/*Accordion Page Settings*/

Strategy

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.

 
 

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.

 

 
 

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.

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.

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.

201 Deconstructing the role of Chief Medical Officer with Dr. Neel Shah MD

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.


Dr. Neel Shah, Chief Medical Officer of Maven Clinic, deconstructs what it means to be a CMO and gives an inside look into his roles and responsibilities regarding reproducibility with clinical outcomes.

Listen in as Dr. Shah discusses:

  • The indoor vs outdoor cat methodologies of CMO (90% are outdoor cats)

  • Why resolving Medicaid constraints means putting your fees at risk for clinical outcomes

  • His system for qualifying providers (And how he gets product and protocol feedback from them)

  • Some examples of what he believes to be disinformation within the fertility space

  • The overlap between business and clinical operations (and where the CMO role converges and diverges with the CEO and Medical Director)


Maven Clinic:
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram

Dr. Neel Shah
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram

Transcript

Dr. Neel Shah  00:00
The way that I look at the Chief Medical Officer job is that there's basically two kinds of chief medical officers. There's outdoor cats and indoor cats. The outdoor cats like sales for thought leadership, and the indoor cats are like product and operations.


Sponsor  00:14
This episode was brought to you by Embie. To see where your time is going, visit embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report. 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 guests appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

Griffin Jones  00:54
Are you an indoor cat or an outdoor cat? That's not a phrase I was expecting to talk about in this interview. But it was a fun metaphor that I took from my guest, Dr. Neel Shah, Dr. Shah is the Chief Medical Officer of Maven clinic. According to this CrunchBase profile that I'm looking at right now that may or may not be accurate, they've raised over $290 million in funding. They're a digital health platform that works with health plans and employers to offer virtual services for women's and family health. So they're also in that employer coverage game, but I spend my time talking today with Dr. Shah about how the role is constructed. Dr. Shah says there are two kinds of Chief Medical Officer outdoor cats who are more figureheads of sales and thought leadership in indoor cats who form products and operations, etc. He thinks 90% of CMOs are outdoor cats, where he was charged with reproducibility of medical outcomes. Dr. Shah talks about the economic constraints of Medicaid and how resolving those constraints means putting your fees at risk for clinical outcomes. So I asked him, what was his original mandate? What were some of the first things that he worked on to create reproducibility for those clinical outcomes. He talks about what he did to reduce the need for C sections. Dr. Shah shares which positions are his direct reports, he talks about where the chief medical officer and the Medical Director roles converge and diverge, where the CEO and ce o roles converge and diverge with that. And the chief medical officer, if you listen to this show, you know that I'm not convinced that there's a complete separation between clinical and business operations. I simply don't believe that there is I don't want to speak for him. But Dr. Shah seems to agree with me that there's a great overlapping area of the Venn diagram. And he talks about what that is specifically, he talks about his system for qualifying providers in getting product and protocol feedback back from them. And he gives a couple of examples of what he views as disinformation in the fertility space that I hadn't heard about yet, so I'm gonna go look them up. While I do that you enjoy this conversation with Dr. Neel Shah, Dr. Shah. Neel, welcome to the Inside reproductive health podcast.

Dr. Neel Shah  02:50
Thank you, Griffin. Thanks for having me.

Griffin Jones  02:51
I want to have you on because you're the chief medical officer of a very large organization. We have chief medical officers of varying size organizations listening, but I imagine we also have some folks that see that in their career path. And I've never spent an episode breaking down structurally what that looks like. I want to go through that with you today, what the duties look like what the corresponding roles look like. But perhaps we'll just start with Maven clinic as a large organization. I've read headlines where you've all raised a lot of money and you're growing fast. And how did you become the Chief Medical Officer for Maven clinic.

