of labeling, Each embryo separately.

That, that had to be introduced. And it has been done, and TAMUA uses that technology. And then takes, takes a tube filled with a device that has the embryo stuck to it, that's already fittified, keeps it cold. And then sticks it in a pre programmed place. The advantage for the clinic is that they have immediately a log.

If you tell ambiologists, let's audit our, our units. Doers. Let's order a cryo storage lab. It could be 60 doers. There could be thousands and thousands of patients, embryos in there. Everybody looks for the exit. All the ambiologists are looking for the exit because it's so much work. 

[00:45:09] Griffin Jones: Yeah. 

[00:45:10] Dr. Jacques Cohen: And you're going to find things you don't like.

And so. Here and all that is, literally, you take your, you take your, your phone, you take your phone, you click on it, you have done your audit. It doesn't matter if there are 10, 000 embryos there or a million embryos. It will be a second thing after audit. You know exactly where they are and that they are still there.

That system has been put together by tomorrow. That is a robot that is in place and that's available now. There is, there are two other robots that have been developed. for our field, except for time lapse, which of course is a robotic system. Two other robots which have to do with part of the fitification procedure.

Fitification consists of four or five parts, and one of those has been been available already from Overture in Spain and Genia in Australia. The Genia one is at least 10 years old, but because it only does one in four, of the aspects of the procedure and biologists, including me, frankly, have never been interested.

Why would you have a robot where you do the other three procedures and the robot does the fourth part? I want one that hears the dish, frees this, and I then want the frozen embryos to come out and go in something like a tumoral system also automatically. So I don't have to be worried about it, and I get the data in my EMR.

That's really what I, what I want as an embryologist, because that'd be very, very helpful. Fidification is one of these things where experienced embryologists get very, very good at it. But it's, it takes a while to teach somebody to understand all the little details. details of it, and really start being excellent about it.

And so there, robotics would make a major difference. And Xe would make a major difference in things like egg finding, sperm prep, all of those procedures, yeah, so it would make a difference. 

[00:47:07] Griffin Jones: Are there people working on each of those areas right now? Automating AXE, AXE automating, egg freezing, is that, are we in sort of a race to see which company develops that first?

Or is that in very preliminary stages? 

[00:47:24] Dr. Jacques Cohen: It's right now, if I'm to guess and going by the literature, which is maybe only a couple of dozen papers, it's in preliminary stages, but it's getting closer. I think we'll see entirely a series of robotic systems being published in the next year or two, the first stages of that, before robotics becomes really implemented on a routine basis.

also involving the regulatory aspects that are sometimes needed for that, depending on the situation, depending on the type of robotics. I think you'll see, you'll see that that will take, of course, always a lot longer before something comes in team, but within the next months or years, you're going to, you're going to get papers where people are planning.

I can do X finding, not find all that. And I should find out maybe finding more X than I thought that worked. So, so that those things are going to happen probably sooner than, than. And then later, because there are quite a few efforts worldwide. I mean, I said five or six early on. It may be more than that.

Maybe a lot of, a lot of things, but the, so there are two, there are two types of robotics initiatives, companies that are looking at every aspect. And then there are companies, uh, looking at particular application. I don't know what's the better, best approach, but that's, that's, that seems to be what's, what's going on right now.

[00:48:40] Griffin Jones: How about with regard to non invasive genetic testing, non invasive biopsying of the embryo? And I have to give credit to your colleague, Cynthia Hudson, for planting this idea in my mind, because after her interview, she said, shoot, I wish I Thought and talked more about that and, and so she gets credit for, for putting the, the idea in my mind to ask the question, but how, how close do we are, are, are, are, are there preliminary papers about that or, or are we really far away?

[00:49:12] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Now, I say about preliminary paper, Stephanie, um, what are two approaches if you have an AI that selects embryos based on the development of the embryo and, and use machine vision to analyze embryos, that is kind of non invasive, right? That's non invasive embryo selection. And, and that could be trained on, on, on whether embryos are genetically normal or not.

I mean, I've been involved in an effort, it's a company called IVF 2. 0 based in Mexico. We've developed an AI called Erica and Erica was trained, really only trained on embryos. On a lot of MBLs, looking at whether they were normally, whether they had normal chromosomes or abnormal chromosome counts. So whether they were euploid or aneuploid.

Yes. The data was also provided there, which one of those MVOs would make a pregnancy or not, and which one miscarries or not. But the basic training set was euploidy versus aneuploidy. And so that is a non invasive way of doing PGTA, but probably Cynthia was hinting not at that, but at taking a sample from the culture medium.

Where the blastocyst has been, provided the blastocyst was by itself. And then, and then analyzing that chemically or maybe taking a sample of the fluid that's inside the blastocyst, as you know, the blastocyst is fluid filled and the cells are on the outside. Taking a sample from that. Both of those approaches have been done.

Interesting data. But for me, the most interesting paper is if you find DNA there that comes from ambiose, you could wonder, well, why, why is that? Why did that DNA come there? And the group in Bologna in on the, on the Luca Girodi's leadership in Bologna, Italy, they have found recently and published that if you find DNA, The culture fluid that the chances of fantasy of dose ambose is actually significantly lower than the embryos that do not have DNA in their culture media.

And so embryonic, DNA in the culture media, so that tells you, you may be finding DNA and that may help you what anomaly you're gonna find, but it also means what the DNA is there, that's already not a good sign. The advantage of this finding is that you could just test for DNA and that's very affordable.

Just looking at DNA. Rather than getting information back, you have to confirm it has to be embryonic DNA. Once you confirm that, that's all you need to know. If that's there, that embryo probably should be chosen not up front compared to embryos where you could not find the DNA, the embryonic DNA. So, because why would they lose cells?

Well, that means something's going wrong in that embryo. That means that cells die. or lice, and all the, all the content comes out, including the chromosomes and the DNA. That's why they end up in the medium. It's probably not the best sign that it's there. So in my, in my opinion, that kind of non invasive DNA assessment, chromosome assessment, if you like, has a future.

Particularly if you can just, in an easy way, sample the culture medium, say, in a 15 minute test, there's embryonic DNA there, yes or no, and that has a future. To get details of that embryonic DNA, I think that is far, far short. I would, I would go with the AIs looking for embryo selection based on just data and morphology, PGTA data, and, and choose those AIs, and, and already have a dozen of them.

I would look for those. the answers that those have to offer. That's also non invasive PGTA. So whether it's a very good point, non invasive PGTA, getting rid of biopsy is something that we need to try. We really need to focus on that because biopsy is difficult. It's difficult and it's expensive. 

[00:53:09] Griffin Jones: So, it sounds like getting rid of biopsying is on the preliminary end of the spectrum, on the very preliminary end of the spectrum, whereas it sounds like something more like the robotic labeling of embryos and the cryo storage inventory of tomorrow is on the mature side of the, of the spectrum.

What's in the middle right now? 

[00:53:32] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Well, I think the efforts on ICSI, one of them has been published, the Overture Group in Spain, and MBA Tools Lab in Barcelona. They looked, there was an editorial with that paper, they looked and the editor calculated how many of the steps were actually automated. It was a modest number, but nevertheless, that's never been done before and had, had fantasies.

So this was published. Just a few months ago or half a year ago. And I think that that tells you that there is a lot of work done in that area. There's work done on all aspects. I think on the fertification side, I think there's work done to complete those procedures, not look at one part of the procedure, but the entire set of procedures, and it's the same of all aspects.

So we have done, the field has accomplished making culture, the culture system. Robotic. It has accomplished making the acquired storage systems through tomorrow robotic and, and, and it's, it's, it's looking, it's obviously looking at all the other aspects, which means sperm prep, automation, sperm prep, and, and that, that, that's going forward in strides or making it at least so simple that only involves one or two activities by embryologists on andrology donations.

At finding in the laboratory, there's of course an egg finding or egg retrieval. There's two. There's two efforts going on. It's the surgeon, it's the gynecologist or the, the IE extracting follicular fluid. And then the, that follicular fluid goes through the lab and the embryologist looks through the follicular fluid in very shallow layers, so they decant it into battery dishes and look very quickly for acts.

And sometimes those are hiding, sometimes they sit in blood clots. So it's a bit of an art. It needs to be done in, in a, in a. In a timely fashion, you can't take hours, you need to do this in minutes. So that can be automated, the laboratory part can be automated. I stay away from the clinical part, I think in true course that can be automated too.

But the laboratory part can be automated and you'll probably see the first data sets coming out in the next year. 

[00:55:36] Griffin Jones: How about the systems being developed by Conceivable for automating the IVF lab, where does that fall in the, in the spectrum of preliminary to mature? for listening. 

[00:55:46] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Okay, so Consiglio Rouvas is now 12 months old.

I'm the Chief Scientific Officer. So we are looking at trying to automate all aspects of the IVF procedure. And there's at least one other group out there that's trying to do the same. So we're looking at egg retrieval, sperm preparation, we're looking at, you know, Denudation, the process where you strip cumulus cells away from the eggs before they go to eggsheep.

Automation, the full automation of the entire eggsheep process we're looking at, we're looking at full fertification. We're also looking at automation in, in the embryo culture system because we feel that the culture systems are very expensive. So we want to come up It's culture systems and timelines that are much more affordable.

So we're working on that and we're, we're working on full certification with the tomorrow system at the end to cryo store the MVO. So it is, it is the idea is to do all of these processes and then string them together. 

[00:56:49] Griffin Jones: I feel like I've gotten a really good look into the pipeline today, and you've also made a few points to me that really educated me on why time lapse hasn't been adopted to the level that it has in other countries, why the FDA has not approved it.

Uh, AI algorithms. And so I want to give you the concluding floor. How would you like to conclude about the, the research and development pipeline in the IVF lab? 

[00:57:22] Dr. Jacques Cohen: Well, I think, I think overriding what we do in the United States is the fact that funding is so difficult to come by. The largest funding agency in the world is NIH.

And they found, found, what is it, 60, 60, 70 billion in healthcare research. Thank you very much. Why don't they fund the IVF lab? Since IVF started in the early 1980s in this country, I think the first lab is from 1981, the Norfolk lab. There has not been a single. experiment. A single observational set has been funded by NIH.

There's a moratorium on embryo research since the, since the late 1970s, since 1979. That's now by law. So there cannot be any public money spent on human embryo research. It's outrageous because Everything we try to do in IVF, we have to actually go and do this on patients and spend private monies rather than public money.

And so, yes, we can study IVF and do IVF related research in animal systems. But at the end, if you look, for instance, at chromosomal anomalies, there's no animal system that's helpful. You have to find out in the human. So embryo biopsy studies have been very slow to come by. It's because there's not been any.

NIH funding available. I think we have to frame it like that. People saying, well, this is going very slowly. There is progress each year. If you, if you look at the data analysis and, and two of my colleagues, Alex Bissignano and Mina Alikani and I published a paper in 2012, where we looked at fine combed, uh, um, SAR data and found that there is progression in outcomes per embryo of, of 0.

9 percent a year, year by year. That was only a 10 year analysis and it includes all the clinic, but I've, I've looked since then. And it's going up by 0. 9 percent a year. It's more profound in young patients. In patients younger than 35, it's one and a half percent per year, but it is going up. So in other words, we're doing a lot of good things, but it is very, very slow.

Do we have the patience? Do we have the patience to go, to go this slowly? to where it becomes as good as dentistry, right? We go to a dentist, and you don't go to a dentist hoping that your wood canal is going to work or not. You go to a dentist and expect it to be 100 percent successful. Maybe you got a little infection, but that can be treated.

But you want it to be 100 percent successful. And that's what IVF. We want things to be 100 percent successful. Not 98%, not 80%, or what it is now in some clinics over 60%. No, we want it to be 100%. And we really want that as soon as possible. So I think all this technology that we discussed today will, will, will help us.

Play a role in that process, but it's not only technology driven. It's not only technology driven that we go up by 0. 9 percent per embryo in this country each year in terms of implantation and life births. It's not just technology. It's also communication. So what you do, communicating to the community. Uh, conferences, other webinars.

Training is very important in this country. There has always been a lot of emphasis in training. Our doctors s are trained, that's very unique in the world. In, in other countries is usually usually an OB GYN or, or a GP that becomes an IBF specialist. And could they become good at it? Oh yeah, they could become really good at it, but it's a little bit more tedious to do it that way.

And so. So, I think training also of embryologists has changed a lot over the last 20 years. All of those factors, particularly the communication and the awareness, creating the awareness of all this and having a discussion and comparing our data and comparing our methodology, that is making as much a difference to just saying what's all driven by new technology.

It's not just new technology. But the new technology could be introduced a lot faster if we had NIH funding. And we don't. 

[01:01:33] Griffin Jones: Dr. Jacques Cohen, I look forward to having you back on to look at the updates on the research and development pipeline in the IVF lab. I enjoyed this conversation today. Thank you for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

[01:01:46] Dr. Jacques Cohen: It was a pleasure. Pleasure. Thank you, Griffin. 

[01:01:50] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Future Fertility, the global leaders in AI powered oocyte quality assessment. Discover the power of magenta reports by Future Fertility. These AI driven reports provide personalized oocyte quality insights to improve treatment planning and counseling for IVF ICSI patients.

Magenta can help you to better identify the root cause of failed cycles and counsel patients on next steps to optimize treatment. Download a sample Magenta report plus four key counseling scenarios and see the difference it makes in patient care. Visit futurefertility.com/ivf. That's futurefertility.com/ivf

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

This has been another episode of the Inside Reproductive Health Podcast. Tune in for a new lineup of episodes premiering in June, where we'll be taking a tour of the C suite with a powerful new series featuring CEOs from some of the largest fertility networks in the world. We can't wait to share these inspiring conversations with you.

Until then, stay informed of the latest fertility news with our weekly digest, delivering curated content straight to your inbox every Thursday. Stay tuned for more updates and thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

222 More Data Than Any Other IVF Lab? CARE Fertility’s Massive 14 Year Build with Prof. Alison Campbell

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


What do embryologists do when they own stake in the company?

If you’re Professor Alison Campbell, Chief Scientific Officer and equity owner at Care Fertility, you’d build massive datasets to train a machine learning system to predict live births.

With Alison we dive into:

  • Their proprietary Caremaps-AI system (Saving 10 weeks of Embryologist time per year)

  • Why CARE is building a machine learning system rather than using AI software already on the market

  • How she pitted 10 of her best embryologists against an AI software she was skeptical of (And who won!)

  • The one AI solution she likes for egg freezing (Why CARE Fertility uses that rather than building their own)

Prof. Alison Campbell
LinkedIn

CARE Fertility
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter


Transcript

[00:00:00] Prof. Alison Campbell: And it's saving loads of time. So now all of that manual annotation is over. I mean, we just get the machine learning model, press a button and in one to two seconds, it's generated all of that data that's previously taken us half an hour or so for a whole embryos course of development from fertilization to, to embryo cryopreservation.

And then it feeds into the same BLAST6, we call it the six, the six model, the statistical model, and we get a score. And that score relates to the chance of a live birth for that particular embryo. We obviously choose the embryo with the highest score. 

[00:00:38] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Future Fertility, the leaders in AI powered oocyte quality assessment.

Discover the power of Violet oocyte assessments by Future Fertility. These AI based reports provide personalized egg quality insights to improve treatment planning and counseling for egg freezing patients. Deliver a superior patient experience and improve satisfaction by empowering your patients with an objective, personalized view of their unique chance of success.

Download a sample Violet report plus a roundup of clinical validation research today to learn the difference this tool makes in patient care. Visit futurefertility. com slash irh. That's futurefertility.com/irh.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:02:00] Griffin Jones: What do embryologists do when they own stake in the company? They do cool stuff like amass massive datasets with huge sample sizes and lots of detail to eventually be able to build a machine learning system that predicts live births. You've met Professor Alison Campbell before. She's been on the program before.

She's the chief scientific officer and an equity owner in Care Fertility, the largest fertility network in the UK and Ireland, now with clinics outside those areas. And Alison talks about Care Maps, their system that they started in 2011. When they started with time lapse imaging that is now in its sixth iteration and powered by artificial intelligence to save 10 weeks of embryologist time per annum to improve success rates to be able to predict live birth and why care fertility decided to put in that work to assemble that massive amount of data, make it safe, put it in one place to find a machine learning partner to do that with all on their own instead of choosing one of the AI systems on the market.

Talks about the value of their data set versus that of cares, the expense of those solutions versus what they were able to do. She talks about an AI solution that she does like called Violet, which is made by a company called Future Fertility and what value she saw Violet brought for their egg freezing patients and why they decided to use that solution instead of make their own.

If you're one of these companies selling into fertility networks, you might pay attention to what made Alison and her team agreeable to even do a pilot with Future Fertility. Why would you take the time of 10 of your best embryologists to see how they stack up against a solution that you're skeptical about in the first place?

Better make it easy for them to do that. I asked Alison if CareFertility will begin to sell CareMaps as a solution to other fertility clinics, IVF labs, and networks throughout the world. I asked her if some of the AI companies listening should just try to build that with them instead of what they might be starting to work on now.

Here's what she has to say about that. And once more, enjoy our interview with Professor Alison Campbell. Professor Campbell, Alison, welcome back to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:04:03] Prof. Alison Campbell: Thank you very much, Griffin. It's lovely to be here again. 

[00:04:06] Griffin Jones: It was probably a year and a half ago that I had you on Somewhere Thereabout.

And your episode was popular because you talked about embryologists owning equity and how Important. That is, I have a feeling some of the thread of that topic might reappear in our conversation today, but I wanted to talk to you about a tool that your practice has been using to great embryos and perhaps for other applications using artificial intelligence and perhaps other technologies it's called care maps.

You're the group that you. Work with and for and own part of his care fertility what I didn't realize though Is that it's been around for a little while? so I and I went with a default assumption that maybe it's a couple years old and he started as Artificial intelligence got more into the Zeke Geist in that 2018 2019 Timespan, but I looked and you had one YouTube video from almost 11 years ago now, and so that means you've been using it for at least that long.

So please lay the foundation of what CareMaps is and when it started. 

[00:05:19] Prof. Alison Campbell: Right. Yeah, no, it's a, it's a beautiful story, I think. So it all began around 2011 when the Embryoscope first came to market. And it actually blew my mind, this device that enabled embryologists to to watch the embryo developing in, in real time, really.

So we set upon a great mission to introduce it into our clinics and to collect data from it, to use it to the max. So, and it wasn't easy. It was a very hard sell because of course there wasn't a lot of data around then. So. I had to try and sell the vision to our chief financial officer. We need to buy this kit, and this is why.

And it, it didn't go down well. It, it, they all thought it was just a toy. It was just a nice to have, but it just made complete sense that if we could get more information, from the developing embryo and the time points that it was reaching each of these subsequent cell stages, that there must be some answers within that information that could help us improve outcomes.

So we, we managed to get one free of charge for a fixed period whilst we did a really rushed evaluation just to make sure that it did do what we expected to do in terms of and functionality and imaging. And then we invested in the first one. And we wanted to get some data fast and we wanted to see if we could predict anything fast.

We're quite competitive and we generally want to be first movers in the field at Care Fertility. So we, we decided to annotate really strictly. So that means once we're, whilst we're looking at these time-lapse videos, the embryologist, using the, the viewer using the software that comes with it. Was recording in great detail everything that they saw so every time The cells divided, we introduced user defined variables very early on as well.

So things that didn't come with the software, we thought, well, that might be interesting. Let's also record as a comment, how the polar bodies, the second polar bodies extruded and little details that didn't come as standard. So we had a strict protocol training program and all of the PGT embryos. that were going through our clinic.

It was started in one clinic at this time. We recorded the ploidy when we got the result back. So then we had about a hundred embryos, and this was our very first publication, and we could predict, or we could classify, the risk of each of those embryos. being aneuploid based on the morphokinetic variables.

So quite simply the embryos that were somewhat delayed had a much higher risk of being aneuploid and we published that and it was the frontispiece on reproductive Biomedicine Online, it was really a well received bit of research and that was the first model that we, we developed. That was CareMap. So MAPS standing for Morphokinetic Algorithms to Predict Success.