Dr. Neel Shah  03:35
It was a combination of the midlife crisis and Pandemic onwy. I think I spent the last decade most of it as a professor of obstetrics gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School. And so actually, fertility was relatively far flung from my primary interest other than the fact that I did women's health, but I was one of the people who helped uncover the maternal mortality crisis in the United States and some of the underlying racial inequities and had been following Maven for pretty much the whole time since Kate Ryder founded the company back in 2014. And we Kate Knight, who's the founder and CEO had corresponded, you know, as a professor, you get to have hot, hot takes and just sort of pontificate. So she emailed me, I'd email her back. And then, honestly, I remember being pretty skeptical, not of Kate, or Maven, but just as digital health as a whole. I mean, there's a lot of hype in digital health, you also can't deliver a baby through a screen or do an egg retrieval through screen. So it's just kind of confused, you know, obstetricians are pretty tactile. But then in 2018, Mavin, started to increasingly convert from being a direct to consumer business to being a b2b employer benefit. In fact, there's a really good Harvard Business School case study. We're almost a canonical example now of how to do that conversion. And I remember when Maven signed up Bank of America as an enterprise client, and I was like Bank of America knows what they're doing. They've actuaries so it's probably valuable to them. Sorry to pay much more attention. Ultimately, I joined the Scientific Advisory Board of Maven. It was actually the first for profit board I joined. Because as an academic, you try to be pure, you know, and neutral and objective not have any, you know, profit driven interests. But this was a company that was doing really innovative things. So that's where I started. And then when Kate was looking for Chief Medical Officer, my plan was to help her go find one. And I was like, Hey, what is the Chief Medical Officer kind of like you're asking me now. And it turns out, there's many kinds Griffin, if you've met one chief medical officer, you've only met one chief medical officer, they're all different. So we converged on what the roll would mean for Maven. And then the more we talked about it, the more I felt like that's something that I wanted to do. So I was like, Hey, how about me? And here we are,

Griffin Jones  05:44
I want to talk about how that role converge. I do want to dig in a little bit more to your skepticism of digital health, because this is one means of you vetting, not just the company that you ended up going to work for. But the whole space that you ended up going into what were you skeptical about? Specifically? What are you no longer skeptical about? Either because you your skepticisms? were unfounded in that regard or something changed? And what skepticisms Do you still hold on to?

Dr. Neel Shah  06:14
That's a great set of questions. I'm skeptical that there's such thing as a pop up fertility clinic, that's any good, I'm still skeptical of that. I don't think that you can create a fertility clinic overnight. I think that there's a lot that needs to go into ensuring quality for people who are building their families. But I guess that relates to how I thought about the transition. My mentor is Atul Gawande, who is a New Yorker staff writer and a surgeon and innovator. And he had famously left his academic role just like I did to join Haven, which was the JP Morgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, health care startup that lived for a couple of years, and then didn't, but he gave me a lot of really, really good advice about that. His own skepticism and what led him to do it. And what he told me to do was to be intentional about, you know, the hardest thing for me and joining a startup, honestly, was not the leap of faith on the company, at the end of the day, it was myself of identity, because it's an academic, your job is to be an honest broker of information. And you know, now when the CDC wants comment on, you know, new numbers that come out, I'm not the person they go to, because, you know, I'm at a startup, I'm no longer an academic. But what he told me was to be intentional about what I leave behind in the academic world, what I bring with me, and what I newly adopt and kind of make room for, and what I left behind was my objectivity when it comes to, you know, profit. But what I brought with me was my commitment to scientific evidence, I think that digital health has as much potential to improve people's well being as drugs and devices, but it's not regulated by the FDA. So there isn't the same standard of rigor to proving that things actually work. But when I came to me, but actually brought my whole Harvard research team with me, and that was a big part of how we formulated the role to

Griffin Jones  08:06
Let's talk about formulating the role. Did it start off as Kate asking you to help find the person in the same way that when people are like, do you know anybody that would babysit my kids this weekend? Like, well, you, they're just politely asking if they'll do the babysitting was? How much of that was at play?