[00:08:35] Griffin Jones: These algorithms, did they, were they produced by you also? The hardware is the time lapse imaging. And the software you said that you were doing some things like entering for user entered variables. Is that you all building your own software? Did the hardware come with a software? How, how did those algorithms develop?

[00:08:58] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, the hardware came with software and a viewer and you could enter your own models. within that software. So the first one was quite simplistic. Now we're on our sixth iteration of ChemApps, which is a logistic regression algorithm. So we've had to work with the device manufacturer, Vitralife, to enable us to implement our own algorithm.

So they've been supportive with that. And then more recently we've introduced the AI element. So that sits outside of the equipment, outside of the device. So we've had six versions of ChemApps getting increasingly complex, getting more and more exciting in terms of what they're predicting. So we started initially predicting the aneuploidy.

And then we went on to clinical pregnancy and now our current models are predicting live birth. 

[00:09:53] Griffin Jones: In that video that you had from 11 years ago, it says that it talks about AI was, were you using machine learning at that time or was AI more of a general blanket term compared to what it means today? 

[00:10:09] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, I, I didn't really know that AI was on the, on our agenda 11 years ago.

I've not seen that video for a while, but that was probably just, just looking to the future and imagining. So we've only been introduced, introduced AI to our care maps in the last couple of years. So that's yeah. And what the element that's. Being with, with it's involved with machine learning is the annotation.

So that's now completely automated. So I can talk much more about that and how it's won multiple awards. It's a quite a great phenomenon. We're very proud of, of the recent innovations that we've done with AI.

[00:10:45] Griffin Jones: I want to ask about that. So in the beginning it was, it was all manual. So you're, you know, you're entering these criteria, but at the end of the day, one individual is grading.

Each embryo just looking at it and then how do you compare so is the it was there anything like side by side like criteria that was just entered in there so that when you're viewing the embryo you're seeing it against your criteria or um, Um, You're just seeing the embryo and then you have to take it somewhere else to evaluate or take that image and information somewhere else to evaluate it.

[00:11:22] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, initially we do the manual annotation, which is really laborious and we have been doing that for a decade and absolutely no regrets because that's the high quality data, quality assured, manual annotation that we've used to train the machine learning models. So what we do is we sit at the. machine which looked at the device and we'd annotate every stage and then the software that came with the device would calculate the scores based on the model that we'd entered into the device.

So it's, it's, It's only really the annotation element that was really laborious and took a lot of embryology time. The actual application of the simplistic statistical model was relatively easy. 

[00:12:09] Griffin Jones: And so forgive my ignorance, explain to me what annotation refers to it. Is it the, is it's the, the grading of the embryo?

It's the characteristics of the embryo. It's other notes. It's those, that criteria that you set for the, uh, Self-centered variables. What does annotation refer to? 

[00:12:26] Prof. Alison Campbell: So every five or 10 minutes or so, the time-lapse device is taking an image of the embryo through multiple focal planes. And so this goes on continuously.

Right after ixe, you put the embryos or the virtually inseminated cytes into their time-lapse device, and it's collecting these images. So annotation is when the embryologist sits at the screen of viewer. And reviews all of these images. Like a, it's a time lapse movie. I'm using the software that comes with the same device to click to say now it's two cells.

Now it's three cells. Now I've seen the beginnings of compaction and so on. So it's That annotation is the translation by the embryologist of this image information into, into data really. So it's very important that the embryologists are highly skilled and trained at this. And this is one thing that Carefidelity did really well, I think.

We insisted that we trained people very thoroughly, that we quality assured. their annotations. We didn't say, okay, the most junior member of staff can do all of the annotations. And there are arguments for and against, but I think the fact that we, we did it and we stuck with it for a decade, ensuring that everybody was trained and everyone was performing.

Properly as given us this goldmine of data now that's, that's pretty, really valuable. 

[00:13:56] Griffin Jones: I was going to ask about who is doing the annotation. So a junior embryologist could do some annotations, but then what would have a senior embryologist would be doing other annotations or the lab director would have to have the final grade.

Tell me about the delineation of those responsibilities. 

[00:14:14] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, there was a competency, there was a training program and competency assessment to make sure that whoever it was, it didn't really matter what level they were, it's are they capable, are they competent at looking at these videos. I could train you to do it, I'd say.

It's not, you don't have to be a scientist to do it, you have to be well trained and you have to be meticulous and you have to believe and understand. Why are you doing it? And I think that's so important because if you, you understand the end game, you will do it properly. And then we'll do spot checks to make sure that we agree with those annotations.

If there's something really ambiguous, which happens with the human embryo, sometimes they, they'll go backwards. You'll see four cells and then two frames later, they've reverted to three cells. Anything peculiar, we would call a colleague over and we can say, look, can you sense this? This sends check this for me, and then we'd have a quality assurance scheme that we established ourselves whereby all the embryologists, all the annotators across the network would annotate the same set of embryos, and then we'd look at the intercorrelation coefficients to make sure that they are correct.

close enough, they're not always going to be identical. Sometimes they're a frame early or late. So then we'd look, well, if you are a frame early or late for that particular variable, so for the start of blastulation, let's say, for example, then does that impact the score, the model score, and therefore does that impact the selection, which embryo you would choose based on the model score.

So it was, it was a very thorough and very complex process, but it's, and it's taken a decade to get to where we are. 

[00:16:00] Griffin Jones: Is it now a requirement for every embryologist in your organization, this assessment for competence and annotation? 

[00:16:07] Prof. Alison Campbell: It's always been a requirement at Carefertility, yeah, every embryologist who's annotating needs to be competent to do that, the same way that 

[00:16:15] Griffin Jones: Does every embryologist annotate or is the workflow segmented in such a way that some embryologists are annotating while others, you know, might be freezing, thawing, etc.?

So does every embryologist annotate? 

[00:16:29] Prof. Alison Campbell: Yeah, everyone who's been trained and is competent can annotate. So if they're on the rota for a particular day to do those, the annotations, then they would do the annotations if they're supposed to do vitrification or end collection. So it's, it's done on a rota type basis.

[00:16:44] Griffin Jones: So now you're on the sixth iteration, machine learning has been introduced to, to now be able to do that annotation. Did that, is that new to the sixth iteration? Did that happen? What iteration did that happen? 

[00:16:56] Prof. Alison Campbell: Yeah, it's new to the sixth. So the sixth iteration is the live birth prediction model. It's the most sophisticated model that we've got we've ever had.

It's built on over 6, 000 transferred blastocysts where we know the live birth outcome. And so we realized we are taking so much time to manually annotate all these videos across the network. So. 15 laboratories in the UK, some in Spain and the US that aren't yet fully set up to do this, but at least at the time, what can we do to really save time to improve reproducibility and objectivity because manual annotation is not perfect.

So let's, let's look at this. Let's get the data together, which was no mean feat. Let's find a third party who have experience in machine learning and See what they can do. So we scoped the project. We did the business case and we found a UK company or their international called BJSS and they had no experience in the fertility sector, but they did have experience with.

Machine learning. And I was quite impressed because they'd done some work with, with airports, where they built models to scan suitcases, to identify smuggled animal skulls and things. So I thought, well, it's image analysis. It's very important. And yeah, they were very impressive. So we worked with them very closely for, took about 18 months, I'd say, from them to the release of the minimum viable products.

And it's. It's saving loads of time, so now all of that manual annotation is over. I mean, we just get the machine learning model, press a button, and in one to two seconds it's generated all of that data that's previously taken us half an hour or so. for a whole embryo's course of development from fertilization to to embryo cryopreservation.

And then it feeds into the same BLAST6, we call it the six model, the statistical model, and we get a score. And that score relates to the chance of a live birth for that particular embryo. We obviously choose the embryo with the highest score. 

[00:19:24] Sponsor: Egg freezing programs are experiencing growth worldwide. Yet patients continue to complete their treatment with little to no understanding of their unique chance of success.

To date, there has been no standard of care for assessing egg quality. At best, general age based estimates are provided, which assume that all patients of the same age have the same quality. There is so much untapped potential to better manage your patient's expectations for success while ensuring treatment plans are tailored for each patient's unique oocyte quality.

Future Fertility has addressed this gap in care, enabling your clinic to drive a superior patient experience while optimizing cryopreservation outcomes. Future Fertility are the leaders in clinically validated, AI powered oocyte assessment. Violet, developed specifically for oocyte cryopreservation patients, integrates seamlessly with any lab to deliver objective and personalized oocyte quality insights.

Violet leverages the industry's largest oocyte dataset to provide predictions of each egg's blastocyst development that visual assessments simply can't match. The report also provides a personalized prediction of your patient's chance of live birth, which factors in their unique egg quality, helping you ensure your patients have sufficient oocyte stored to give them the best chances to meet their fertility goals.

Let Violet become your partner in fertility planning, transforming the way your clinic approaches treatment and counseling for egg freezing patients. Visit their website today at futurefertility.com/irh to receive your free sample report plus a roundup of their industry leading clinical validation research.

That's futurefertility.com/irh

[00:21:31] Griffin Jones: This is all embryo grading. There's no oocyte grading happening with CareMaps? 

[00:21:38] Prof. Alison Campbell: No, not with CareMaps. We are interested, um, we've been talking to Uta Fertility, who I know you, you've been speaking to recently. We talked to them about. Trying to do some research together just to see whether Violet, their, or Magenta, their oSight AI tool could add some benefit to care maps.

I'm, I'm a little bit skeptical that it could, but if we could get some marginal gains to improve predictive power, even subtly, then it's worth exploring. 

[00:22:08] Griffin Jones: So would that be for, like, you would be using their oocyte grading in to improve your embryo grading or you would be using it separately to create something for, for oocyte, for oocyte grading?

[00:22:21] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, they've already got their own tool to assess the oocytes, which we use for fertility preservation purposes. So if we work, if we thought about putting it together with ChemApps, it would be to see whether The assessment of the oocytes from their system could improve the predictive power for embryo selection in our live birth prediction models.

[00:22:48] Griffin Jones: So I want to talk about this, about building an AI solution versus going with one and, uh, future fertility might sponsor this episode. Somebody else might, Burger King theoretically could, yeah, they don't have any control over what you say. So you can, you can say whatever the heck you want, but I, I, I see some people really see the value in certain AI solutions and then other times.

Yeah, I've, you know, I think I heard Santee, Dr. Mune say, you know, try to build one yourself for a lower cost. The costs also range a lot. Some of them seem really expensive. Some of them don't see, seem as expensive, but it sounds like for in the case of, Embryos, you wanted to build your own as opposed to using one of the solutions that are out there with these, these companies trying to get them implemented into clinics.

Why did you decide to go the build your own route? 

[00:23:45] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, a few reasons for that. We, we tried the systems on the market at the time, a couple of years ago. With AI, we're talking about the AI aspect and it wasn't good enough for us. It didn't It it wasn't comprehensive enough. We can use a an alternative providers Auto annotation tool, but we weren't getting comprehensive auto annotate.

We weren't getting all the data that we needed to feed our models. There were lots of emissions, lots of inaccuracies, lots of, um, sense checking required. So probably a couple of reasons for that, but the main one may have been that it's trained, they're trained on really heterogeneous data from all over the place.

And I have most confidence in our own data. Our own data was massive. Relatively massive. Arguably, probably the highest quality data set for annotated embryos and largest in the world because of the approach that we took. So why would we use somebody else's tool when our data is stronger, bigger, better?

That was at least the mindset at the time. That might be different now, but we've taken the leap and we're not looking back. 

[00:25:05] Griffin Jones: Was that the defining feature of what made those systems on the market not good enough in your view, the, the quality of the dataset? Were there any other reasons? 

[00:25:16] Prof. Alison Campbell: They were expensive.

I think when we first looked at it, and it may, may still be the same, that it doesn't seem to be a really Clear offering in terms of what you get, the pricing model, is it per click per price per click, or is it a flat fee? I think people are just trying to find their way. They don't have lots of publications to justify the quality and the predictive power of their algorithms or their systems.

So it's still relatively new and you have to make a leap of faith if you're going to do it. And so we decided we'll, we'll do that with our own data and take it from there. But I think we've done a good job. We've won. Multiple awards for this solution. We, Amazon web services did a case study on, on it.

We've won a Royal College of Pathologists achievement award, UK IT tech awards. We've just been nominated for another one I heard this morning. So I think, you know, when we're scrutinized by the data scientists and machine learning experts and tech people, they can see that this has been done really well.

[00:26:28] Griffin Jones: Tech bros are scrutinizing you? Yeah. In marketing, we would call them internet Ian's, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a certain expertise. What do they feel that you're, so you've In your view, the established solutions didn't have a high enough quality data set. What do the machine learning geeks critique your solution for?

[00:26:53] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, they can just see the information that we give them and we're not letting them under the bonnet to just scrutinize it. So they can scrutinize the way we did the build or the way BGSS, our partner did that build, the size of the data. The, the outputs, the predictive power, because we've used this model now respectively for over 2000 transfers.

with the AI element. It's predicting really well, really, really successfully, accurately. And, and the time saving we've quantified, we estimated it beforehand. And now we've quantified it. We've say we're saving 10 working weeks embryology time per year. So that's, that's a great output as well. So there's so many benefits that we've seen from this.

So yeah, patient attraction has been also. A good one, staff retention. We've had embryologists saying, I could not work anywhere else. I could never go back to manual allocation. I could not live without this system and you know, non professional recognition for our work. We've presented it at conferences and we're still writing up.

We've got a lot of information still to share and to publish, but it's, yeah, it's, it's on track. 

[00:28:08] Griffin Jones: You developed this system, you all at CareFertility developed this system because you weren't satisfied with what was on the market and you felt you got a better data set, a bigger data set, better predictive power.

Now that you have something that you feel is better than what was on the market, are you going to take it to market? Are you, should we expect CareFertility to spin off CareMaps and be selling that to the EVRMAs and the EUGENs and the. the, the inceptions, et cetera, of the world? 

[00:28:43] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, never say never. It's a possibility.

I would say we've got to consider our priorities. And we've, we've got the data. We've got a lot of expertise in time lapse in this type, this area of machine learning, but we don't have a sales force. We've never done regulatory, got regulatory approvals for our, our products. So this is an in house, developed tool.

So we could use it in our clinics, but we couldn't sell it as it stands without certifications, FDA approval, CE marks, and all of those things. So almost certainly if we did that, we would be looking for a partner to help us get there. 

[00:29:25] Griffin Jones: I wonder if any of the current partners who are thinking, man, this is tough.

This is really hard to sell in, into these clinics. Why don't we just do that? Why don't we just try to, to, to take what HairMaps is doing and then make that our product. And we've got the Salesforce and we've got the venture raising infrastructure. And I think that might happen. 

[00:29:47] Prof. Alison Campbell: That could happen. Yep. I think it could happen.

And yeah, open to conversations. And let's say we, we don't have a Salesforce, but actually. You can probably tell, you know, I'm so passionate about it, it's, I probably, some of our team members would be the best people to sell it if it's, uh, if we were to take it to market because we, we've lived and breathed it for 10 years and we trust it.

[00:30:09] Griffin Jones: I'm sure. 

[00:30:10] Prof. Alison Campbell: And so, it. 

[00:30:13] Griffin Jones: And so maybe future fertility can help with the, with the embryo grading, but, but you're, you're a bit skeptical of that, but they are helping you with oocyte grading for egg freezing. Why go with them in that situation, as opposed to then trying to develop your own oocyte solution. So the embryo grading systems on the market weren't sufficient.

And, but, and so you built your own. didn't go that route for egg freezing. Why not? 

[00:30:46] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, yeah, we considered it, of course, and, and it may still happen that we, we do our own thing, but we focused on one, one thing at a time and we focused on the embryo selection. We, Caught Future Fertility's Violet through its paces early on, because I was really sceptical.

A static image of an egg to predict outcomes, but saying that, we, we assessed it, got 10 of our expert embryologists to compete against Violet, and it beat us. So yeah, we, it could, it could assess and predict better than we could. Not at a very high rate, because there are so many other variables. Sperms takes a huge part to play in it and lots of other factors, but at least for patients who, who want a bit more information and they say, well, how are my eggs?

Without Violet, we'd give them our best judgment, but it wasn't particularly accurate. And with Violet, they get more information, they get images of their eggs. And so it was a nice to have. So, yeah, I, and generally I'm skeptical of static image assessment because human, human embryo development is a very dynamic process and yeah, there's so many things that can impact it.

So yeah, we just got to focus on what we have the most faith in, I think at any one time and put our efforts into that. 

[00:32:12] Griffin Jones: You were skeptical of the static images, and then you put it against your team of 10 embryologists, and it won, but to do that pilot test, you must, they must have communicated some sort of value to you, or if they didn't, you You just perceived the need, you know, it's tight grading to be that great.

I remember last time we spoke, I asked you how many of these different companies pitch you over the course of the year. And I think it is probably a couple dozen that you said. And then I asked how many in a year do you do any, even like a pilot? Program with, and you said, you know, maybe three, I think it's something along those lines.

So you were talking about one out of every 10 or, or, or something like that, that you're actually piloting. What was it about that pilot that you said, this is worth the time of 10 of my embryologists to, to put them against. 

[00:33:09] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, it was a relatively easy thing to do. It was a quick pilot. It was on a, an app.

And so we could do it quite quickly, gather information fast. There were nice people. There were also passionate. Dan Neo, particularly when he first knocked on the door, very passionate about his product, made sense for them to have looked into that element. And I wondered why so few people had ever really tried to come up with a tool to.

assess the quality of an oocyte. But yeah, they were there right at the start and simple and effective. It's not going to change the world. It's not highly predictive, but it's better than we can do. So I think that's a positive for patients. 

[00:33:53] Griffin Jones: Do you think that's the future of AI companies in the fertility space, like more segmentation?

Or do you think so that they can find a place where they really can be valuable one and then to make easier pilots? Or do you think that somebody has to win this battle to become the AI solution for, for all, you know, embryo and, you know, site machine learning? I should say all embryo and gamete machine learning.

[00:34:25] Prof. Alison Campbell: Yeah, I think it'll, um, it'll be quite a slow journey. There's a lot of competition, a lot of people trying to get a piece of the pie at the moment. Um, but eventually, I think there'll be just a couple of High quality solutions, which incorporates gametes and embryo assessment. I don't think it's really going to be, we're going to see hundreds of different options.

I think eventually the cream will rise to the top. There'll be collaborations, partnerships, merging of solutions. Cause what we want in the clinic is, is simplicity. We don't want to be moving between systems and causing confusion. We need integration of, of good systems and simple, simple tools. 

[00:35:10] Griffin Jones: Are other networks doing this to your knowledge, developing their own embryo grading, machine learning?

[00:35:18] Prof. Alison Campbell: Not to my knowledge. I don't think at the scale that CareFertility have been moving and developing this, this CareMaps AI, I don't think I, I haven't seen that or heard of that. Now I've spoken to some big group scientific leaders who've said it's so difficult to get the together. So I think, I know it was a huge undertaking for us to get all of that data off all of those servers into one safe place.

And so we were fortunate to have the expertise or have the partnerships to enable us to do that. So that was the first step. And I think that some of the big groups might, will be struggling with that. And also if they didn't embark on the journey like Fertility did, annotating rigorously and religiously, comprehensively.

Then they won't have that data set, but you can accumulate it very quickly. Some of the networks now are enormous, and if they just decided to change tack and do exactly what we've done, it wouldn't take 10 years to do it. 

[00:36:25] Griffin Jones: It's difficult to get the data together. You talked about it was possible for you because you had partners, but they could go out and get the data.

Adequate partners to help them with that. What made it possible for you all to bring that data together? 

[00:36:42] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, teamwork and shared vision, I'd say it's, uh, but it's 

[00:36:47] Griffin Jones: gotta be something in the shared vision because if they wanted to, they could, they could align the teamwork to it. So there was something about your shared vision that prioritized it in a way that maybe others haven't.

What do you, what was that? Why was this a priority? 