Dr. Neel Shah  08:26
Yeah, that's a good question. I don't I think it was genuine, can you help me find someone because I mean, I've been pretty fixed in place, like, you know, like a decade into being a professor. It's pretty cushy, you know. And I think that was actually part of my own personal motivation, as I was a little bit too comfortable at a time where Honestly, I'd been kind of radicalized against the status quo. I mean, the pandemic for me, in 2020, there was a moment it's rare in life, that you have a cinematic moment that totally changes your worldview, but I was afford deployed physician, and there are pregnant people that were calling me. And there were no beds in the hospital. And if you weren't sick enough, I couldn't make room for you. And I've profoundly remember there was a woman who called me who had shortness of breath, she was pregnant, she was frightened. And I told her, she wasn't sick enough to come into the hospital yet, and she should stay at home and self isolate. And she was like, I can't because I live with my young children and with my parents. And it was very clear to me in that moment, that health is not produced in the four walls of my hospital. It's produced in people's homes and their communities and the workplaces. So, you know, I was already kind of thinking in that direction. But I think when Kate asked me, you know, she honestly just wanted to know who is out there that would be credible. And we really did have a conversation about what the role was that evolved. But, you know, the way that I look at the Chief Medical Officer job is that there's basically two kinds of chief medical officers. There's outdoor cats and indoor cats. The outdoor cats like sales for a thought leadership, and the indoor cats are like, product and operations and I came to the company with a public profile. And so I expected to be involved in our growth. But I didn't want to be the spirit animal Maven clinic, I wanted to make sure that I had a role in building the things that we were going to do, so that I could represent them and really believe in them.

Griffin Jones  10:14
So the indoor cats our product, and operations in the outdoor cats are What did you say sales and business development?

Dr. Neel Shah  10:20
Yeah, the some BD, but usually just like thought leadership, you know, that kind of thing. Which, like, that's, that's important, too. But I would say like 90% of CMOs are more outdoor cats, and about 10% of them are focused internally on building the things that they're trying to sell. And, you know, it's not necessarily a criticism, I think that, you know, it's very clear with a CEO as some of the CFOs, I think, chief medical officers have space to design roles that makes sense for their company and their phase of business. But we were in a phase of our growth, where it made sense for me to have the remit that I have today, which is, you know, I'm responsible for designing our care model for delivering it and for proving that it works, which, for me, was sort of the ideal job. And I think that combined with the opportunity, you know, the the momentum of the company, but also just a window of opportunity in what I see as a movement, to try and improve the well being of people who are trying to build their families in America at this time. Like, I couldn't say no to that.

Griffin Jones  11:23
How much did Kate have in mind really specifically detailed before you started contributing to what the role would become? What did she come to you with it with what she viewed she needed at that time? Specifically,

Dr. Neel Shah  11:39
I think this is almost emblematic of our working relationship to the present, I think, you know, she can't always has a point of view, and a high level vision. And then, you know, and brings the perspective of both the business leader and a woman who's had multiple pregnancies while building Maven out. And I bring, you know, I'm the nerdy Doctor alongside that. So like, I was like, Okay, well, you know, we're a technology company, and a healthcare company. And those two things are sometimes intention, you know, and I had a point of view on that. And we sort of worked through like, for example, you know, the canonical product leader, their source of truth is always the end user. And if healthcare had more of that, it would be a lot better. Also, very few folks in the technology business have ever heard of the evidence base that we're discussing at the future IVF clinic, you know, like they're at BDM, epidemiology and product management are like worlds apart. And so oftentimes the job of the chief medical officers together the two together,

Griffin Jones  12:42
So talk to me about how you started to actually delineate the role and what it would become what did that process look like? Was it you starting to think of certain areas that you might be responsible for? Was it specific duties? How did you start to map it out?

Dr. Neel Shah  13:00
Well, honestly, the commercial impetus was that Mavin was increasingly successful as an employer benefit. At that time, we had just started to contract and develop formal relationships with a lot of the national health plans. And we were seeing a growth opportunity into Medicaid and fully insured. So I wrote a whole textbook on value based care, actually, and didn't understand until I came to Maven, how a health plan has multiple product lines, they have a product line that is kind of like their cash cow, where they're just doing administrative services for self insured employers. And this may be obvious to a lot of your listeners, but I didn't realize that, you know, they think about that business really differently than their fully insured business and their Medicaid business where they're taking a lot of risk. And so, you know, the willingness to pay of a Medicaid plan is lower than a fortune 50 company. And the only way to make the unit economics work is to put your fees at risk for clinical outcomes. And, you know, you're not really putting your fees at risk if your outcomes are reproducible, but the only way to do that is to have scientific rigor, the purpose of science is reproducibility. So I didn't come in as a business operator, but I understood science really well. And that was the focus of my role. It's like how do we do that? You know, how do we build the almost like Toyota precision reliability into our care model so that we can actually go and put our fees at risk substantially for both fertility and maternity

Griffin Jones  14:36
You brought your team with you to do that. Did you start working on this process and bring your team over little by little was this was you bringing your team contingent upon you taking the role? How did that work?

Dr. Neel Shah  14:49
No, I mean, yeah, it was more little by little, I mean, I made the jump first and with a lot of humility about how to build inside of a hypergrowth FISI Baxter Now, you know, the way I think about it in the public sector, there's sort of this classic project management triangle where you have time, scope and budget. And if somebody gives you two of those things that sort of fixes the third, you know, and in the public sector, I just squeezed resources out of stones, but you have a minute to solve a generational problem. You know, in this world, you have access to liquidity, you have, you know, revenue streams, but you've got to turn it into shareholder value in like two seconds, you know, and so there are different constraints. And so I came in with a lot of humility about how one does that well, and the team in place was masterful at moving fast. In fact, it's a company value. But yeah, there were opportunities to bring in more clinical expertise around me. And so yeah, it was bit by bit. And also, you know, when you're moving from, I think we three or 4x in size, so you just got to hire quickly. So you hire people that you know, are great, you know,

Sponsor  15:55
Your clinic might be seeing 1000 new patients a year. Do you know how many REI hours per year you're spending on patients that don't convert to treatment? Over 700 According to the averages, that's over 700 hours wasted. There is finally a technology that scales access to care while allowing you to serve patients at the top of your license as an REI. Embie is that technology. Embie enables fertility clinics to treat more patients with their existing staff and infrastructure. By improving workflow and patient communication. Embie enables you to generate over $1 million in additional revenue per year. Embie saves REIs hours per converted patient. Embie saves over two and a half hours of nurse admin time per cycle. Embie enables you to see up to 20% more patients per year. How do we know NBS calculated 23 metrics for Rei and clinic benchmarks. And we are making them available to you to see where your time is going visit embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report.

Griffin Jones  17:08
In order to be able to have a model that works you have to be put your fees at risk for clinical outcomes. In order to do that you have to have reproducibility. What was your mandate? In the beginning? What was the first thing or set of things that you were to work on that needed to become reproducible?

Dr. Neel Shah  17:28
That's a great question. So my initial attention was on people who are already pregnant. And it's it's since shifted, not shifted, but it's been balanced out with people who are not yet pregnant, where you know, honestly, Griffin, fertility is like the total Wild West. So we should get into, you know how we're starting to think about being honest brokers, they're in a sea of disinformation. But on the maternity side, that was where I had my real depth of expertise. And it was trying to consistently help populations, decrease the section rates, decrease the number of babies going to the NICU, improve mental health outcomes, and avoid emergency department use. And we built a whole ROI model around that. And then we built a number of programs to address specific conditions that people have. So you know, Maven isn't a condition based company were really a phase of life based company. And the chassis of the product that was already in place was we're very good at engaging people digitally, who, you know, they're not in a waiting room that can put their phone down at any moment. So you've got to be you earn the opportunity to make people healthy, if you can engage them all that already existed. And we were really good at sort of learning about the context of people's lives. So my job was just like, Okay, once you can engage them digitally, and you can connect them to a provider within 30 minutes anytime a day. How do you wrap that around a person to demonstrably make them healthier? That was the job?

Griffin Jones  18:54
What did you do to either reduce NICU time or to reduce C sections? What were some of the measures that came from that?