[00:37:01] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, because we'd already got Care Maps, so we already, we were getting great outcomes for our patients, we were generating revenue, we, we loved the technology, we were getting publications from it, so it was part of our DNA, so it was the next step, really, to bring machine learning into that, to save time, we, we were never going to say goodbye to, to Care Maps, we wanted to keep developing it, we'd done that six times over over the last six years, 10 years.

So it seemed to be the next step. And it's quite possible now, you asked the question, that These guys tapping on our shoulders saying, well, look at our solution. Look at our solution that they catalyzed our actions because we we'd been talking about it. But once we realized that other people are starting to bring tools to the market that can automatically annotate and predict outcomes, we should, we should be.

Lead in the way. We should be doing that. Let's, let's get on with it because time moves quickly and We have the potential to to make all those benefits that I described and particularly saving time for our embryologists It was a huge driver. 

[00:38:11] Griffin Jones: Again, my ignorance are other labs not annotating to this degree of detail?

[00:38:16] Prof. Alison Campbell: I don't believe so. No, they're not. I think we were annotating every single embryo for a very long time and And Some of the clinics will have not annotated at all, or else they'll just annotate the blastocysts, or just the euploids. So, if you do that, you, you're restricting your dataset because you're only annotating the good quality ones.

You've not annotated the ones that have arrested the patients. On the third day at five cells, for example, or degenerated at the more realist stage, we annotated everything. So the data that trained us, we've used the manual annotation data that we've trained the machine learning models is, is really comprehensive.

[00:39:04] Griffin Jones: Did that set out, was the vision for that originally to eventually compile a massive data set? Was that the, the main or only driving reason, or were there other reasons for that level of detail in your annotation? 

[00:39:22] Prof. Alison Campbell: Yeah, no, that was the main reason is because we want to the data and in the data will be the answers.

So unless we collect the data really thoroughly and comprehensively, we're not going to get all the answers that we want to find. 

[00:39:36] Griffin Jones: And so now you're at a point where you're predicting live birth rates. Tell me more about that. 

[00:39:42] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, when I'm describing it to patients, I'll say, well, we've Transferred embryos in good faith.

We transferred blastocysts in good faith and we've put the ones that have resulted in a baby in one bucket and the data from the ones that haven't, they've been transferred in another. And we've analyzed to see the differences in their morphogenetic values, in their developmental timings and morphological scores to see what the differences are.

And then we've built these predictive models. So we, when we do apply our models, to predict live birth, we get a score and the score one will mean that embryo, it's made of blastocysts because these models are applied to all of the blastocysts, the live birth chance is about five percent, so really low chances.

of live birth, even though we, we can see a blastocyst, which is sometimes seemingly beautiful. And then it just goes up to a score of 10 and the chance of live birth is over 50 percent with that embryo. So of course we choose the highest score and we've used the So we've retrospectively validated these models and now we've prospectively validated the models and they work exactly as predicted.

So we achieve the birth rates or the clinical pregnancy rates just as we predicted because it's, it's so accurate. And when you look at morphology alone, which is the alternative, really a standard practice, you have trophectoderm quality and inner cell mass quality, and you have a stage of expansion. And those variables are nowhere near as predictive of life birth.

They, it's just over flipping a coin. It's not, it's not good enough. And it upset, it upset me a lot over the years working with standard practice that one embryologist would choose one blastocyst from a cohort and another embryologist will choose another. Now with CareMaps, we will choose the same one and we'll choose the best one.

[00:41:45] Griffin Jones: With this level of detail and all of the data that you've assembled, would that even be technically possible without time lapse imaging? 

[00:41:56] Prof. Alison Campbell: No, it wouldn't be possible. 

[00:41:58] Griffin Jones: And so it was 2011 where you first started using time lapse imaging. I would say in the U. S. Probably fewer than 20 percent of clinics are using time lapse imaging in their labs right now.

Maybe it's around there. It sounded like you had to make that case in the beginning, but I want to ask what, what percentage of embryos are PGTA tested in the UK about? 

[00:42:31] Prof. Alison Campbell: It's much lower than the U S I believe it's probably closer to 20%. Whereas in the U S it's It's, it's more than 50%. 

[00:42:38] Griffin Jones: Yeah. I think it might be 60, something like that.

And so are, are these two things either or in many people's view that we either do time lapse or we do PGTA? Is there a reason why it's not both? 

[00:42:53] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, yeah, I'd say in most people's view, they think right. And embryo selection, is it PGT or is it time lapse? If we're talking about modern or more sophisticated.

embryo selection, but actually there are synergies. between them. And we've shown from our own data that you're, you've got a patient with multiple euploid embryos, then you can apply care maps to distinguish between those euploid embryos. And of course we want the best embryo transferred. So if we've got that technology, then, then we should be using it.

[00:43:27] Griffin Jones: So you had to make the case though for the, for the time lapse imaging back some 12, 13 years ago. And This might tie back into the first conversation we have about embryologists owning equity in the clinic and the network, because I think you said something to the effect of that. They thought it was just kind of a nice toy and you had to convince them of a greater business value.

And I think When I just kind of ask around, I've started every embryologist that comes on the show. I asked them, do you think time lapse imaging is a nice to have or a must have? And it seems like everyone is saying they think it's a must have. And yet we have so many networks that don't have time lapse imaging.

So you had to convince them of that. Of that value. And you also had to have seen the value yourself because you own equity in the company. What was that business case that you had to make to your colleagues and, and to your self and that you feel maybe isn't being made strongly enough? 

[00:44:35] Prof. Alison Campbell: Well, you know, it's a long time ago, but the business case related to it being a differentiator and having the potential to improve outcomes.

So it wasn't um, a rock solid because we didn't know if it would definitely improve outcomes. We didn't know how much, how much it was going to cost us as a whole network if we were going to end up rolling it out across all of the clinics and we hadn't really been certain about what we would charge patients for it and if that was appropriate or not.

So there were lots of discussions. We did invest in it because the hardware is very expensive. We did start to charge patients. Once we'd got confidence in it, we had, we didn't charge for six months while we collected the initial data and we built our preliminary models. So once we had demonstrated that it was going to help us with outcomes and it could predict, predict Ploidy at that stage.

Or risk classify and the patient feedback was really positive. And one of the questions that we asked the patients was how, how, what, what, uh, did you like about the time lapse? What did what, how could you relate to it? What did you feel about it? And the patient feedback was mostly we, it really aided our understanding as to what went on in the laboratory.

And we also asked them, do you think the price. Is appropriate. And the vast majority said yes. So that was really, that was really promising and that helped us invest in further devices and keep rolling it forward and then invest in the statistical analysis and then more recently in the, in the machine learning.

[00:46:20] Griffin Jones: So it was more of a longterm play though, if you're thinking about differentiation that way, because I think if, if you're not looking on a. Five, 10, 12 plus year horizon. Maybe it's more expensive. If you're, if you're looking on a three year horizon, then it's pretty big expense to have for all of those IVF labs, isn't it?

[00:46:43] Prof. Alison Campbell: It's a huge expense, but the return on investment. Didn't take much, it wasn't too long before it came, came back because if you're charging 500 pounds per cycle and the device was 60, 70, 000 pounds at that time and you're getting good uptake and because it's a patient choice, it's an add on. It, it wasn't too difficult to get the money back in order to then buy the next device and so it just kept rolling and so it's been a great success financially, success rate wise.

Staff wise, time savings, efficiencies, and R and D wise. 

[00:47:22] Griffin Jones: It seems to me that in order to meaningfully improve success rates, and in order to have differentiation, people have to have the data. They have to have the data for everything. And so that refers to the tools in the lab that allow you to capture embryo and gamete data refers to, uh, software that allows you to capture clinical data and.

Other inputs and outputs. I don't think people will be able to differentiate without it. We talked about the market possibilities of CareMaps. Maybe somebody listening will say, Hey, why don't we throw in the towel on what we're doing and try to build CareMaps out into a, a side company that could sell into.

Other networks. We talked about the possibility of some of those companies merging as competition thins out and someone emerging as the ultimate AI solution for the IVF lab from a technical perspective, what's on the horizon for care maps. This is how I want to conclude our conversation today. What would we expect from iteration seven?

[00:48:33] Prof. Alison Campbell: Right. Iteration seven would ideally. be device agnostic. It will be cloud based. It will not be tied to one particular time lapse device. It would be accessible to this maybe version. This is the future. This is the dream. It would be nice if we could get it certified and enable other people outside our network to use it and to see, feel the benefits of it.

And for those patients of those. competitor clinics to also feel about the benefits of it. So we'll see. 

[00:49:11] Griffin Jones: When do you work on the next iteration? Does it like, does that work immediately begin as once you've completed an iteration or is you, you work on an iteration for once an iteration is implemented, you wait a little while to see what the needs are.

How does that work? 

[00:49:28] Prof. Alison Campbell: Yeah, we wait a little while. We usually Keep one version going for 18 months, two years before we see like how big is the data set now? Are there any, where, where, where's the area we could tweak and improve? So yeah, it's, we'll be coming up for those port processes soon, but version six is, is working phenomenally well.

[00:49:50] Griffin Jones: And how often do priorities shift in what you expect the next iteration is going to need versus what you end up actually doing? So in other words, going into iteration five, you implement. the fifth iteration and you're thinking this is probably what we're going to need for the sixth iteration. How much does your expectation, your assumption match up with what you end up actually needing for that next iteration?

[00:50:18] Prof. Alison Campbell: That's a really good question. We, I'm not sure so much thought goes into it as you might imagine. Really, it's because the data set is growing. We've got the ultimate, in my opinion, the ultimate outcome measure, which is live birth. So previously we were just reaching for the better outcome measure. So it took time for us to feel confident we've got enough data now to predict live birth because you have to wait, obviously, quite some months to get the live birth data after you've done the annotation, after you've collected the embryo data.

So we'd started with ploidy prediction and we'd moved to clinical pregnancy prediction. And then we got there with the live birth prediction because we had the data, we had the numbers. So I believe we've got it. Got that in terms of outcome measure. It is the best. And people do argue that it might not be this.

There are other variables. Pregnancies can be lost, needs to be a euploid. So we'll see that that mindset could change, but I don't think it will. So going forward, what we're going to be looking to do is to save more time, make the model, uh, better. faster and better and bigger and more accurate, but always I think looking for the, for the live birth is the outcome measure.

So it'll come now, the improvements will be more for user friend, more user friendliness. It's more time savings, and I think now with predictive power. 

[00:51:46] Griffin Jones: I look forward to having you back in another year or two to see the progress that you're making with CareMaps, with the other technologies that you're paying attention to.

This has been yet another fun conversation that I think our audience, especially our lab audience, is going to like to hear. Quite a bit, but I think also the executive leadership is going to appreciate your take two with differentiation and new market opportunities. Professor Alison Campbell, chief scientific officer of care fertility.

Thank you very much for coming back on the program. Thank you very much. 

[00:52:18] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by future fertility, the leaders in AI powered Oocyte quality assessment. Discover the power of violet Oocyte assessments by future fertility. These AI based reports provide personalized egg quality insights to improve treatment planning and counseling for egg freezing patients.

Deliver a superior patient experience and improve satisfaction by empowering your patients with an objective, personalized view of their unique chance of success. Download a sample Violet report plus a roundup of clinical validation research today to learn the difference this tool makes in patient care.

Visit futurefertility.com/irh that's futurefertility.com/irh

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

221 How to Prepare Your Patients for Donor IVF with Dr. Mark Leondires and Lisa Schuman

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


How do you prepare your patients for donor IVF in a way that provides the personalized care they need while setting the right expectations for their future?

Dr. Mark Leondires, REI and co-founder of Illume Fertility,  tackles this question with Lisa Schuman, licensed clinical social worker and co-author of Building Your Family: The Complete Guide to Donor Conception.

Tune in as Dr. Leondires & Ms. Schuman discuss:

  • The criteria intended parents should focus on more when searching for donors (And focus on less)

  • What’s reasonable for intended parents to expect from their donors

  • What’s reasonable for donor-conceived children to expect from their donors

  • The commodification of donor sperm and donor egg

  • Speculation on how to solve the issue of 3rd Party IVF demand far outstripping the supply of carriers & donors

The Center for Family Building
Website
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter


Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Mark Leondires: I think that most people go on a donor website and they start with what this person looks like and that biases them down the pathway to accept some things. It's a, it's a complete loss of control to choose a donor. It's nothing that anybody wants to do, but there are things you can control and understand that, you know, you can make sure.

Your donor has had mental health screening and passed. There's a whole generation of sperm donors that never had mental health screening. And there are many hundreds of families that suffered the consequences of young men with mental illness who went ahead and transmitted that, some of these heritable risks onto their children.

[00:00:41] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by BUNDL Fertility. Fertility clinics, ready to boost your online reviews? Our survey of over 2, 500 online patient reviews showed that 30 percent of the negative experiences were focused on billing or finance frustrations. Improve patient satisfaction and billing experiences by using BUNDL with Medications services.

See the rest of our survey results by visiting www.bundlfertility.com/irh and downloading our exclusive report. 

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:40] Griffin Jones: How do you prepare patients for third party IVF? Preparing them in a way that grows your third party IVF program, that provides patients with the personalized care that they need, and that sets them and their children with the right expectations for their future. My guests have a new book called Building Your Family, The Complete Guide to Donor Conception.

We talk about donor egg and donor sperm. We also talk about gestational carriers. Because my guests each have deep expertise in in different areas in this realm. Dr. Mark Leondires is an REI. He's one of the founding partners of what is now Ellume Fertility and the organization Gay Parents to Be. Mark does a much higher share of third party IVF than average, and over the years he's shared many cases with Lisa Schuman, who's a licensed clinical social worker who has a lot of experience with screening candidates for mental health and properly preparing intended parents and donors so that they have true informed consent.

Mark and Lisa talk about what criteria they need to get intended parents focused on more, and what criteria they need to focus on less when they're searching for donors. With 25, 000 donor conceived siblings connected to each other in online registries, what's reasonable for intended parents to expect from donors?

and to expect from their practices and what's reasonable for donor conceived children to expect from donors and practices. Dr. Leondires talks about monetization of donor sperm and donor egg, and we speculate on what's coming in the future that might be necessary to solve for the issue of the demand for third party IVF, greatly outstripping the supply of gestational carriers, sperm donors, and egg donors.

Again, the book is called Building Your Family, The Complete Guide to Donor Conception. It's available on Amazon and other places books are sold. Enjoy this conversation with Lisa Schuman and Dr. Mark Leanderis. Ms. Schuman, Lisa, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. Dr. Leanderis, Mark, welcome back to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

Thank you, Chris. Thank you. I'm. I'm interested to explore what's happening with third party IVF in the U. S. in the world. And then I'm interested to explore the book that you've written on the topic called building your family that the two of you coauthored. Let's start with just what's happening in the marketplace.

What are the numbers in terms of how much donor egg donor sperm? Gestational carrier IVF has grown in the U. S. in the last decade or, or, or some years. 

[00:04:04] Dr. Mark Leondires: Yes, Griffin, I can certainly address that. So, you know, for myself, I'll tell you that I see very few regular infertility patients anymore. My practice is almost wholly, um, donor conception.

Everything from cisgender female couples looking to conceive, to same sex male couples, to talking about people want to receive donated embryos, to people, you know, moving forward with gestational carrier cycles with donated gametes. So third party reproduction nowadays is both You know, donated sperm, donated eggs, donated embryos, and the utilization of gestational carriers.

And what we can clearly see in the SART data, and anybody can do this themselves, if you just pull the increase in the past 10 years of embryo transfers from donated eggs. That's increased by 40%. And if you also just dig into start yourself and you can watch the slope of the line of the utilization of gestational carriers go up year over year over year.

Obviously, as with most things in our field, there was a dip in during COVID, but the utilization of donated gametes has increased. And then. You know, we're not even aware of what's happening on the sperm donor world in that we've passed two of the major sources of donor sperm, and they state that demand is, is outstripping supply.

There may be some other reasons for that as well as that we talked about in the book, as far as anonymity. The other part of the story is that people are going out and finding their own donors, whether it be on Facebook, Craigslist, or a lot of these other third party sites that are trying to match people with sperm sources.

Uh, so, uh, so there's a, there's a, an openness to using donated gametes that I think is, is relatively, you know, um, new in the past 10 to 15 years. And, and there's still, and there's people who want to be parents sometimes who either biologically can't be parents because there are members of the LGBTQ plus community, or perhaps they're single.

They want to be a parent and they don't want to be. Um, held back because they, they haven't found that person or don't want to find it or last but not least, you know, there's other reasons, whether it be low sperm male factor or female factor that they're using donated gametes, but they want to be parents and, and there's lots of different ways for them to get there.

And the demand for that is increasing. 

[00:06:32] Griffin Jones: So was that, was the demand outstripping the supply? Is that part of the reason for writing the book? Tell me about why the book was written because normally when someone writes a book, it's that some monkey that they want to get off. They're back. It's either some subject matter expertise that they've developed such a unique point of view on that they want to share that unique point of view, or they find such a misconception or lack of total comprehension around a certain subject that they want to address that for you all.

What were, what was the primary reason for writing the book? 

[00:07:10] Lisa Schuman: You are right on point, Griffin. Exactly. Correct. I felt. Day after day, week after week, year after year, people would talk to me about their donor conception journey and the things that they wanted to do, whether it's how to talk to their children, how to choose a donor.

And I would share what I knew. And people would say over and over again, how come nobody's telling me these things? I can't believe this information that you're sharing. How come nobody says it? And in part I was informed by my own experience in the field and partially just watching the adoption field move over time from a place where people You know, in the fifties, there was a large number of children adopted in the U.

S. And over decades, we can see how those adopted children felt. And those agencies used to tell people, don't tell your children. And we saw the effects of those children and learned that we had to tell early and often. And I saw a very similar trend happening in donor conception. And yet no one really seemed to kind of learn from the adoption world, even though adoption is very different than donor conception.

That particular piece is. Was very similar. So both of those things were annoying at me. 

[00:08:28] Dr. Mark Leondires: We are actively kind of almost trained, my generation of reproductive endocrinologists, to tell people that, you know, you never have to tell the story to your child, because nobody's ever going to find out. 

[00:08:43] Griffin Jones: Is that really the case, Mark?

Were you told that when you were training? 

[00:08:47] Dr. Mark Leondires: When I was training for donor conception, um, in the military, it happened very, very rarely. And it was something that was kind of back to my military days. Don't ask, don't tell. We're just not going to talk about it. You're a heterosexual couple. You need to use donated sperm or egg and, and you'll never have to talk about it again.

Because back in the nineties, nobody knew that Direct to consumer marketing of DNA testing was going to allow us to find these relationships. And they thought the parent child bond was going to be negatively affected by the truth, which it's the reverse. 

[00:09:28] Griffin Jones: Maybe you're starting to answer my next question that I've been thinking about is one version of this book could have been written by a fertility specialist.

Another version of this book could have been written by a social worker. Why did this book need to be written by both a fertility specialist and a social worker? And a social worker or or vice versa. I'm not putting one in front of the why a social worker and a fertility specialist. 

[00:09:54] Lisa Schuman: Well, I think we shared Mark and I shared a lot of cases over the last decade.

And we both really saw eye to eye on so many cases that we would struggle with. And so it really made sense for us to collaborate. 

[00:10:06] Dr. Mark Leondires: So Lisa came to our practice 2017 and At that point in time, you know, I still had a, a young family. I have a donor conceived family myself, just processing what, how to speak to my children.

And Lisa has spoken to children of donor conception and processing how. You know, meeting somebody's donor might be important to choosing a donor, right? And then, you know, transitioning our anonymous program to a known program and realizing that the donors want to know where their gametes are going. At least the young women that we spoke to from our, you know, local area.

Um, so the, the impetus to write the book, you know, comes from Lisa's experience. And then. I was I lived this life, right? And then for us both together to be working closely together and appreciating what we were hearing from the parents to be and the parents after we changed our program a little bit was transformational and it and it just wasn't out there.

There's not. This type of content out there, and I think we're ready for it. 

[00:11:22] Griffin Jones: How did you each approach what you contributed? Do you did you like Mark writes a chapter? Lisa writes a chapter. Or did you sit down at a coffee shop and jam out each chapter together? How did you each contribute your different perspectives?