Dr. Neel Shah  19:02
Yeah, I mean, this was like, What made this a greatest job ever, right? It was like, Okay, I've got this awesome capability. And what do you do? So for example, how does an app decreased NICU utilization? answer is, it can't like an app isn't what's going to fix health care, what we did is we turned the device in people's hands into a portal that connected them with a human service on demand. So for example, if you're a Medicaid recipient in the Delta region of Arkansas, and you have gestational diabetes, you probably don't have a nutritionist anywhere close by. And you certainly don't have one on demand. But the difference between good glycemic control and bad glycemic control is having someone who can look through your phone at your refrigerator and help you plan a meal in real time. Because changing your diet is very hard. But, you know, if you're not able to do it, you might be induced in labor at 34 weeks, and that's months in the NICU, if you do it, well, you can get all the way to term. So it's like one example. It also turns out, you know, only 5% of Americans who are priding come to see a mental health provider, you know, it's very supply constrained. And there's all kinds, there's all kinds of reasons to slip stigma. Whereas depending on the population, 30 to 40%, of our total membership, say that we help them manage depression or anxiety. And that's just about like, showing up for people at the right time in the right way, and then connecting them in a timely way to the right service.

Griffin Jones  20:31
And then how do you make these into protocols? So is that the role of a chief medical officer as well? So your job is to discover the reproducibility to see what interventions are working, then how do you build that into protocols that the rest of the organization executes?

Dr. Neel Shah  20:49
Yeah, that's a really good question, too. I mean, so the way that my org works, I have an innovation team, that's sort of like a clinical product team, we work alongside product to design these care models, we have a provider group, and that team's job is to scale the care and deliver it and then to qualify the providers to write the protocols to QA it to make sure that people are providing the care that we expect them to. And then there's a team that measures the outcomes. But I mean, yeah, I mean, honestly, when I first joined, Mavin was growing so quickly, there were 1000s of providers across 30 different specialties. So a big part of my job was to make sure we're qualifying people credentialing them in the right way. And then because our care model was also rapidly evolving, making sure that we were training and engaging them in the right way to

Griffin Jones  21:39
What roles are your direct reports.

Dr. Neel Shah  21:43
So we're startup, which is sort of like being in a garage band, sometimes you learn how to play all the different instruments. So right now, it's I've got a Vice President of Clinical innovation who oversees a clinical product team, I have a senior medical director who has the whole provider group. And we have a large as I mentioned, provider group, including people who are fully employed for mental health, obstetrics, pediatrics, and other highly, highly utilize specialties. So it's a big team. And then we have our clinical outcomes team, which is both the academic research team that I brought over from Harvard, and an economics team, it does all the actuarial calculations for a health plan.

Griffin Jones  22:18
So that's probably going to be a lot larger than many, or at least in different areas. I don't expect a lot of chief medical officers having an economics team, but maybe some will. And maybe that's the future of of that more will, that you said earlier, you may have talked about something that many of my audience already know, I don't know if they'll know that or not, they might know the next question that I'm going to ask you. But I want to ask it anyway. Because I don't know, where does the role of Medical Director and Chief Medical Officer converge and diverge as a suspect, it'll be something like you said before, if you've met one chief medical officer, you've met one chief medical officer, and I suspect that that relationship is unique to every to every role as well. But in your view, where where do those two roles converge and diverge?

Dr. Neel Shah  23:05
That's a really good question. Because, you know, I've hired a couple of medical directors along the way. And I think that there's actually more of a clear delineation, and even consistency in these roles, what I've observed, I'll tell you what I've observed, and then I'll tell you what we're doing at Maven, because you know, I did a lot of benchmarking. And it's, it's hard to hire medical directors, you want to find somebody who is grounded in scientific evidence, but also not totally dogmatic, such that they can think progressively about the difference between the alternative which is a brick and mortar healthcare system, such that it is and what the future might look like. But I would say what I observed in out there is a lot of medical directors are not full time. And there's advantages and disadvantages to that. I think, actually, there's advantages to practicing in the brick and mortar world. And, you know, I still see patients not very often for two half days a month in my clinic in Boston, and it keeps me grounded and honest. You know, like, if what we're building at Maven can't work for the people in front of me that I'm eyeball to eyeball with. That's sort of my litmus test for developing a good product. So I actually encourage medical directors to spend some amount of time I think a lot of them are pure outdoor cats. And we have a mix of both at Maven, we have people to help on our commercial team. And we have people who are just embedded with our product team, particularly on the fertility side where there's a lot of building to do. I think one of the differences though, in my opinion, is that the CMO should really be, you know, an executive, somebody who can help run the company and drive it forward. And typically, I think for a startup, it would make sense to have a CMO at the point where you're, like in that hyper growth phase of the business.