[00:11:39] Lisa Schuman: Well, I think it's, you know, pretty clearly you can see which parts are the social work parts, which parts are the medical parts you can see in the book and we will send you one Griffin for sure. So you'll see. 

[00:11:50] Dr. Mark Leondires: So you know, as far as the storyboards for the book, you know, it was pretty clear, you know, how does this all work, right?

And what, what, how do we need to educate our patients, our donors, and a lot of third party reproduction. is not about the medicine. It's about the people. So the, the, the book, most of the content in the book is from a mental health interpersonal relationship point of view. And, you know, I chime in with personal stories and things like that throughout the book.

The book is not a textbook. It is not a self help book. It's, it's basically an exploration of kind of a new part of our humanity. And so, The melding of like the medical plus the personal psychosocial and so on is how it happened. So, you know, chapters of the book that are medical are mostly written by me, but Lisa chimed in of like, well, people aren't going to grasp that.

You need to take that down. And I did the same thing to, to, with her. This exercise of re reading your book three, four, or five times is really quite remarkable about how to fine tune this message to intended parents, to donors, and to children, and taking care of yourself through this process, because this is art.

[00:13:17] Lisa Schuman: It's really like a how to guide. We have a very, very clear steps on how to choose a donor, which are very different than I think a lot of people would imagine, and we think it works better for most people to use this paradigm. And there are very clear ways to understand how the medical process works, there's very clear ways to hear, to understand how to talk to your children.

Really wanted to be like a how to guide. We, we both went through our own fertility journeys and we felt it was very difficult to learn everything. Even if you're in this business, it's very difficult to know what to do and to deal with the emotions involved. And so we really felt that it would be helpful for people to have a guide to shepherd them down this journey.

[00:14:03] Griffin Jones: And part of the shepherding that you're doing, as I understand, has to do with the way people choose donors. What do you hope to change about the way people are choosing donors right now? 

[00:14:15] Lisa Schuman: Well, we hope to kind of flip the script in a way. People usually find that choosing a donor naturally, even if you Have already always known that you needed a donor.

Maybe you're a single person or maybe you're a queer couple and you feel like we are accepting of it, even then it can be very dysregulating to choose the genetics for your child. This is one of the most intimate relationships of your life from a stranger. And so. People reflexively will very often choose somebody who feels familiar to them, somebody who feels comfortable, somebody who reminds them of their, you know, their brother or has the same sort of bushy eyebrows or whatever it might be.

And that's nice. And you can see that the sperm and egg banks kind of play into that. They give you celebrity lookalikes and tell you how nice this person is or show you their, you know, their, their, Profile and maybe a voice message, but those things are not heritable. And as we know in our culture, we see lots of examples of people who don't look anything like their parents or don't have anything to do with, you know, their siblings, musical talent, or their other siblings, athleticism.

So, we know that these are not heritable, so perhaps that's not the best place to start. It's nice to like your donor. You want to like your donor because you want your child to, to maybe be able to meet that person one day. You want to feel good about talking about them, but it's not the best place to start.

Best place to start is to try to be practical and start with the more practical aspects first. And then, once that's settled and you. can decide on the practical aspects to give you the best health possible for your child, then everything else is gravy. 

[00:16:00] Dr. Mark Leondires: I think that most people go on a donor website and they start with what this person looks like.

And that biases them down the pathway to accept some things. But when you, it's a, it's a complete loss of control to choose a donor. It's nothing that anybody wants to do, but there are things you can control, right? And understand that, you know, you can make sure. Your donor has had mental health screening and there's a whole generation of sperm donors that never had mental health screening.

And there are many hundreds of families that suffered the consequences of young men with mental illness who went ahead and transmitted that some of these heritable risks onto their children. I mean, it was on the cover of the New York Times, right? Somebody with schizophrenia who's generated, you know, more than 50, 50 offspring, right?

They're they're so mental health screening for sperm donors is actually relatively new in the past five years, right? mental health screening for egg donors is has always been recommended for the asrm and it needs to continue to be done and so you can control the whether your donors passes mental screening and presents as a At a clinical interview that they're they are of sound mind and know what they're getting into and understand That they have There's a strong likelihood somebody's going to contact them in the future, that anonymity is gone and they have an ongoing responsibility to the, the, the child to be, the family and so on.

I mean, The 2019, you know, past term ethics committee on, you know, donors and donor conceptions. Their comment reads like this, and I have it up because I think it's important and really well written. Donors, recipients, and programs must recognize that they have a unique and ongoing moral relationship with each other.

And this obligation does not end. and with the procurement of gametes or the donation of embryos. Evolving medical technology, laws, and social standards will likely require re evaluation of these relationships throughout the lifetimes of the parties involved. So we'll unpack that a little bit more a little bit, maybe a little bit later on, but this is an ongoing relationship.

And I think that donors didn't always understand that or wasn't always driven home and maybe not always driven home by the medical providers that were interviewing them. So mental health screening, clinical interview and family history. Listen, when you're choosing a donor, you're not getting them.

You're not getting their picture, who they are. You're getting their family tree, probably their past three to five generations, understanding that when somebody sees a donor that they like. They should pass that to the side and go right to their family tree and then genetics. Like we all know there's recessive genes that cause disease, right?

So that needs to, that's something you can control and make sure it was done that you did it yourself. And then also think about the things that in your own family tree that you don't want to. replicate or increase risk off because we all have things in our, our genetic closet. So if you start basically with those four issues that the donor's looks and her there, because it's a male sperm and egg donors, right there, what you see becomes less important.

So one of the goals of the book is to, to, for intended parents to give them a sense of what they can control. And to, to reframe how people go about choosing donors. And I think it's also a message out there for. Providers for mental health professionals, for nurses, for everybody out there in this industry.

So we're in this industry of, of basically procuring gametes. So people could have babies, but we're, these gametes eventually become people, people with lives who have questions and so on. So we want to make sure that, that the intended parents are really thoughtful about how they choose a donor. And And of course, everybody's going to say, well, I didn't just choose a donor because of what they looked like, understanding that if you exercise as much control over the first four things I mentioned, you're going to have a really nice story to tell your child about why you chose that.

So I think that, you know, that's a big part of the book, changing the conversation on it. How people find their donors and the other parts of the book that I think are really powerful are, you know, how to talk to your children as well. 

[00:21:07] Sponsor: Is your fertility clinic facing billing and communication challenges?

You're not alone. BUNDL Fertility's data from over 2, 500 reviews reveals that these are common pain points affecting clinic reputations. That's why we designed BUNDLGuard with MEDS to help improve the patient experience and alleviate the top drivers for negative reviews. Not only does the patient get a full refund guarantee, but they also receive a concierge team to handle all of their billing and financing questions.

We unlock staff efficiencies so they can spend less time reviewing bills with confused patients and spend more time providing the best care possible. Visit bundlfertility.com/irh to learn more and download our internal survey of patient online reviews to analyze what gets clinics one to two stars versus five star ratings. That's bundlfertility.com/irh

[00:22:07] Griffin Jones: So you're steering people away from first looking at, uh, attributes of appearance and you're steering them to more practical criteria such as, uh, their, their mental health screening, their clinical interviews, their family history. As a marketer over the years, I have learned that the market gets what the market wants.

And uh, that's not always a great thing, uh, because people don't always want things that are the best for them. They don't want. They don't always want things that are ethical. They don't always want things that are sustainable. And so if one is going to try to go against the market, they got to find a niche that's receptive enough to it.

They, and they have to find a way of leveraging that message to where people start to see something else that they want more. So how are you doing this in this chapter, in this part of the book, where you're, where you're trying to get people like, no, no, I want, you know, I want, you know, six feet tall. I want Harvard educated.

I want blue eyes and red hair. You know, how are you, how are you getting people to think differently? 

[00:23:16] Lisa Schuman: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I mean, if you give examples, I mean, even in our culture, right? The two princes of England look very different from each other. Our ex president Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, president of United States and his brother is an alcoholic, right?

So people are not like their siblings, but also if you think about it. Our paradigm, instead of just the way that we reflexively think about things because we're anxious, really that's where it's coming from. We're anxious about choosing somebody we don't know, right? So we want something familiar. And I think when people understand that, they can be a little bit more reasonable about their decision.

Also, it narrows their choices. Patients often come to Mark and I saying, I feel completely overwhelmed. I'm looking at this sea of like Match. com people. I don't even know where to start, right? So if you start with, did they have mental health screening? Right away, you're narrowing the pool. Do we have replicated risks?

You're narrowing the pool. All of a sudden, you're narrowing the pool and it makes the whole process so much easier. Also, I think that, you know, we do make the point of, Why all of these things are important, we were, Mark and I were just talking before this podcast, that someone suggested to me that one of these people who's pushing for legislation that clinics should investigate all donors and do thorough background checks on them in order to prevent mental health problems of one of the families who unfortunately lost their son.

Sun through suicide is one of the people who's doing this. Unfortunately, that, I think, is, is sadly unreasonable. First of all, no clinic has the ability to do that. Secondly, it's not feasible. You can't find every single person's, every doctor appointment, every time they went to mental health counseling, every time they were prescribed everything.

And last, No one is, has a record unless they're convicted in this country. So you could have people who are mentally ill, who are, who are doing all kinds of things, and if they don't, if they're not convicted, there's no record. So what's really the point in doing all of that, when you can just do mental health screening and get a much better picture of that person?

So we, we try to make reasonable arguments for all of our suggestions. 

[00:25:25] Dr. Mark Leondires: And specifically addressing your question, how we hope to change hearts and minds is by thinking about the fact that as a parent, someday, you're going to do all these other things that are uncomfortable that you don't want to do. So your, your parenting is going to start by trying to find the best family tree, genetics, story, mental health screen donor.

Of course, they're going to be appealing to your eye. That is not what your kid's going to care about. And what do we want for our children? We want them to be healthy first, have good emotional well being, to find happiness and love and live their lives, and to be smart enough to leave your house, right?

So, so, and that's, none of that's how we traditionally find donors. So changing hearts and minds is like, Also thinking about, you know, how, why did you choose your donor conversation with your child? And it's a, it's a, it's a conversation that's developed over years. And I mean, I will tell us, I tell a story that just happened recently to me.

So we're driving back from a family event with my two kids and I have a 12 year old and a 10 year old and we're talking about the donor because I always called, um, her the donor and, and discussing that she might have her own children right now. And, and my 12 year old said, well, that means I might have a sister.

I said, yeah. And he said, that could be cool. And. My nine year old who's usually a little bit thoughtful is just hanging out back there. And so I asked, you know, what do you, what do you think about this special lady who gave us some of her cells? And then I said, you know, what should we call her? I think she needs a better name than the donor.

And he paused and said, our fairy godmother, which for me, that's kind of what these people are. They're giving us this human magic that allows us to have families. So being really thoughtful in choosing the donor is also going to be make for very strong relationship and bond and ability to talk about with your children why they chose their donor.

And that hopefully means that they're launched into adulthood with a good sense of self. That they were very much wanted and loved before they even came into existence. I mean, right now there's in the New York times this week, there was a story about donor conception. There's a popular book right now that talks about finding out, you know, my genetics are not my genetics.

At most recently at the SREI conference, which some of the listeners went to, there was a very heartfelt video about somebody who found out that, that later in life, Who they thought they were the whole time is not who they were. So how to change hearts and minds is that you're going to do this for your child to be, because you already look so like within the book, you know, changing the paradigm, getting that message out that anonymity is gone, doesn't exist anymore.

And with more openness. hopefully comes to a better place for all these families to be. And it is something that our field, I think culturally needs to change. I mean, at this same SREI conference in the 1950s, people were like the donor there, it did not matter. It wasn't something that was going to be revealed about choosing if you use donor conception.

And, and now, you know, there's a whole bunch of donor conceived people. We have a voiced, there's 25, 000 donor conceived siblings that have been connected on donor signaling registry. And these taking care of taking what we know now and, and moving it forward for the thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people in the future who will proceed with donor conception is one of the reasons we wrote the book.

[00:29:51] Griffin Jones: Do you talk about what's reasonable to expect from donors from the part of I guess donors and providers from the part of the intended parents and from the part of the the Children of the donor of donor assisted reproductive technology. I think you were talking a little bit about that, Lisa, but I members at ASRM this year, there was a small crowd, 10, 20 people at most outside.

I don't know what their grievances were, so I don't want to misrepresent what their grievances were. I've also had Igor Brussel on this program who is an embryologist turned reproductive health attorney. And he said, Some of what is being asked for by some people from the donor conceived community in certain legislation is things that we would never be able to get from our biological parents.

And, and so it's, it isn't reasonable to ask for, for those, those things. It isn't tenable to ask for them. So do you talk about that all in the book? What, what's the limits that intended parents and children can expect from donors and providers? 

[00:30:59] Lisa Schuman: There are a lot of limits and that's a whole other conversation because there is some division, I think, between people who are donor conceived and what we find is either found out about their origins accidentally or found out late.

And those adults are usually very distraught over that. So there's, there seems to be a division between those people and then the younger donor conceived people who seem to feel a little bit better adjusted. And so there's a lot of difficulties, I think, as time goes on, as there was similarly in the adoption community until things change.

So, and we don't really go into that in the book, but we're really talking about is when you're going through fertility treatment, you have to make all of these big decisions and you're really focused on getting pregnant naturally, right? That's what everybody's focused on. Let me make a lot of embryos because I want to have as many embryos as possible.

I need to build my family. I need to get pregnant. And understandably, The patients, the doctors, everybody's kind of focused on that. And yet now we really have to think into the future. We really need to talk to the donors about what the implications are for their future. These people will reach out to them.

What's it going to mean for them? What's it going to mean for their family? What's it going to mean for their future partners? What's it going to mean for the children and for the recipients? Do they, do they really understand what they're getting into? And. it's really important for them to think wisely about all of these pieces of the puzzle before they do.

So we're really helping the people who are just beginning this process. 

[00:32:33] Griffin Jones: So what, what is it that fertility practices need to know about the changes in donor conception? 

[00:32:39] Lisa Schuman: Well, the fertility practices really need to start to think a little bit differently, right? We're, we're all kind of conditioned to think about pregnancy.

That's what we're thinking about, a happy pregnancy, and that's wonderful, but we now have to think into the future, right? Just like the ASRM, ASRM statement says, we're, we're all part of making this happen, and so we all have a responsibility to really think about What, what we're doing, how are we talking to the donors?

Do they really, are they really well informed? Do they have true informed consent in a way that's different than what we were trained to do decades ago? Are the recipients really educated about how to talk to their children? And do they really understand what that means? And, you know, as we move forward, There are a lot of donor related siblings.

You know, last year there was an, you know, a live birth from a 31-year-old embryo. So we have many, many generations of donor related siblings that are going to be coming around decade after decade, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. So we really need to be thoughtful about all of these things and prepare for the future, not just for getting pregnant.

[00:33:50] Dr. Mark Leondires: Yeah. I mean, I think that fertility clinics need to know that anybody who's thinking of donor conception needs to understand that there's, there's no way to keep things anonymous. I think that if you're speaking to any donor, whether it be a sperm donor or egg donor, that They need to be aware of that.

The other part of the story is that moving towards openness, whether it be an open egg source or open or a familial or family member or friend, the legal aspects of this are, are, are important. So, you know, in all, in, in this whole third party reproduction field, it's clinicians, doctors, nurses, embryologists, It's mental health professionals and it's reproductive attorneys that all need to work together to protect the donor's rights, the parent's rights, and the children's rights.

And it's, and it, it's just a lot more complicated than just getting somebody pregnant. It's thinking of the, the, the longterm implications. Of what we do. And so I think, you know, changing the way fertility practice thinks about, well, we're just going to help her get, help them get pregnant. It needs to needs to go to, well, we need to be really thoughtful about making sure everybody's properly educated and that they have, they understand all aspects of, you know, how donor conception through a fertility practice affects these families to be.

[00:35:26] Griffin Jones: The first time I had you on the show, Mark, was because I have so many people in the audience that want to do more third party IVF. They want to attract more gay male couples. They, they want to do more donor IVF and more GC IVF, but it's, it's not just as simple as just saying, Hey, we do this too. There's an infrastructure, there's an investment that needs to be made.

And you've invested a lot in this. And so talk to me more about the specifics of when you say, Hey, That it's, it's the docs, the nurses, embryologists and the mental health professionals working together. What does that look like specifically? 

[00:36:05] Dr. Mark Leondires: You know, I think that the third party team at every fertility practice needs to really have a very strong kind of interdisciplinary band, meaning that, you know, it's easy for you to speak to your, a reproductive attorney or Mental health professional and, and I think that, you know, our, our field is a lot of aspects of our field are being commoditized sperm and egg included and, and understanding that, that the third party team is, it's so much more than you just need a donor.

It's, you need, you need to think forwards and backwards and, and try to guide people to make their, their best decision. So as people go, want to do more and more third party, I think it's really important that there, there's a separate part of a practice or a dedicated team. That, that, that moves under stays up to date and understands what's happening in the field.

I mean, there's a beautiful conference that it's the donor egg conference that happens every year. That's, uh, it's basically all dedicated to the legal, medical, mental health aspects of donor conception. Right. And, and I think that if people want to. You know, grow this aspect of their practice, understand that it's, it's, there's a lot to it and they need to be able to pick up the phone and ask questions and, and stay up to date with what's changed because a lot has changed.

[00:37:34] Lisa Schuman: And you also, we also need to understand And, you know, Mark and I spend a lot of time talking about difficult situations with known donors. As time goes forward, more and more people are going to use their friends or family members as donors. And certainly you have people in the trans community who are going to have more and more children.

We've had people who are in throuples. And so, you know, it's only going to get more complicated and there are, you know, educational pieces that really need to be part of this practice. To help the patients understand and work through all the potential difficulties and implications for these these situations and There are a lot of ethical issues that that arise in each one of them and we have to really be thoughtful about that 

[00:38:22] Griffin Jones: You mentioned mark that we're starting to see a bit of commoditization Happening sperm and egg included that brings me back to a thread you pulled at in the beginning of this conversation about the supply and demand and that You The demand is outweighing the supply of available donors, gestational carriers.

So would commoditization possibly be a good thing that you have more of a scale to provide the supply for the demand, or is it a bad thing? 

[00:38:52] Dr. Mark Leondires: I actually think that with driving home to donors, the loss of anonymity, There, they, there may be fewer sperm donors, probably not fewer egg donors, right? There's much more greater demand for sperm donors than egg donors because the young men who were donating sperm.

I think, you know, 10, 15 years ago, didn't think that they, there was any future implications for them. And I think that, so what we've seen over the years is the compensation for donors has gone up and up and up, and the cost for donor sperm has gone up and up and up. Compensation for surrogates has gone up and up and up.

So I think that, you know, what's, I think commoditization is not going to, is not going to increase availability because the, the humans involved are, are getting a, getting a better understanding of what the, the commitment and they're not just donating, they're just donating their sperm. You know, if we're doing our job right, they understand that they're, they're helping a family come to life at, and you know, there's, there's, you know, a future child that may come knocking on their door.

And, you know, for the, for the, the, the sperm donors who were doing, you know, had the best intentions, most likely who ended up having a hundred children out there, you know, that's not, that's not something I think, you know, was done well. I can't imagine being that young person who realizes that, you know, I have, you know, 99 half siblings, nevermind the.

The, you know, 40 year old man who realizes that he has all those, you know, genetically linked children out there. So thank things are changing. 

[00:40:38] Griffin Jones: So and some of that probably some of that absolutely needs to happen because we consider us as a species. If I, if I have my statistics right, we have twice as many.

female ancestors as we do male ancestors, meaning that some men were reproducing a lot. Some men weren't reproducing at all, which tends to be common among species. And so you might have people a few decades ago that there was a Prado's distribution where you had some sperm donors donating too much, but you also might now have just because you are more properly informing donors.

Of what the involvement in the commitment is, is, as you stated earlier in the conversation, I think it is, you called it an ongoing ethical relationship between donors, recipients and the program. And so as you start to give people the proper informed consent, it becomes harder to recruit than if there's no strings attached, which is necessary.

But then how do you amplify Recruitment. 

[00:41:45] Lisa Schuman: I think they're more known donors now as a result of it. I think that's just going to happen. What do you think, Mark? 

[00:41:53] Dr. Mark Leondires: Yeah, I think that I think no donation is going to come into the forefront. And then and you know, as long as it's done well and With full disclosure and the right legal documentations, it's, it should limit the amount of families that are made from any particular sperm source.

And we already advise egg donors not to donate more than six times, but it, it, it likely will limit that. So. You know the the governor so to speak on on donor conception is likely going to be the donors themselves I don't know lisa. What do you think about that? 

[00:42:30] Lisa Schuman: Yeah, I mean, I think it's it's very important, you know decades ago I don't know if you remember but decades ago there was a an article written by a mental health professional in fertility and sterility about Uh, clinic where they had this ethical dilemma where they cycled two, two families who use the same sperm donor and the same egg donor by sheer coincidence in a very small town in Westchester in New York.

So these two little kids were born around the same time in the small town, probably, you know, went to kindergarten together and hopefully they won't go to prom together. This is, you know, a problem. So people really need to understand even the, the, you know, the limits that we have are very large. 

[00:43:13] Dr. Mark Leondires: And I just want to dial back.

It's not that, that Mark had that statement. It's the American society for reproductive medicine ethics committee that has, we have this ongoing relationship or a commitment and moral obligation. So. But I think that, 

[00:43:29] Griffin Jones: so what do we do to get more donors though? Because it sounds like that's the, that seems to be pretty common across the board, not enough gestational carriers, not enough sperm donors, not enough egg donors, and the U S is sitting in a lot better of a position than a lot of. There's there's none or very few in their countries. So what are we, what needs to happen in order to have more donors and more gestational carriers? 

[00:43:56] Dr. Mark Leondires: Well, first of all, a lot of the reasons why there's no donors in other countries is not considered legal, for those things. 

[00:44:03] Griffin Jones: And they can't compensate, and even in the countries like Australia and New Zealand, where Canada, where, where it is legal there, there's You know, there's, there's rules and limits on compensation.

So is the answer only more compensation? Is it, is it more, is it public awareness? Is it some, some change in the messaging? And if so, what does the message need to be? 

[00:44:25] Dr. Mark Leondires: I don't have a clear answer to how to solve that, that equation of supply and demand. My, my impression is that there's not going to be as much supply because of the donors.

And practices and intended parents understanding, you know, this process better, you know, the future of this may be the future of science where we're able to take stem cells and make them into sperm and egg. And then nobody needs a donor anymore. Right. Right. And so, so that will solve that problem. Uh, and then, you know, this whole industry goes, which is kind of an interesting comment for your show, right?

[00:45:10] Griffin Jones: They're, they're, they're working on it. I saw, I saw the CEO of one such company speak on that earlier this year. And, uh, maybe we'll have to have that person on the show because maybe that is ultimately the only solution. Maybe there isn't enough supply from. From from what we currently have right now, but I think that also points to the importance of what you're discussing earlier in the show in terms of preparing intended parents to look for the right things that at least they're not wasting their potential supply source by looking at things that are either superficial or just simply not as important as the practical criteria that is.

[00:45:53] Lisa Schuman: Yeah. And one other thing, Griffin, that that might might also be in the interim happening in the interim. Mark and I talk about this as part of a talk that we give. There are all of these new small companies. You're probably familiar with them like Modemily and a lot of other groups that are developing.

And I think there is this ongoing need for more transparency. And as the The donors, and I spoke about this at the egg donor conference as a donor, start to feel a greater sense of agency, maybe more power in the relationship, more interest in choosing maybe their recipients. There'll be more matchmaking companies perhaps where people will decide, maybe I want to donate.

And I have actually on my podcast, a couple of donors like this who decided they wanted to donate to specific people where they could have an open relationship and they meet people they like and they, and that. that's really the end of the story for them. So there may be more of those sorts of relationships that will develop over time.

Of course, that's a smaller number than the large sperm banks provide, but there may be a rise in that over time until we come up with the science to, to make children from stem cells. 

[00:47:03] Griffin Jones: I think it's useful for providers to pick up a copy of your book and not just providers, we also have nurses, we have practice owners, we have business suite folks that listen, we have reproductive health attorneys, we have mental health professionals that listen, people that work in our field, anyone that touches third party IVF, I think could benefit from reading your book.

Each of you have a concluding thought of what you would like. Folks that work in the fertility field to take away from your book. 

[00:47:35] Dr. Mark Leondires: So more for myself, you know, I think that understanding moving forward with recommending your patient pursued donor conception needs to then. Be followed through with making sure they understand, you know, how to choose a donor, maybe reasons to think about an open donation and what is the best and how to talk to their child and their feet in the future.

So they are, they fully know. That their parents did everything they could to bring them to life as a happy, healthy, well adjusted person. And that will not only bring these parents to be joy, but it also will bring that child to adulthood and, and hopefully as a committed, helpful member of society. 

[00:48:31] Lisa Schuman: Yes, I echo that completely and I hope that patients don't feel discouraged.

We know how stressful fertility treatment can be even when you don't have infertility and we want patients to feel like this is all possible. There are paths to parenthood that can work and you can learn these things and you should be armed with this knowledge and feel confident that you can move forward and create the family that you want to create.

[00:48:55] Griffin Jones: The book is called building your family the complete guide to donor conceptions 

The authors are dr. Markley and dearest and lisa schuman We will link to links that people can pick up the book But if they're driving in the car right now and for them to remember later on where can they pick up the book?

[00:49:15] Dr. Mark Leondires: The book is available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Macmillan Press. And it's also as an audio book. And, and I, I really want to thank you for having us on and, and appreciate your podcast and the work you do. And this is a very multidisciplinary podcast. So there's, there's a lot that you do for our industry.

So thank you so much. 

[00:49:36] Lisa Schuman: We really appreciate it, Griffin. 

[00:49:37] Dr. Mark Leondires: Thank you. 

[00:49:37] Griffin Jones: Thank you both for coming on. 

[00:49:39] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by BUNDL Fertility. Fertility clinics, ready to boost your online reviews? Our survey of over 2, 500 online patient reviews showed that 30 percent of the negative experiences were focused on billing or finance frustrations.

Improve patient satisfaction and billing experiences by using BUNDL with Medications services. See the rest of our survey results by visiting www.bundlfertility.com/irh and downloading our exclusive report. 

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you, but the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

220 From CCRM to COO of Australia's 3rd largest fertility clinic network with Scott Portnoy

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


How does someone go from CCRM to one of the big fertility networks in Australia?

What can fertility executives in the US and other countries learn from the consolidation that happened earlier in Australia? How does the Australian fertility market compare to the US?

Find out on this week’s podcast as Scott Portnoy, COO of Genea Fertility, gives an in-depth look at the current climate of the Australian fertility space.

Tune in as Scott discusses the Australian perspective about:

  • Where Australia is ahead of the US with Fertility (And where it’s behind)

  • Fellowship & training practices (And how it's impacting their doctor shortage)

  • Donor and surrogacy regulations in the fertility market

  • Fertility Networks going public (And why that may have happened sooner in Australia)

The private equity backed consolidation in fertility (Foreshadowing what may happen in the States)


Scott Portnoy
LinkedIn

Genea Fertility
Website
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter: @geneafertility

Transcript

[00:00:00] Scott Portnoy: What's different is that the consolidation period happened so much sooner. And so what you had was the, what, the big wave of consolidation of practices in the U S has been probably. The last 10 years. So take Verdis and Monash, who were the two who have been public here in Australia, they both went public and call it 2013, 2014.

So they had already done that consolidation. Now it wasn't finished, but a lot of that consolidation before the U S really even started to do so. And what you're now seeing because of that is the doctors who were part of founding those original practices, and then were maybe part of these consolidation efforts have subsequently retired and moved on.

And you now seek the second iteration or maturity of. of those networks. 

[00:00:53] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by AIVF. Maximize your clinic's potential with EMA by AIVF. Slash end to end embryo evaluation time by a staggering 97. 8%. Freeing your staff to focus on what truly matters. Curious how this reduction in evaluation time could affect your bottom line?

Visit aivf.co/precalc and use our free calculator to uncover the cost saving benefits of EMA by AIVF.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:51] Griffin Jones: Are U. S. fertility clinics looking into their own future by looking at Australian fertility clinics, or are Australian fertility clinics looking at their future by looking at what's happening in the U. S.? Who's to say maybe our guest today is to say he was the COO of CCRM, and now he's the COO of Genea fertility in Australia.

We get an intro to the Australian IBF market. What's their payer system like? What's their self-paced system like? What's happening with employer sponsored benefits over there? Do they let their OBGYNs do egg retrievals and transfers? What's their fellowship in training like? And how does that impact their doc shortage?

Scott Portnoy educates us on what's happening with donor and surrogacy IVF in Australia. We talk about what's happening with private equity back consolidation and fertility clinic networks going public. We talk about why that may have happened sooner in Australia and what might that foreshadow what's going to happen with fertility consolidation in the U S.

We talk about consolidation and then fragmentation. What's happening with new fertility clinics. Thanks. And I talked to Scott about where he sees the U. S. being behind and ahead and where he sees Australia being behind and ahead in the assisted reproductive technology space. I think it's useful for U. S.

and Australian audience members to peek into each other's landscapes. And if you're from another country, how does each situation compare to your own? Discuss amongst yourselves. Enjoy this episode with Scott Portnoy, former COO of CCRM, now COO of Genea Fertility. Mr. Portnoy Scott, welcome to Inside Reproductive Health.

[00:03:32] Scott Portnoy: Thanks, Griffin. Glad to be on. 

[00:03:33] Griffin Jones: I've had a lot of people on over 200 plus episodes. Don't. Think of anyone off the top of my head that was in a leadership position on one continent, and then at another leadership position in another continent. Maybe there's somebody, but you're the first one that I'm thinking of.

So for those that are a little bit familiar with your bio, you were chief operating officer at CCRM for a number of years. Now you are at Genea Fertility in Australia. And I believe in the same role. Is that right? That's right. So I'm just curious at a personal level, like you're too young to have a midlife crisis.

So tell me about what brought you from Colorado to Australia. 

[00:04:16] Scott Portnoy: My, my hairline would say differently, Griffin, but yeah, my, it was really more family driven than it was work driven. My wife was originally Kiwi by birth. It's been part of her childhood here in Sydney. And so we always looked at this part of the world as a place to come back to at some point.

And. We're on a bit of a career sabbatical, both of us, and got a call from Janaya right in the middle of that. Timing is everything. That's what brought us down. 

[00:04:38] Griffin Jones: Was it during COVID that you did the move? Was it during? 

[00:04:42] Scott Portnoy: No, no. It was in January of this year, so it's been just under a year we've been doing it.

[00:04:47] Griffin Jones: Okay. So you're on a little bit of a career sabbatical. You got a call from what is now local to you. What was your first impression of that? Were you thinking, Oh, sure. Like this is pretty cool. Or was it like, there's, I don't know what I'm going to have to learn being in a totally new market. 

[00:05:05] Scott Portnoy: Certainly both.

We're actually on, on a little vacation in Maine and I turned to my wife and I was like, Hey, is this one I should take? Would you take direction from the wife? That's always a smart call. And she's on vacation. Especially on vacation. And she said, yeah, go ahead. That sounds interesting. And so started having some chats and as I learned more, it was became clear.

It was interesting. Alexis, my wife had grown up here in Sydney, so very familiar territory and the growth story and the quality story of Genea. And what we were trying to do reflected pretty well with me, especially given my CCRM experience. And so it became a, Hey, I could think I could see like I'd add some value here type situation.

[00:05:41] Griffin Jones: I'm very interested in this unique perspective, because I'm curious as to what the similarities are in the two continents, in the two countries, uh, what the differences are, and I'll try to get. specific side of you, cause I'm sure there's general differences and general similarities, but what was, as you started, what was the first thing that you noticed that, Oh, this is very similar.

This is very similar to what I'm used to. 

[00:06:04] Scott Portnoy: The similarities have been the, what I'll call the patient care side of the spectrum. First outcomes really quite similar to those that we see in the U S. Australia has been alongside the U S at the forefront of a lot of change. CSERM itself had folks from Australia working there way back in the day.

And so, there's a lot of overlap from an outcomes and quality standpoint. The patient experience, the patient journey, how hard that is, no matter where you are. has been quite consistent and man, embryologists, right? Doesn't matter if you're in Australia or the US trying to find the right ones or is the tough problem.

I think the biggest difference, probably a couple things, the funding environment as to how to access care for patients and then the doctor component. And great doctors in both places. But just how the model operates certainly differs. 

[00:06:51] Griffin Jones: I want to dig into each of those. When you say funding, right? You're talking about patient payor side, or are you talking like venture capital, private equity stuff?

[00:07:00] Scott Portnoy: No, well, those are both be fun to talk about, but the, I'm talking about the first of the two, which is the system here in Australia covers a large portion of costs for patients. Going through fertility treatment, and that increases utilization probably threefold in Australia over the US on a per capita basis, obviously.

[00:07:20] Griffin Jones: Is that true for each state? Is it at a national level, or does it depend on if you're in Western Australia, or if you're in New South Wales, or? 

[00:07:30] Scott Portnoy: That is on a national level. There may occasionally be a rebate that'll occur just here in New South Wales, for instance, but broadly speaking, doesn't matter which coast you're on.

You're getting the same coverage. 

[00:07:40] Griffin Jones: I think you're my first guest from Australia. I still wasn't able to get the accent, but because you are the first person, maybe it bears a little bit of necessity just to paint the picture of what that public payer system is when you in the UK, for example, it's very different than in Canada and even in Canada, it's very different from Ontario to get back to other provinces where sometimes you have a lot of refunding in the UK.

It's based on certain locations of how much self NHS funding is there. Correct. Give us a little bit of one on one on what that payer system is like in Australia. 

[00:08:13] Scott Portnoy: Yeah. System here is called Medicare. It's the system across Australia for all healthcare needs. Everybody has it. And for fertility services, it covers 50%, but call it 5, 000 to 6, 000 per cycle.

And there is no cap on cycles. So you come through fertility treatment. Whether you are 30 years old, and it's your first cycle, or 45 and it's your 10th, if it is medically necessitated, so diagnosed as Infertility, you come through with that kind of funding. Patients look at it, obviously it's still expensive.

People see it as expensive. And we're constantly trying to figure out how to make, how to enable more access, but broadly speaking, it reduces costs significantly. And that's from really consult, through all the way through treatment. What it doesn't cover the actual call it, if we're talking PGTI testing, but what it will cover is PGTM testing.

[00:09:11] Griffin Jones: What's the rationale behind that? 

[00:09:13] Scott Portnoy: I'm not sure. I know that the BGTM is a quite an interesting one, and this is probably going a little bit deeper, but as of what is two weeks ago now, at the beginning of November, the government actually began funding for a three gene carrier screening test. And there's a real awareness of funding for things that could cause, obviously, patient problems, but also massive costs to the healthcare system over the life of a patient from start to finish.

And that, uh, carrier screening is covered. You've got the funding for the fertility treatment. You've got the funding for the PGTM, and now you've got actual funding for the storage of those embryos post PGTM. And so there's a real kind of end to end coverage for treatment there. 

[00:09:55] Griffin Jones: Is there a requirement for a certain number of IUIs or time to intercourse or anything like that before IVF?

[00:10:03] Scott Portnoy: There's none. And so it's really specialist driven. Specialist sees you. They feel like you are validated as a, as an infertile patient and that this is the best course of treatment. Off you go. There's no preauthorization, so there's nothing to submit to the government before you proceed. Obviously a specialist could be audited by Medicare at any point, but broadly speaking, it's specialist driven and it doesn't become an issue.

And so from a patient standpoint, that's great funding. Obviously it's costly to the system because inevitably there's patients who. I'm not sure what always be appropriate to go through, who end up going through, whether their request or specials request, but on the whole really good program. 

[00:10:40] Griffin Jones: If I'm not mistaken, the NHS in UK was either this year or last year, if I'm remembering and have my details correct, expanded the definition of, or at least the coverage of fertility treatment to same sex couples.

Has that happened yet in Australia? 

[00:10:58] Scott Portnoy: That's a great question. It is a little bit undefined. And so, again, back to the what is infertile in the eyes of the specialist, if you are a same sex couple and therefore cannot medically conceive a child on your own, if a specialist considers that to be infertile, they would validate that as having, as submitting for Medicare coverage.

And I think I would find it hard for the The system at any point to go, Hey, I'm not going to cover that. Right. I, you're walking into a whole storm. If you were to do that, I think. 

[00:11:33] Griffin Jones: Does that lead? So of 1500 or so REIs in the U S there's probably, Oh, 30, 50, 60, somewhere around there, docs that have, A really high percentage of same sex couples, or particularly same sex male couples.

Do you find that there's some kind of Prado's distribution in Australia where there's a few docs that are well known for being specialists for same sex male couples? 

[00:12:01] Scott Portnoy: I think there's a little bit of that, but I think there's a broader reason why that probably hasn't been the case as much as it has in the U. S., which is around the regulatory environment for Donor and surrogacy services in Australia versus the U S it's an interesting one. And depending on your, your ethical views, it gets gray, obviously U S depending a little bit, state regulation, dependent commercial surrogacy or donor services are allowed.

That's not the case in Australia. So, for either surrogacy or donor, there is no compensation that can be paid. There's some reimbursement that can be paid, but no compensation. And so, it's gotta be altruistic. So how do you go about that? Obviously, the wait lists for those services grow, and patients end up going outside of Australia at times, or there's probably a market outside of regulated fertility centers between patients that pops up for those services.

And it probably pushes less patients towards specific clinicians who do a lot of 

[00:13:04] Griffin Jones: As far as you can tell, is there any thing on the horizon for that changing? Because that's been the case for at least as long as I've been in the field. And I remember 2014, 2015, 2016, helping some U. S. clinics market. to Australian and New Zealand patients for third party because of the shortage of egg donors and the shortage of gestational carriers.

So people would come from Australia and New Zealand and travel that, that long distance because whatever market there is in between folks and whatever's coming from people who are only donating altruistically without any kind of compensation is just insufficient. Is there any kind of, is there anything on the horizon to revise that?

[00:13:49] Scott Portnoy: Yeah, there, there's certainly discussions, especially within the industry as to what can we do to better enable access, whether or not that will make it to the level in government where things would change is another question. And that's where you do have some States do differ compared to funding where it's ubiquitous across Australia, depending on the state you're in, that legislation changes slightly.

Victoria being the most conservative, if you will, oftentimes. And it's not just a national conversation. It's a state level conversation. And it's therefore not exactly an easy one, but it's something we're aware of and trying to solve it for no other reason than we have patients that we need to serve.

And we've got to find a way to help those patients achieve their family dreams and it's a tough situation for folks. 

[00:14:29] Griffin Jones: Tell us a little bit more about the, what is the differences between doctors? You mentioned that you, there's great doctors in each country on each continent, but you noticed some differences, what in the way they're organized or the workload they have.

What differences do you notice? 

[00:14:49] Scott Portnoy: Two or three main things. The first is. In the U. S., at least historically speaking, fertility doctors are REIs that completed their fellowship and all they do is fertility. That may start to change, but that's been the historical. And first thing I noticed walking into Australia is that's not the case.

There's obviously that group of specialists who all have what we call here a CREI. It's like completing your fellowship, an REI in the U. S. And all they do is fertility. And maybe all they do is private fertility. Here you've got folks who are also maybe doing gyne, doing obs, and doing fertility because it's a full service offering for their patients.

And I think that's just how Australia's traditionally done it. So it creates a slightly different dynamic in that way. 

[00:15:34] Griffin Jones: What are the pros and cons of having the model set up that way? 

[00:15:37] Scott Portnoy: I think the pro is, and this is why I think you're starting to see it happen in the US, It enables a broader population of specialists to help people with fertility issues.

And we know whether it's embryologists or doctors in the U S that is a real supply constraint and opening up the supply with non REI specialists. Is it can be a real positive way. And there's different ways to do that. That that could be individuals managing an entire cycle and doing the retrieval. For instance, it could be just procedural related specialists.

Yeah. There's variations. The potential con is obviously quality has always got to be paramount. And so how can we ensure that the same level of quality is being driven to our patients, regardless of whether it's somebody who does nothing but fertility or somebody who does other things on the side as well.

And so that's a mechanism that we're constantly thinking about is as we grow or anybody grows and you bring on additional specialists, one, what is the training mechanism? How do we validate it? How do we support to the extent that the specialist wants that? And then how do we retroactively. review data and provide additional support as needed.

[00:16:52] Griffin Jones: There's so many different sub rabbit holes I want to go down. So I keep writing them down to make sure it's if we jump back and forth, it's because I want to cover them. And each time you say something, it's, Oh, that's an interesting topic. And so you started talking about OBGYNs as part of the practice group, being able to offer a broader supply of physicians, able to provide fertility treatment.

That's a debate that is still raging on in the US. I feel like it's one, but it will be more years before the war is over with regard to that debate. But I feel like we have passed a turning point. Maybe that's just my own perception. But I was recently at ASRM where There was an REI, and I don't even think they call them that in the UK, but a fertility specialist from the UK.

I want to give them credit because it was very funny. And this person said, where I come from, if you can deliver a baby, you can suck an egg. Is that the case in Australia? 

[00:17:50] Scott Portnoy: I'm not sure I would've put it so crudely , 

[00:17:53] Griffin Jones: it's very British, right? , 

[00:17:55] Scott Portnoy: yeah. Yeah. That's the other thing I've learned being in Australia, I would say, speaking for Genea and I, I haven't worked extensively with specialists from other networks here in Australia, so I don't wanna speak for them.

Jena organizationally has been focused on quality and research and outcomes since the mid 1980s, and so that's in the DNA of the organization, if you will. Therefore, we're acutely aware of the specialists that we have joining us, and how do we ensure that if they're not only sucking eggs, as your contact there put it, they're doing it at a level that's synonymous with everybody else.

As to whether there's a difference in outcomes, I think it'll depend on the specialist, just like anything else. As the space continues to mature, I just have to assume we're going to see more and more of it. And if we can do it in the right way. We, we've got specialists who have better outcomes as non CREIs than CREIs.

And again, I think it comes down to the doctor, obviously having a CREI is the kind of most mature version of your training, but I don't think it's, you don't have to be successful as a fertility doctor and provide fantastic outcomes. It's certainly not a 100 percent requirement. We see both. 

[00:19:01] Griffin Jones: CREI, is that an Australian term?

Does that mean certified reproductive It is, sorry, yeah, that's your, that's your 

[00:19:07] Scott Portnoy: Exactly. That's your, that's having completed your fellowship. 

[00:19:10] Griffin Jones: Yeah. Okay. So tell us about that credentialing in Australia. There are fellowships like in the U S and Canada because in, I don't think in the UK maybe, but in certainly in, in many places in Europe, there's not a fellowship.

So tell us about what fellowship or REI credentialing is like in 

[00:19:27] Scott Portnoy: Australia. Everybody completes their kind of O and G training, if you will. And then you can choose to complete further training in infertility as a subspecialty, if you will, kind of happens in a few different forms. There's the other thing we didn't talk about earlier around how the doctor mechanism differs is there's also public programs.

And so those public programs are publicly funded hospitals and provide publicly funded fertility treatment to patients. Those are. Places where audit subspecialty training happens for specialists, and they may or may not continue to provide services in that environment kind of post having completed their CREI.

And in addition to doctors who may be due part of the time and fertility in part doing gyne and ops, they may also be doing part of the time and fertility in a private setting. And then part of the time in a public setting. From an access standpoint, enables greater access for patients more broadly. It means you don't always have the doctors full attention at the private environment.

And so that's a something that operationally differs from the U. S. in terms of how do we best partner with specialists to make sure when they're not here 24, not 24, 7, 5 days a week, that we're still maintaining the best experience for their patients. 

[00:20:46] Sponsor: Boost your IVF clinic success with EMA by AIVF. With our suite of AI modules, analyze embryo viability with precision, considering visual quality, morphokinetics, and genetic integrity.

Enjoy seamless clinic management with advanced IVF analytics. Integrated EMR connectivity and a centralized communication hub. Ensure 24/7 access from any device and connect to multiple time lapse systems simultaneously. Using our platform, our partners have experienced a 10 percent rise in implantation rates and a 30 percent increase in capacity.

Don't just take our word for it, see the actual impact on your bottom line. Visit aivf.co/precalc, Input your clinic's data, And get a personalized report on how EMA by AIVF can revolutionize your operations and financial performance. That's aivf.co/precalc.

[00:21:51] Griffin Jones: So in order to understand more about the REI practice structure, I probably need to understand a little bit more.

of the very basics of the Australian healthcare system. So in the U S you've got multiple payer, multiple provider in the UK. You have single payer, single provider in Canada. You have single payer, multiple provider. What is it like in Australia? Is it like Canada or the UK or neither? 

[00:22:18] Scott Portnoy: I'd been, I can't say I'm an expert in either the Canadian or the UK medical systems as it comes to being an expert, but.

It's probably a little bit more like the Canadian model in that you've got a single payer in Medicare. Everybody has it, but what's happened is that over time specialists, especially those that are more in demand, will charge what we call a gap. So above the rate that they would receive from Medicare, there may be a gap as to what they bill a patient.

And that's, that gap is what the patient's responsible for. And there's now a number of private insurance Options that would sit on top of that Medicare funding to help patients cover that gap, if you will, in coverage, and broadly speaking, those private insurance options do not cover fertility services, they may cover components of it.

Like the day surgery, for instance, but the basic fertility component they don't cover in that if you want another rabbit hole that we could go down that opens up the entire conversation around alternative payers direct to employer models, which because of the funding mechanisms here haven't yet really become all that present, if you will.

[00:23:34] Griffin Jones: Oh yeah, I've got that in my notes here. What percentage of. IVF patients in Australia are self pay. 

[00:23:42] Scott Portnoy: Outside of the Medicare funding, really everybody, right? Unless, at least in my nine months here, unless you are a patient that has come through one of the few employers that is maybe a multinational, And therefore has alternative payer coverage from a, one of our big alternative payers in the U. S. You're going to be paying out of pocket for the services that Medicare does not cover. 

[00:24:09] Griffin Jones: Okay. I then, I must have fundamentally glossed over something you said earlier. I thought that Medicare pays for most fertility treatments. Not a hundred percent. Maybe the audience doesn't need the recap, but I guess I do.

Tell us again what Medicare pays for and doesn't pay for. 

[00:24:26] Scott Portnoy: Medicare will cover. At least in the instance of most private fertility, non low cost providers, roughly what is 50 percent about five to 6, 000 of a fertility treatment. Got it. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. If I glazed over that earlier, that's the rough math.

And so if you, if the average. Cycle costs 12, 000 here, 5 or 6 is covered by Medicare, the rest is covered by the patient. 

[00:24:52] Griffin Jones: So is that 5 to 6 exhausted after one cycle or is it 5 to 6 for each cycle? 

[00:24:58] Scott Portnoy: Each cycle, no limit. Nope, that is, obviously at some point hopefully the patient or the specialist is going, Hey, this doesn't make any sense anymore.

But from a Medicare standpoint, there's no limit. 

[00:25:08] Griffin Jones: Okay. All right. So it was probably me that, that glossed over, but that makes things a lot clearer. So is there any progeny in Australia? 

[00:25:17] Scott Portnoy: What you have is those multinationals based in the U S your Googles, your Ubers, whoever it is that offer alternative benefits, alternative maven, a carrot, a progeny, whoever, when they've got international employees based here, those benefits typically extend in some way to the employees.

And so we will see a subset of patients who have that, but obviously it's limited to the portion of the population that works for one of those us based multinationals. So it's pretty 

[00:25:50] Griffin Jones: limited. So it's only the multinationals, like, I think one of the big media companies in Australia is ABC. Like, they don't have fertility provider benefits for their, or fertility benefits for their employees?

No. Is there any kind of Push because if the multinationals are there, that means they're taking some of the talent from the domestic Australian companies. And so if it's, I could go work for ABC or I could go work for Metta. I guess I'll work for Metta because they have these extra benefits. Is that starting to put pressure on Australian companies or is the conversation not even happening yet?

[00:26:27] Scott Portnoy: I think because the existence of the. Medicare system that has broadly provided what has been relatively comprehensive coverage for people for any sort of healthcare need. Historically, there's been a less of a just mindset about employers stepping into that space, because as an employer, you probably have nothing to do with your employees, healthcare coverage, whereas that's such a different thought in the U S where it's a huge component of evaluating who you may go to work for, and that ongoing employee, employer relationship, whether it's It's really not a part of the conversation here at all.

I think that as these gaps I referenced, this cost above and beyond what Medicare covers continue to grow in the future. There may be more of a place for employers to fill those gaps, if you will. With additional coverage, but I think it's just at the beginning stages in my sense 

[00:27:21] Griffin Jones: So then talk to us about how private practice had been structured you have public programs Then it sounds that you also have private settings And so was it the same sort of dynamic in the US where you had?

The program's mostly being affiliated with hospitals in the eighties. And then by the mid nineties, you started to see the RAIs leave the academic center, start their own private practices. Was that what happened in Australia? Was there something different? 

[00:27:51] Scott Portnoy: No, I don't think the origins like you just went through are relatively similar.

I think what's different is that the consolidation period happened so much What you had was, you know, what the big wave of consolidation of practices in the U. S. has been probably the last 10 years, right? Especially 2015 to 2020. If you were to look at Virtus and Monash, who were the two who have been public here in Australia, they both went public in, call it, 2013 2014.

So they had already done that consolidation, now it wasn't finished, but a lot of that consolidation before the U. S. really even started to do so. And what you're now seeing because of that is the doctors who were part of founding those original practices and then were maybe part of these consolidation efforts have subsequently retired and moved on.

And you now see the second state of the second iteration or maturity of. 

[00:28:55] Griffin Jones: When did that consolidation start to happen? I'm guessing it happened much earlier than when they went public. Was there a private equity phase prior to that? 

[00:29:04] Scott Portnoy: I don't know the exact years, but in my mind it was probably three, four, five years prior.

It depended on the network, there was private equity involvement, certainly in the case of Virtus before it went public. Those were then both public, Monash continues to be public, Virtus was recently taken private again by private equity. 

[00:29:21] Griffin Jones: Any speculation as to why that worked out earlier? Because it did happen, that was still happening in the US, it just didn't seem to take off, at least the consolidation until, mas o menos, 2015. But. You had IntegraMed, you had, Dr. Gleicher was on the show previously, and he said that he attempted that in the mid nineties, and you had some attempts in the US with very mixed success at best. Any speculation as to why it worked out in Australia earlier? 

[00:29:52] Scott Portnoy: At least part of it's probably driven by market size.

Obviously Australia's population of 25 million people. There's a more limited number of markets to consolidate and much easier, therefore, to reach that kind of network scale. I think that's probably part of it. 

[00:30:11] Griffin Jones: I know zilch about the Australian stock market, but is it, is there a lower barrier to entry to going to being listed on the Australian stock market than on NASDAQ?

[00:30:23] Scott Portnoy: That's pro that's probably true as well. I don't necessarily envy living in that sphere, if you will, just personal style, not wanting to be short term focused always or needing to be from a. Market visibility standpoint, obviously it was a, it was an event that led to funding capacity for those organizations and good for them.

Right. That no problem there. 

[00:30:40] Griffin Jones: How did your organization differ in their approach?

[00:30:43] Scott Portnoy: First of all, I don't mean to say anything that if you're a publicly listed company and you're not doing great things by patients, that's not at all what I'm implying. I'll answer your question. In the, how's my experience differed, which is, and I know you've talked about this on prior shows.

So I'm, I'm sure the question is going to come at some point here, which is the presence or role of private equity in all things, fertility and healthcare more broadly. And that's just by happenstance, the path that. Organizations I've been a part of have gone down both at CCRM and here at Genea as well.

And I think it all comes down to the people you work with. 

[00:31:14] Griffin Jones: There's Genea Fertility, there's Genea Biomedics. Tell us more about that corporate 

[00:31:18] Scott Portnoy: structure. So Genea, founded by Professor Robert Janssen back in the 80s, always focused on quality outcomes, research, trying to be at the forefront of that, which has driven a huge amount of value for patients in the organization.

So it's the only reason I'm here is because of all that work. Part of that effort was. What became Janaya biomedics Janaya biomedics produces things like the Jerry incubator time lapse incubator and other call it products and technology media, etc. Again, helped us to differentiate from an outcome standpoint, but obviously there's a different cadence to running a products and technology company from a service company.

And it was determined that the best thing for the organization was to split those two pieces separately. And so, Genea Biomedics was separated from Genea, Genea retains the exclusivity, so we're the only ones in Australia using Genea Biomedics products. Which is fantastic for us, but we operate a little bit more independently today than we used to.

Is there a private equity partner? There is. Yep. It's a Liverpool partners based here in Sydney. 

[00:32:20] Griffin Jones: And so where does Genea fertility rank in the size of groups in the country in terms of clinic providers? Are you all the third largest in terms of cycles and docs? 

[00:32:31] Scott Portnoy: No, you got it. That's right. Third largest from a cycle market share standpoint.

Historically, Genea, because it was so focused on the outcomes, the products and the technology wasn't as focused on the, I'll call it patient access side. And that's, I think manifests itself both in geographic expansion and enabling patients not to have to come to Sydney for care, but to be able to access that and say, Brisbane and Melbourne, third largest markets in Australia, uh, as well as just call it, called marketing and ease of patients accessing.

specialists in care. And so that's a lot of place where we figure if we can combine the outcomes leadership that we have with leadership from an access standpoint. It creates a lot of value for patients and ultimately the organization hopefully. 

[00:33:20] Griffin Jones: Are there still lone wolves in Australia in terms of private independently owned fertility clinic providers?

[00:33:27] Scott Portnoy: Yeah, it's probably, oh, 30, 35 percent of the market, something like that, who operate outside of the big kind of three or four networks. And what's interesting is because you've seen the consolidation exist for longer, You actually have instances where you now have breakaway doctor groups going to form their own practices again.

So we've begun the next cycle and I've got to assume that eventually those individuals will decide it's best in their interest to join a network again. And they may become part of that network or different network. Time will tell, but we've just started that.

[00:34:01] Griffin Jones: I say that all the time. And we are seeing that in the U S as well, but it's the same thing that happened with banks.

Every town had their own bank and then they conglomerated into regional banks. And then they got bought by larger national banks who then got bought by. by a city and chase and HSBC. And we saw the same thing with breweries where a hundred years ago or so, every city Scott had their own brewery. And then by the mid 20th century, it was all Miller Coors and Heizer Bush.

Then by the early two thousands, it was SAB Miller Coors and, and has a Bush merging globally with in Bev. And, but then. Guess what? Every city has their own breweries again. And, and the middle guys are gobbling up the little guys and the big guys are gobbling up the middle guy and the circle of life continues.

[00:34:49] Scott Portnoy: Completely. And I think look for any network organization at this point, that creates both certainly a threat, but also an opportunity. depending on where you sit and frankly, depending on how do you partner with specialists. And that's what we're constantly thinking about. Not just how do we serve our patients best, but frankly, it really is as customers of the organization, as partners, how do we serve our specialists best?

And if we can do that, I think both in how do you partner just as individuals and partners and relationships, but also from a incentive and economic structure standpoint, you can hopefully find the right balance. to make everybody happy and keep folks around. And that's where we're obviously spending a lot of our time at this point, as we look to grow.

[00:35:35] Griffin Jones: Is that kind of like the Google approach from 20 years ago, where they're losing some of their best devs and talent to create their own startups. And they said, listen, we want to create an ecosystem here where you can start your own thing at Google and you can be entrepreneurial, but that way they're retaining their talent.

Is that what you're alluding to or something else? 

[00:35:56] Scott Portnoy: Yeah, I'm not sure we're as cool as Google, but I think certainly finding ways to align incentive and for those that want to feel like owners or be owners, make that the case. There's obviously a million ways to do that, as I just think that's incredibly important.

Now, not everybody wants that, and that's fine, but if we have the ability for you to, if you want that to slide into that appropriately, while still making sure we maintain a standardized network where you can go to any JANEA location and expect the same level of care, the same level of outcomes, We've hit a really good point.

And so how specifically are you doing that? It depends on the market, depends on the doctor as to what they want. I will say, and we're still at the early stages, right? It's been nine months or something like that, but broadly speaking, there's local level ownership. There's parent level ownership. There's other ways to incent doctors.

And again, those are conversations you have to have with each specialist and it's going to depend on each market. This isn't necessarily Janaya specific. This is just broadly speaking, how I think about the world. If we're entering a new market, that may be a very different conversation than an existing market and no different than how those organizations in the U S have dealt with it.

So a lot of the same dynamics need to be dealt with here. Although I think there's more opportunity for creative structuring. In Australia, then I think the U S may be a little bit further ahead. 

[00:37:17] Griffin Jones: There are the top three networks in Australia. Are they all in the top five to let's say top 10 biggest cities in Australia, or are there some where we're in Adelaide and Melbourne and.

Sydney, but we don't have a place in Perth or we're in Perth, but we don't have a place in Sydney. Is it, what's that like? 

[00:37:35] Scott Portnoy: The top two are in all those markets already. There's maybe extenuating circumstance somewhere, but Genea has been the one that hasn't had that level of geographic access, and so we recently entered the Adelaide market via partnership with an existing practice there.

We opened a location in Brisbane, which was a greenfield about a year ago, and just opened a location in Melbourne. Again, a greenfield all of about a month ago. And that for us is such a big opportunity, whereas you've got the other players who are largely already in those markets. 

[00:38:06] Griffin Jones: I was going to ask you what your mandate was when you were hired and maybe, maybe I've stumbled upon it.

Was that, was it that expansion? Tell us about what was your mandate to the degree of detail that you're able to share and comfortable sharing? What was it that like Scott do this? 

[00:38:23] Scott Portnoy: One outcomes in patient care are non negotiable. That's what's led Genea historically. Cannot change and so continue to sort that one out, right?

Whether that's maintaining and growing our quality outcomes to his patient care and patient access and then Specialist partnership and growth how I think about the world and if we can do those things that obviously sounds like a very simple list There's obviously a lot that goes into making that happen But if we do that, we're adding value to all the places that seem to matter in my mind And our group's mind, and I think that'll drive success ultimately.

And obviously geographic expansion is a big part of that, right? Enter and grow in those markets. And what comes beyond that, who knows you've seen the groups from Australia expand into Asia, primarily in order to continue their growth. Whether we do that or not to be determined, what we don't want to do is miss the, the great opportunity in Australia.

[00:39:23] Griffin Jones: First and foremost. So then to understand what the need is across the board for, or the difficulty in recruiting providers. I need to understand a little bit more about how OB GYNs work in the fertility center. In Australia, can OB GYNs do retrievals and transfers? I can. Does that make it easier to meet provider talent than it was in the US?

[00:39:47] Scott Portnoy: It makes it easier to meet provider talent. That doesn't mean. It's always easier or as likely to bring them on again back to the quality component always have to be Selective and who you bring on to ensure you're not sacrificing quality just to expand access to care and added add another specialist That's the big catch.

[00:40:06] Griffin Jones: I think got it. What about advanced practice providers? Can it does that exist in Australia their nurse practitioners physician assistants or some equivalent? 

[00:40:16] Scott Portnoy: It's newer And I think there's opportunity there for us to use more of those individuals. Here it's what we call a GP, a general practitioner. And those individuals may sit somewhere in the early part of the care process.

They're not really an extender as much as they are another part of the care system that can help complete things like a patient's workup. Are they physicians? Yes, they're physicians. I went to medical school. If you think about the Medicare system here in Australia, in order to go get that Medicare funding as a given patient, you have to have a referral.

Those referrals. Come from GPs. And so they are very much the gateway to specialist care throughout the system. And those GPs can order tests. So oftentimes you may see a GP to get your workup done as a fertility patient before you get to a specialist. 

[00:41:03] Griffin Jones: So there's no in between a physician and a nurse, like what used to be called mid level provider.

There's no nurse practitioner, physician assistant, mid level provider. 

[00:41:14] Scott Portnoy: Nurse practitioners is just becoming a thing. Yeah. And so I think there's opportunity for us there. We haven't quite cracked it yet, but I think it'll get there. 

[00:41:22] Griffin Jones: Where do you feel like the U. S. was ahead in certain areas of the field?

And where do you feel like the U. S. is behind from what you've seen? 

[00:41:32] Scott Portnoy: The U. S. is certainly ahead on creativity around ways for patients to access care because of price. That is Employer sponsored benefits, and that is pricing creativity, things like multi cycle programs. And that iteration of pricing is much less present in Australia because the costs are less to the patient out of pocket.

Where it's behind is obviously that has had to happen because there's so much less funding. So just from a expanding access to care standpoint, if that's our ultimate goal is to help more patients, there's obviously an issue with the U S system from a funding standpoint. And then secondarily is leveraging those non REI specialists.

If you can do it in the right way, the U S may be caught behind. On that. Cause I think that's been going on for longer here in Australia and it's certainly more utilized. 

[00:42:23] Griffin Jones: How about on the technology side, like workflow, software, automating workflow, automation for patient consents and patient education, and then an AI on the lab side and all of that.

Where has each country implemented more or less? 

[00:42:39] Scott Portnoy: I think you're in a largely similar place. AI sits in that same place of, Hey, what's the, those are great two letters, but what does it actually mean? And how do we best use it to add value? Not just to say we have it. I think that both countries are in similar places.

They're the lab technology. We, we, for instance, because of the Janaya biomedics history are a 100 percent time lapse incubator organization and have been for a number of years. So whether it's lab technology or workflow technology, we're largely similar where I think the U. S. is maybe out in front of things a little bit is from a patient acquisition standpoint and the direct consumer marketing and using digital Marketing and technology to acquire a new patient volume.

Whereas in Australia, it's been a little bit more doctor driven historically. I think that will shift a bit as the ways in which we all reach the world via technology and all things digital. Becomes more and more prevalent. That makes sense. 

[00:43:41] Griffin Jones: It does. And I'm going to give you the concluding thoughts.

There's a whole bunch of other things that I want to ask you, but we'll have to have you back on. What I'd like to conclude is your thoughts on what would you like to see implemented in the next two years? 

[00:43:56] Scott Portnoy: I think what we've got to get to is a place where it's easier for patients to access care. I think obviously there's always outcomes opportunities, and hopefully we find the next.

step function change in outcomes. I think the bigger barrier right now is whether it's financial access or journey access, meaning patient experience. I think those are going to become as much the differentiator as outcomes have been historically. And how you best do that Because you can't lose the patient relationship side of it.

It's too important. This journey is too hard, but how you can enable the use of technology and automation and all that good stuff to enable those relationships at the right time from your staff. And if we can get all that right, patients can get the care more easily. Everybody's happier. That'll frankly grow the market more than anything else, because you'll keep people around for the next cycle.

Patients will talk to their friends about how it wasn't that bad. And. Off we go. I think today is just a little bit too hard. 

[00:45:03] Griffin Jones: Those specific solutions will be the topic of our next podcast interview. Scott Portnoy, COO of Genea Fertility. Thank you very much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

[00:45:15] Scott Portnoy: Thanks for having me Griffin. This 

[00:45:16] Sponsor: episode was brought to you by AIVF. Maximize your clinic's potential with EMA by AIVF slash end to end embryo evaluation time by a staggering 97. 8 percent. Freeing your staff to focus on what truly matters. Curious how this reduction in evaluation time could affect your bottom line?

Visit aivf.co/precalc and use our free calculator to uncover the cost saving benefits of EMA by AIVF. 

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

219 Considerations for REI Fellows' Career Design with Dr. Morgan Wilhoite

DISCLAIMER: Today’s Advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible, for free, to you! But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest’s appearance is not an endorsement of the Advertiser.


What trends are young REI doctors interested in?

What do fertility practices need to consider when recruiting first year Fellows?

Dr. Morgan Wilhoite, a first-year REI Fellow, provides insight into her career focus and how she's shaping her Fellowship experience to align with her goals.

With Dr. Wilhoite we discuss:

  • Her areas of learning interest during Fellowship (Valuable for clinics to see the trends for young REIs)

  • The resources that all Fellows should be consuming to prepare for their ideal careers

  • Why Privademic might become the default model for young REI career preferences

  • Advice for clinics looking to recruit young fertility doctors (How to be ahead of the hiring curve)


Dr. Morgan Wilhoite
Instagram

Transcript

[00:00:00] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: So it's almost like when you are in kindergarten and you look at the fourth graders and you're like looking at what they're wearing and what they're doing. And it's like, I want to be like them one day. That's kind of how the first year fellows I feel like are, are treating this process. We're looking at the third years who are, again, I'll use my analogy, the bells of the ball.

They're getting recruited, they're getting job offers, they're signing contracts. It's super exciting. You're living kind of vicariously through them. 

[00:00:26] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Prelude Fertility, where top REI physicians find their calling. Practice anywhere with Prelude. The Prelude Network is the fastest growing network of fertility clinics in North America.

With more than 90 plus locations, we're ready to support you and your individual career aspirations wherever they lead. To learn more, please visit rei.preludefertility.com. That's rei.preludefertility.com.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health, nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode, and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

[00:01:22] Griffin Jones: You're welcome, people who are trying to recruit fertility doctors. I got a little bit ahead of the curve for you. I went out and found a sharp, engaged, first year REI fellow. And I asked her about how she's trying to influence her fellowship to design her career. Dr. Morgan Wilhoite might be a focus group of one, but pay attention to what she's paying attention to.

And if you're an REI fellow thinking about what kind of career you want after fellowship, or you're an OBGYN resident who's interested in going into the field of REI, you should pay attention too. Because we uncover advice to make sure that you're getting a proper cross section of people to talk to.

That it isn't just the kindergartners looking up to the fourth graders. To paraphrase Dr. Wilhoyt, we talk about particular resources that you should be consuming to get smart about how you're going to build your REI career. We talk about the particular areas of interest. Dr. Will Hoyt is interested in learning more about and fellowship, which I think is of value to you.

So that you get an idea of the trends of what it is that these young REIs want to work on. And we also talk about why Privedemic might become the default model for young REIs career preferences. Based on Dr. Wilhite's experiences, I give some advice to those that are recruiting young fertility docs, how to get ahead of the curve and not just being a dead dash to the finish when it comes to contract time.

I hope you enjoy this fun, lively conversation with Dr. Morgan Wilhite. Dr. Will Hoyt Morgan, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:02:49] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Thanks Griffin. I'm so excited to be here. 

[00:02:52] Griffin Jones: It's been a while since I've had a first year fellow on the program before. And I've, I've had many different fellows at different points.

Probably most of them have been second or. or third year and sometimes the reaction is like, well, why are you having fellows on? What do they know? Like, what do they know yet? There's a reason why I do it. A couple of different reasons. I think it's always useful just to constantly stay abreast of what it is that people are interested in, what they're up to.

And most of my audience is recruiting. REIs, and there are, they're either recruiting REIs or they're younger REIs that are thinking about the next phase in their career. And, and so maybe you can't advise those folks, but, or maybe you can, maybe there's, maybe there might be a nugget that, that helps them, but it also helps the folks that are thinking about the docs that they want to recruit, that they want to have as part of their team, not just for next year, but staying on the pulse of what the upcoming class of fertility physicians is interested in, I think is important.

And so I'm interested in now that you are, we're recording this in January of 24 where, which makes you halfway through your first year of REI fellowship. What did you set out to accomplish in your fellowship? In a, in a, I'm obviously studying the subspecialty, but like, what did you want to use it to frame your career?

[00:04:18] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: It's funny that we started out, started out here because when I was preparing for REI interviews, I actually came across My file of all of my video recordings, where I was kind of talking to myself, interviewing myself about how I was going to answer certain questions. And I started rewatching them just out of curiosity while I was preparing for this.

And I realized, you know, I'm, I'm halfway through first year and I'm still relatively bright eyed and bushy tailed when it comes to being an REI fellow. But I was even more so when I was preparing for these interviews, I found myself just All over the place. I was wanting to do an MBA while online while I was pursuing fellowship and wanting to do, you know, the, the reproductive surgery scholars track and wanting to do some sort of a track where I did genetics incorporated into it.

And I, as you can see, I was kind of like all over the place. I wanted to do everything. 

[00:05:20] Griffin Jones: Um, luckily this is when, this is like, as you're applying for fellowships, this is like third year of residency, Yeah. Okay. 

[00:05:27] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yes, exactly. I found myself just, you know, wanting to do everything REI. So it was funny to watch that back now since I'm a year and a half, two years out from that.

But when I now think about what I want to get out of fellowship, I'm really not only wanting to be a well trained REI and with that lately comes with the bread and butter IBF, right? That's what most RAIs are doing, but I am at a program where it's very academic and we are still seeing a lot of Bread and butter endocrine.

So we're doing a lot of hypo hypo. We're doing thyroid disorder. We're doing a lot of PCOS patients. So a good majority of our patients that we see are not actively trying to get pregnant. So I think that I am in a unique situation at this program where we're not just doing a million IVF cycles a year.

We are very busy with IVF, but we're also seeing general GYN and endocrinology. So I think getting out of fellowship, I want to be a well trained patient. reproductive endocrinologist. So I want the full scope of endocrinology and the infertility side of things. Also, I want to, you know, as, as much as I wish I could say, I want to be a full time researcher.

And I listened to your podcast episode with Dr. Devine about private MX. I do want to still incorporate research into my practice in some way. working with residents or fellows, probably more in the private and mixed setting, but you know, it's ever changing and I am still a first year. So I guess to answer your question, there are a lot of different avenues that I want to take to get really just the full scope of REI out of my fellowship.

[00:07:15] Griffin Jones: When did you start to pair back these really broad interests that you had? Like, like, how much do I want to to delve into genetics? Do I want to get an online MBA? When did you start to pair that back? 

[00:07:31] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Great question. When I realized that doing all of those things was not not possible. I, I always joke, I need like 10 more hours in every single day.

And you really do realize once you start fellowship that you're not really a master of none, you're a master of one, and you are super specialized in this field, which is one of the things that I love about it. So I'm realizing now the further I get into fellowship that I, I really want to find my and figure out what it is that I'm going to be.

doing on a day to day basis. And unfortunately that can't be everything. Um, that's just not realistic for, for any person to do all of those things.

[00:08:14] Griffin Jones: But when did that happen? Is this like, like after you started fellowship, you're like, Oh, maybe I won't get my MBA right now. 

[00:08:23] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Once I realized how busy I was in fellowship, which was surprising, I guess I thought that I would be less busy than residency, but I think I find myself working harder.

More cerebrally than I did in residency probably once I started you might be it's well 

[00:08:41] Griffin Jones: You made so you made an important caveat with cerebrally in that you're not doing the same number of hours Presumably as residency, but you're you might be the first person that I've heard say that I'm working more in fellowship than I did and in residency talk more about that 

[00:08:58] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah, so in residency, there's a lot of doing.

There's a lot of checking on laboring patients and actively managing patients that are in the hospital. But in fellowship, there is a lot more thinking that's involved than it was in OBGYN residency. In residency, you kind of react to situations that come at you, whether that's through triage or patient support.

Changing their status on labor and delivery or in the med surg after surgeries, but in REI, it's a lot more planning ahead talking to patients about their future cycles or previous cycles, talking them about their embryos that are currently frozen, working through the things that They feel important for future family building and less of reacting.

So it's, it's more thinking, it's more preparing ahead of time. 

[00:09:56] Griffin Jones: So the fact that you started to, to realize, okay, maybe some of these other things will have to come later. Right now, my focus is going to be on the full scope of endocrinology and fertility. That suggests to me that that was not revealed to you during the, Interview process in the application process.

Why am I inferring correctly? And if I am, why is that the case? 

[00:10:22] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I think that when you are interviewing for any kind of a job, you start just thinking of all the possibilities of things that you can do. And I wouldn't say I was misled at all, but I was definitely. You know, just starry eyed thinking all of what the future has to hold and offer.

And it does have those things. You just really have to narrow it down and find a niche because being the person, the go to person on genetics, being the go to person on reproductive surgery, the go to on all things IVF, on endocrinology, on the, the, the. The business side of medicine, it's impossible to do all of those things, but very aspirational of Morgan two years ago when she thought she was going to be able to do all these things in one career.

But it's been kind of fun to see the things that I, that I thought that I could do one day and now kind of see the things that I want to do one day. 

[00:11:25] Griffin Jones: I'm going to put you on the spot with a question that I'm going to start asking everybody when we start talking about this topic, because I wonder if it's time, but what you're talking about really is the, this tendon, the trend that all fields of medicine and most sectors of the economy are moving to where the specialty becomes subspecialty, which becomes subdivided specialty and ad infinitum, right?

And, and so I wonder when We live in that type of world, should we still be having, should we still be sending 18 to 22 year olds to undergrad as a prerequisite for medical school? What do you think about that? I know I didn't prepare you for that. We didn't talk about that at all, but I'm just, I'm curious in, in what you think.

[00:12:16] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Love that question. I think about this all the time, actually, because in medical school, let me even go further back. In high school, it's, really hard as an 18 year old to say, you know, I want to be a doctor in general, let alone like what kind of doctor you want to be. Right. So I do think there is a period of growth that going to college and getting a bachelor's degree has, there's perks to that, right?

You, you grow a lot in college, you realize what you want to do. You kind of, live the, the fun part of your life that you never really get back that, that freedom of just exploring. So I think there is a place for it for sure, but there are a lot of years between high school and fellowship where I feel like things could be narrowed a bit.

One of those is I will die on this hill, but fourth year of medical school. Everyone knows that fourth year of medical school, you're kind of just hanging out. You're doing, you know, what you want to be doing. You're ending your year on rotations where you can, for lack of a better word, chill, because you've already taken step one.

You've already applied to residency. You probably already matched into residency. So I do think fourth year of medical school is a little bit overkill. It's kind of a very expensive vacation, so to speak, at least the second half of it. And then you go to residency, and this is another probably hot take on my end, but for OBGYN residency, I spent, you know, four years delivering babies, doing hysterectomies, doing the bread and butter OBGYN stuff.

And Didn't do, you know, any REI besides my couple, my one required rotation and then the additional things that I sought out because I wanted to pursue REI as a field. So I think that OBGYN, Eventually, I know there's been discussions of it so far, but becoming more of tracks into either the GIND track or the OB track, because while I think it's important that I know how, knew how at one point, to deliver a baby, am I ever going to be delivering babies as an REI?

No. And I spent four years. you know, perfecting that skill and doing thousands of deliveries. So they're a long answer to your question that I really, really liked was there's a lot of where places where you can kind of dial back on how much training you need to do this career. Yeah. 

[00:14:48] Griffin Jones: And I'm, I'm, the reason I asked the question, even though it's kind of a bit of a digression is I think it plays into how you're deciding what you want to do next with your career.

And at this point in your fellowship, you decided, okay, I've had to be broader in these different, I had to be more broad in residency, delivering all these babies. I had to have all these different rotations for the. your medical school when I already knew what I was going to specialize in, et cetera, that there is a spectrum of where we need to build a rudimentary foundation for different areas of medicine, but then we might be staying in that rudimentary phase.

for too long and not moving and wasting time where we could be specializing, especially when we need to further sub specialize and then further subdivide sub specialties as the field advances and gets more complex. 

[00:15:52] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah, exactly. I mean, I'm full disclosure. I'm 32 and I'm very early on in fellowship. So I'll be 34 when I graduate and I will be looking for my very first job at 34.

And then there will be times in my career where I want to maybe do something a little bit different and further subdivide as you described it. And I could be in my mid forties or even 50 when that happens. And you really spend so much of your life leading up to this career that you've worked your whole life for.

And maybe by that time, your career that you've worked so hard for that you found your niche might only be 10 years after that, if that. 

[00:16:33] Sponsor: As pioneers in reproductive health care. Prelude Fertility invites you to join an extraordinary mission to transform the way fertility treatments are delivered. What sets the Prelude Network apart?

It's the people. We're home to some of the most skilled and compassionate fertility experts in the industry. Prelude Fertility doctors have been recognized with numerous prestigious awards, including Top Doctors, America's Top Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many others. Our culture is one of collaboration and shared knowledge, where learning from each other is just as important as learning from our experiences.

Prelude's facilities are a testament to innovation, equipped with the most advanced tools in reproductive science. This means you, as a fertility specialist, will have everything you need to provide care that's not just effective, but transformative for the fertility field. The Prelude Network is the fastest growing fertility network in North America, with over 90 locations.

This growth isn't just about numbers. It's about providing you with the flexibility and security to build a career that aligns with both your professional and personal aspirations. The impact you'll have at Prelude is profound. We've helped bring over 165, 000 babies into the world, and each day offers a new chance to change lives.

Your expertise and care have the power to turn hopeful dreams into joyful realities, crafting stories of hope and family. So why join Prelude? Because here, you're part of something bigger. You're at the forefront of a movement that's constantly evolving, pushing the boundaries of fertility care. Together, we can shape a brighter future for families and set new standards in healthcare.

Discover how you can be part of what's next in fertility. Visit rei.preludefertility.com and take the first step toward a career that's as fulfilling as it is trailblazing. That's rei.preludefertility.com.

[00:18:46] Griffin Jones: Do you think with regard to finding that first job, do you think about it in those terms with your fellowship that I am trying to craft what I want to get out of that first job?

It's going to be the first time where I'm not. Uh, uh, applying to, to residency and getting, getting matched somewhere and fellowship match somewhere. I get to actually have some agency here. Do you think about how you're setting up your, your first job or do you look at, Your fellowship more generally and saying, well, this is what I want to study.

This is the knowledge I want to get. And then the job will come later.

[00:19:25] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I think both. I like the word that you said agency there, because this is a weird feeling. I don't know if I would describe it as weird, more just. I've never been in this position before where you're not trying so hard to prove yourself to get to the next step.

You know, all through high school, you're trying to get into a good college. Through college, if you know you want to go to medical school, you're trying to do everything to put you, yourself in a good position to get into medical school. Through medical school, you're putting yourself in that position to match into a good residency, and then through residency, same thing, to get into fellowship.

So there's all these, I like to call it, leading a life of contingency. It's like, I will get to the next step and be happy when I'm an REI fellow. And now I'm kind of at that stage where it's like, okay, I've, I've gotten into all of these things that I've strived to, to get into the place that I am now.

And now I get to really learn and craft my future the way I see it and the way I want to do it. And it's, An odd feeling because I've never gotten to do that before. I've always been trying to do the things to make me look perfect on paper for the job that I eventually want. And now I definitely have to rearrange my mindset to think, Okay, what, what can I do now to put myself into the best position to be the doctor that I want to be, to work at the practice that I want to work at?

Because now it's going to get to be my choice where I want to go and what I want my niche to be.

[00:20:58] Griffin Jones: To what extent is the first year are you able to shape your education to prepare of how you want to To practice in the future. 

[00:21:07] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah, so I think I'm I'm lucky at my program because our my attendings It's kind of a close knit program.

We have Three will now four full time faculty and they work really closely with you So you can get out of fellowship what you feel like you need to get out of it to do what you want to do Of course, I'm at an academic program and I wish more people wanted to go into academics and I do and I love it But there are other things of course that I'm interested in and I feel well supported to do that For instance, my program is set up where I?

The first six months, you're kind of learning the ropes from the, what we call the IVF fellow. So you're learning kind of how cycles go. You're doing more of the low tech stuff, ovulation, induction, IUIs, and then you're also rotating through outside, um, services. So for instance, I rotated my first six months through adult endocrine Through pediatric endocrine where I did a lot of Turner syndrome clinics and transgender medicine I did DSD clinic and We do some genetics in there, too And then I was actually told by my program that if I found something else that I was interested in learning more about I if I could, you know make that connection and set that up for myself and it would be helpful for my future career, then I was encouraged to do that.

So I spent a considerable amount of time with peds endocrine because I was very passionate about fertility preservation and those populations oncofertility and then pediatric like Turner syndrome and Coleman's and the transgender clinics. So there were things that I was given a lot of autonomy on being able to explore further.

And I feel very lucky to have had that opportunity in my program. And then once January of your first year hits, you are the IVF fellow for 12 months. So it's you in the, in the clinic every day, doing the retrievals, doing the transfers, and it's less, more structured, less, You get to choose what you do, but to answer your question, there is a little bit in there your first year to get to explore and kind of tweak how you want your career to look and explore that.

But then yes, once you become IVF fellow, it's much more structured, which I think is a good, a good mix. 

[00:23:30] Griffin Jones: Is that to say that in your career, you want to be, you want to either be researching more and more of the latest in endocrine or, or that you want to be focused more on, on endocrine patients as opposed to doing IVF?

[00:23:49] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Not necessarily, but I want to have a lot of that background knowledge to be able to do some of those fertility preservation cycles for patients that have like Turner's mosaic or Oncofertility and I think because I was able to explore that so much in my first six months I now have an idea of what that would look like in a future practice taking a those patients and especially the pediatric patient population.

There are some centers that don't do a lot with fertility preservation for the pediatric population for various reasons. So I think being able to explore those different things in endocrine and the different genetic things are, were definitely aiding to the ability to kind of Figure out what I want to do later on 

[00:24:38] Griffin Jones: right now is privademic at the top of your list.

If you're thinking of practices in general categories, academic or independently owned or part of a network or private Demick is, is that at the top of your list? 

[00:24:51] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I think so. And again, this is, you know, I'm still in that. starry eyed first year fellow thing where I'm, I could see myself doing a lot of different things, but definitely being able to, um, to mentor and teach on a medical student level, resident fellow level.

I want to be involved in education. Um, and in doing so, I wouldn't like to be involved in those, um, different levels of research, um, helping medical students, um, Residents and fellows get research projects off the ground, helping them kind of understand how to read research. All of the things that my mentors have done for me getting to this point.

So, Privademic seems like kind of the way of the future. And I, I love that word. I love that you just did this podcast with Dr. Devine about this, because I don't want REI to lose that. in the future. I don't want it to just be everybody doing IVF cycles and nothing else. I think that there is definitely a, an advantage to keeping the research going, keeping providers in groups that want to be research mentors and just mentors in general of 

[00:26:01] Griffin Jones: When you say that PrivateMX seems like the way of the future, is that also to say that it is the future default of REI Fellows preferences?

Like, because I'm, I'm, look, when I talk to Fellows, some of them want to do research for full time, but not too many, like real anecdotally, I'm thinking one out of five, something like that. Very few want to start their own private practice, but also very few that I could think of would say that they don't want to do any research.

And maybe that changes as they've been practicing for three or five years. And like, I'm, I'm. Good. Not doing the research. I want to do as many cases as possible and see as many patients as possible. And then the rest of the time with my family or something else, go going to get that MBA. But it seems to me like at least coming out of fellowship, very few people are saying that they don't want to do research and, and not very few, but.

Few people are saying that that's all that they wanna do. So do you think that Priem is, is is gonna be the default for that reason? 

[00:27:12] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I hate to call it a default because it just seems like this perfect mix of clinical and academic, which is exactly what it sounds like in the name. But for lack of a better word, I guess, yes, default, it does kind of seem like that's the way things are going because all of these companies that are now owning or partnering with academic centers, there are very few academic centers that are just purely academic anymore.

And I agree with you. I don't see many fellows graduating saying I want a full career in just research. And I think part of that may be, this is me speculating, but maybe because people don't want to lose that ability to communicate with patients and do more of that bedside doctoring. And I think that's a skill that is needed.

You just get better at, with time, communicating to patients in ways that they understand because REI is confusing. It's confusing to patients to talk them through an IVF cycle. So, I, I think that it's probably, yeah, the way of the, the future because it's a good way to hold on to both without having to, to give up one or the other.

But I would love to know how many fellows graduate saying they want to continue doing the IVF. Research and academics and how many 10 years later are still doing research and academics. I feel like that would be an interesting number. 

[00:28:29] Griffin Jones: Yeah, me too. I, because I suspect that it's different because people just say, yeah, I want to stay involved in the research.

But then when you get into the, the, the real life of work and family and career, and I wonder how much that changes, but default might not be the preferred word, but it. To your point, if it really is the perfect mix, then it's better that the default is the perfect mix as opposed to a much lousier alternative.

[00:28:58] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: And again, it's easy for me to say because I don't have children. I'm not married, so it's easy for me to go home and read or work on research and that kind of thing. But, you know, in 10 years from now, if I have children and a family, my priorities may change. So you just never know what your future is going to look like until you're, you're in it.

[00:29:18] Griffin Jones: Are you thinking about jobs right now? Like, are you starting to talk to folks? Like what, what level of research are you doing right now? 

[00:29:28] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah. So I'm very lucky that I have Meg two years ahead of me. You and I both know Megan Sacks. I'm going to give a shout out to her on this, but she has been instrumental and, you know, a mentor to me going through this whole process.

And she kind of, you know, plants little seeds of, Hey, this is a really good group. These people are hiring. And she knows, I know I'm, I'm a free agent. I'm not stuck to one place. And I, again, I don't have a family that I would have to uproot to a different part of the country. So I would say, yes, I'm starting to think about jobs for sure.

I haven't started interviewing or taken any steps toward looking at contracts, of course, but I, I think about it often. 

[00:30:11] Griffin Jones: Okay, so we're pre interview, pre contract, that sort of thing. Have you had soft conversations with potential employers? Yes. What have those been like? 

[00:30:21] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: More like, we are going to be expanding in two years, which is a perfect time for when you're going to be graduating.

What are your thoughts about, you know, moving to this area? So, without divulging too much, yes, I have had some Conversations, but nothing has been, you know, let's sit down and look at a contract together at this point. 

[00:30:44] Griffin Jones: How much do they or you stay in touch in, in that situation where it's like, Hey, we're going to be here.

And maybe that's of interest of you. Is it something that it's like, Hey, call us back when you're, when you're, you know, halfway through second year, a little bit, maybe not. They, they probably don't want to wait that long. They probably would, would like to, to ink something sooner. But call us back when you think about this or are they, you know, maintaining a relationship with you, staying in touch?

Are you doing likewise? Or is it, is it more like we had a conversation and maybe I'll revisit that conversation later. 

[00:31:18] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah, more like the latter, how to conversation, like reach out when you are, you know, ready to start seriously interviewing, keeping in touch, you know, at conferences and that kind of thing, of course, or if, you know, mutual friends cross, cross each other's paths, good way to reach out in that way as well, but more so of let me know when you're ready kind of conversations.

[00:31:43] Griffin Jones: Transcribed People doing the recruiting, listen up. You're missing the boat, man. People posting on LinkedIn, come to our event at PCRS. Come to this thing. Oh, yeah. We have an opening in Austin. You and everybody else has an opening. And so, I think that might be A little insight into where people that are recruiting young docs could have an advantage of if you are having these soft conversations with first years, with maybe even second years, maybe even people in fourth year residency that aren't sure if they're going to get, Where, what fellowship program they're going to get accepted into, but they think they want to go into REI, maybe add those folks to a CRM or, or some way of keeping track of them and actually nurture that relationship over time.

[00:32:34] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah. And I don't want to speak for the whole group of first year fellows, but I would say I'm probably speaking for a vast majority of us is, you know, it kind of makes you feel like the bell of the ball when people are reaching out to you and just. You know, planting the seed of, Hey, when you start looking, we might be hiring in the next two years, or this is what our practice looks like, or just reaching out.

I think that if this reaches any of the recruiting docs, first year fellows love that they, they like to feel like finally we are the ones that are being sought after and not having to reach out to, to secure a spot for ourselves. So. Definitely reach out. That is my advice. If that's not a weird dynamic of me offering advice, I don't think that it is.

[00:33:19] Griffin Jones: I'm I'm offering that advice to the networks, to the clinics, to those that are recruiting younger docs. And I understand that recruitment is like sales were very often. Too busy to do the longer term work because you have to fill a position now. And so you're, you're trying to focus on that, which is immediately going to be available where you're going to be able to see the fruits of your labor sooner.

But I think that there is a real advantage in starting those relationships early. Cause if I'm a recruiter, Morgan, and I know what you like, and I know what you're up to, and I want, and I know. Where are you going to go? I want to just check in with you every now and again, drop you a text when we're opening that new office, or if our research institute is doing some study, I want to, I want to let you know that, oh, that's, that's in one of the areas that, Morgan's really interested in.

So I think that's just a little insight that I hadn't really uncovered under the, on the show, because I had always just sort of assumed that, well, it just keeps getting earlier and earlier the recruitment phase and it does, but maybe not in earnest, right? 

[00:34:29] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Yeah. And I think there's probably a little bit of hesitation from a recruiter standpoint of, I don't want to come off sales and pushy, but from a, a Perspective employer employees standpoint.

I do think that reaching out earlier kind of puts It puts that in your mind of, oh, this person reached out when I was really early on and that's nice to be thought of early on, whether or not it's because they just really need people or because they feel like my personality would, you know, click well with their group.

Either way, it, it is definitely a good feeling when people are reaching out and letting you know that the job's coming available. 

[00:35:11] Griffin Jones: What sources of information are you going to for what jobs might be a good fit or just, or for what you're considering for your career? Like, are you going to docs that are associate REIs someplace?

Are you going to the networks themselves and talking to the founders? Are you just asking the folks that are on the board of SREI that do the, Retreat at Park City. Are you like trying to read business info? Are you just in a WhatsApp or iPhone message group with all of the other first years? And it's the blind leading the blind.

And uh, if you'll pardon the expression, or are you talking to the third years who are like the kids 10 feet ahead of you in the haunted house and asking them what's coming next? Where are you getting, where are you going to, for, to make sense of all this? 

[00:36:03] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I love your analogy, Scriven. That's great. So it's almost like when you are in kindergarten and you look at the fourth graders and you're, like, looking at what they're wearing and what they're doing and it's like, I want to be like them one day.

That's kind of how the first year fellows, I feel like, are treating this problem. process. We're looking at the third years who are, again, I'll use my analogy, the bells of the ball. They're getting recruited, they're getting job offers, they're signing contracts. It's super exciting. You're living kind of vicariously through them.

So definitely through the third years, again, Megan Sachs, who has is my wonderful third year fellow here, secured a job recently, signed a contract and will be moving to Chicago. And she has been a great source of information of You know, which, which contracts look good when, because she talks to the other fellows who've also signed contracts that, and then again, the first year fellow, what's that kind of the blind leading the blind.

We haven't really delved into discussing contracts or anything yet, but more living vicariously through the third years of the things that they're doing. I always say this in medicine and it's a shame that it's never come to fruition, but we really need to be taught. More of the business of medicine going through medical school, residency, and now fellowship, you, you don't have that big piece of medicine and that's a lot of what REI is, is business.

So I think that it's I wish you said, read a book. I have read books and it's hard to make sense of a lot of it. You almost have to like have a confidant of someone you can say, all right, this is a really dumb question, but just talk me through this business model or our views versus, you know, salaries, guarantees.

It's, it's a lot of lingo that you don't start hearing until you really start looking into jobs or hearing people talk that are looking into jobs. 

[00:37:56] Griffin Jones: So in the absence of getting an online MBA, where do you go to, to get that sort of business education that you're not getting in med school or residency or fellowship?

[00:38:06] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I'll let you know when I find a good source. I mostly, you know, things that I've talked to or people that I've talked to that have been through the process. I do have a few friends that have gotten their MBAs that are in medicine and they've kind of shed some light on some of the things that just sort of are a little bit more nuanced than what I'm privy to being purely clinical this whole time.

So I, I would love to one day get an MBA and be able to understand it more, but I, I think that I'll keep you posted if I find a good student. source, or if you know of a great source, 

[00:38:42] Griffin Jones: well, hopefully we're doing a little bit of that here on, on this show, we don't have anything like online training modules, but I would say if I was at least geek out on every one of these episodes, you know, you got to drive somewhere.

You got a little listen to something when you're at the gym. So might as well put this on, especially when you're thinking about what comes next, but who has done a better job of actually putting it into modules is my, my friend at work. Duardo Herriton, who has has made the fertility explain series. And, and then in addition to those things, I think through there, you'll, you'll find more people to talk to.

You'll also find different resources that we drop along the way of like, oh, here's the best business book I've read, read, written. Or read in the last three years, I should say, and this is why. And so I think that that's a, maybe a little piece of advice for, for the younger docs. And then something that you said made me also think if, if I'm qualified to give advice, which I'm not, but it doesn't stop me from doing it.

is get a bit of a cross section of people that you're talking to. Like if first year fellows are only talking to third year fellows, it's like, they don't have a job yet. Like definitely, which is not to discount the knowledge that they have because they're in the system and they're the ones who know you know, what's most current and they're talking to all their peers and they talk to eat different potential employers.

And so they know what's current and, and, and they do have really valuable knowledge to share with you. But then you might talk to somebody who's an associate doc that worked at a practice for three years. And then you might talk to someone who is a newer partner. They've been working at a practice from five to seven years and became.

partner a couple of years ago and what that's been like. And, and then talk to some folks that are there further on in their career as well, and use the amalgamation of all of that to inform your decision, because I could definitely just see, I could just visualize all the first year fellows. You know, WhatsApp group together, pinging each other back and forth with that sort of thing, which to me suggests sometimes that they're doing that because that's the easiest person for them to talk to.

And they're either shy or, you know, they're, they're bashful about not knowing something. Do you find that to be the case with yourself sometimes? Do you, how often do you just reach out to somebody out of the blue? 

[00:41:08] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Right, exactly. So it's, I don't know if I would call it shy more. Like we, it. In general, physicians don't like to have conversations and not be able to bring anything to the table, right?

Like, we are used to being kind of the expert on things. So, I think being, you know, most of us in our 30s, reaching out to someone saying, Hey, can you explain this to me? It would be like me reaching out to my financial advisor and asking him, like, about my taxes. Like there's just things that I know so little about that I don't know where to start or what questions to ask.

So yes, I, I think that getting more information from the right sources would be ideal, but it is, it's hard when you don't really know where to start or who to go to. 

[00:41:59] Griffin Jones: So you don't do it terribly often then, like, would you, if you heard a guest on this show, for example, that you thought was really interesting, would you reach out to that person on LinkedIn?

[00:42:09] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Oh, maybe not on LinkedIn because I don't know my LinkedIn password, um, but I would, yes, if you provided information, I would feel comfortable reaching out, um, especially if they had put themselves out there, like, to say, you know, I'm, I'm open to communication with people that want to know more about this a hundred percent.

Sometimes it's just information overload. When you go to Google what books are best for the business of medicine, it's, you get a huge list of things and it's hard to kind of pick out one What information is the best, which I think, like you said, it's easiest to go to people that can give you little bits of information in a digestible way, like friends of friends, or for instance, I recently graduated OB GYN and a lot of my friends that are now in private or hospital owned generalist groups.

I've gotten a lot of information about contracts in business from them because some of them are on a partnership track or can explain a little bit more about their guarantees or RVUs, but I don't know how applicable that is to my field because REI is much different in terms of a business setup than generalist OBGYN.

[00:43:16] Griffin Jones: When it comes to potential employers in the future, are you of the ilk that, well, I'll just talk to anybody, or is it a bit, is there a bit of apprehension because it's like, well, if I talk to this person, then, you know, then I feel like I either owe them something or they're, I I'm worried about wasting their time.

And, and then I feel like I've got to give them more of my time in order for it not to be a waste. And I would rather just. put all of that off for a second until I decide a little bit more who I want to, to talk to. Like, are you, are you of the shotgun approach or is it more like, I'm a bit apprehensive because I don't want to start getting recruited just yet.

[00:44:03] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: No, I would say I'm, I'm a little bit of both. I am very open to getting recruited cause I want to know what's out there. At this point, I kind of only know Ohio cause that's where I've been for so long. Um, I think just being really upfront and honest, like. I'm first, I'm halfway through my first year. I still have a long time to go.

I'm kind of just looking and seeing what's out there and being very transparent in those conversations. If someone were to reach out to me, you know, I'm, I'm still looking to see what's out there rather than not wanting to waste someone's time. Cause I don't, I think that getting more information is a waste of anyone's time, especially if you're not setting up like a hour long meeting with them and taking up their time.

If you have no interest in going there, if I was recruited to Alaska right now, I think that that would, I would probably be transparent in that I might not be moving to Alaska, but in terms of other places or business models, I'm open to hearing whatever's out there and just being very transparent, that I am still just very early and.

Continuing to keep my options open and look around. 

[00:45:08] Griffin Jones: Do you have a, an idea of preferences of where you'd like to end up geographically? 

[00:45:13] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: I go through this every day when I live in Ohio and it's five degrees. Like, oh gosh, I'd love to move to somewhere warmer. But then, you know, I'm from the Midwest. So to answer your question, no, I have My family, my parents are in Ohio, but otherwise I could see myself going a lot of different places.

Just depending on the weather in Ohio that day, you can ask me. 

[00:45:36] Griffin Jones: So Alaska is off the table, but are there other, are there other places where you think no, either that's too rural or it's too, like that would be too far or that's, that's too large of a city. Like, are there, so if you're still paring down where you want to be, are.

Have you pared down some of where you don't want to be? 

[00:45:58] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: A little bit, yeah. I think I would be most, I guess the area where I compare it on the most is I want to be in an area where I can easily refer patients to, to multiple specialties. So if someone needs a, a referral to psych, not having to be in an area where they have to drive two hours to get there.

to see a psychiatrist in person or if someone needs a referral to GYN oncology, having like an internal referral system, maybe not in the same hospital, but at least near. I think that that is important to me to have a community of people that I can not only reach out to with questions that are more geared toward their specific needs.

specialty, but also send patients to if I'm concerned about a malignancy or if there's a cardiology concern. For instance, I mentioned Turner's patients. There are a lot of cardiac anomalies that can go along with having Turner syndrome. So if those patients need MFM referral to discuss pregnancy complications or if those patients need cardiac clearance to be able to carry a pregnancy, those are the kind of.

Places that I'm interested in practicing where there is a, a community of other physicians that I feel comfortable going back and forth with. 

[00:47:10] Griffin Jones: I'll let you conclude on, on this topic, whether it's about how you're structuring your fellowship to get what you want out of your career or, or what you're looking at to be able to do once you get that dream job and, and be able to practice in that way.

How would you like to conclude? 

[00:47:29] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Well, I think we've covered a lot, a lot of basis here. I think in conclusion, I would say I'm interested in practicing at a group in a group that is willing to let me kind of see the patients that I'm interested in seeing, have autonomy, get involved in the business side of the practice.

And then also just having great partners to work with. I've realized through many. Years of medical training that the people that you work with can really make or break your, your daily mood and your general outlook on medicine. So having good partners, support, mentorship, all of those things are important to me.

So that's, I think that that probably can echo what a lot of first year fellows would say is we want to be able to go to someone that has more experience to ask for help and also be happy where we're working. 

[00:48:26] Griffin Jones: Well, you've put yourself out there, so if any of these folks are smart, they will use this as an opportunity to reach out to you, and they'll take our advice, and they'll stay in touch with you and build that relationship over time based on what you've shared you're interested in, and I appreciate you doing that on this podcast.

Dr. Morgan Wilhoite, thank you very much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast. 

[00:48:49] Dr. Morgan Wilhoite: Thanks, Griffin. It's a pleasure. 

[00:48:52] Sponsor: This episode was brought to you by Prelude Fertility, where top REI physicians find their calling. Practice anywhere with Prelude. The Prelude Network is the fastest growing network of fertility clinics in North America.

With more than 90 plus locations, we're ready to support you and your individual career aspirations wherever they lead. To learn more, please visit rei.preludefertility.com.

Announcer: Today's advertiser helped make the production and delivery of this episode possible for free to you. But the themes expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of Inside Reproductive Health nor of the advertiser. The advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode and the guest's appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive health.