Griffin Jones  24:57
Want to Talk about what driving it forward looks like. But in this case of a medical directors, is there a distinction between medical directors that maybe work for a company, whether it's a new tech platform versus working for like a group of clinics? Because if it's a group of clinics, I don't think the medical directors are typically part time. And I think they usually are also seeing patients. So is there a distinction in what type of company it is?

Dr. Neel Shah  25:24
I think that there might be Yeah, I mean, typically, management of physicians or clinicians is a little bit different from managing, like other kinds of business operators. You know, I mean, clinicians should have KPIs, but they generally have not heard of them. You know, and, really, in any setting, clinicians, generally speaking, are a little bit more self sufficient. They need performance management, they need accountability. But it's, it's just different, because part of the value of having a physician in particular is that they are able to use their discretion within certain boundaries. So I think there are differences, I mean, in let's say, a big IVF clinic network, probably the medical director would be responsible for like a region, right, and then their primary role is to ensure quality. Because there's not necessarily a product to be developed, right or there, there, there may not be there's a very clear revenue model, so not doing a lot of BD, or they're not doing a lot of commercial work.

Griffin Jones  26:29
Should the KPIs be coming from the medical director? Or should they be coming from the chief medical officer? If it's both, then where does the distinction lie between which KPIs should be coming from where?

Dr. Neel Shah  26:43
I mean, I think it depends on the company, the organization, the face of business, but I would imagine that it's the executive team that setting the objectives for the business. Right, and usually KPIs for a forward deployed clinician should be a combination of clinical quality related KPIs and, you know, efficiency KPIs, for example, or even just service level KPIs. Right, like we expect our clinicians to be responsive, show up on time finish, you know, things like that, like, you've got to monitor all that you can't assume it. But typically speaking, it'd be the job of the medical director to execute on those to enforce them to make sure they're actually happening.

Griffin Jones  27:24
Whereas it's the job of the chief medical officer to be an executive and drive the organization forward. So where does the CMOS role converge in diverge with that of the CEO or the CEO? Oh, if if the CMO was supposed to drive the organization forward, but that's really the that as a globally, that's the CEOs job, and then CEO is executing in a lot of different levels. So how does this the Chief Marketing Officers role in driving the organization forward look, and then how does that converge and diverge with other executive roles?

Dr. Neel Shah  28:02
Well, you said chief marketing officer,

Griffin Jones  28:05

Which is I'm sorry, I know, I misspoke.

Dr. Neel Shah  28:06
It's funny, because I can't even tell you how many times I've met chief marketing officers were like, I'm the CMO. I'm like, Cool. I'm the CMO, too. And then you have a conversation for 45 minutes. And like, nobody knows who the person is talking about. And they're like, Ah, okay, got it. That's a good question. You know, I mean, I think CEOs also have very different REMAX right, and really different roles, depending on the organization and how they partner with the CEO. But I would say, what's unique to the CMO is often they're like the scientific or even the moral voice of the company, particularly in spaces like reproductive health, where there's a lot of underlying injustice and challenge and things like that. So they have, you know, they're aspects of the role where they're your job is to sometimes be the keel sometimes be the kind of grounded scientific voice. But I would say it depends at our company, the way that I see the identity of my org, which is not just about the person, right. And so the org that they run, is that we're the glue between product growth and operations, all of which you hope are tightly tethered together, but may not otherwise always be the case, right? You want to make sure that product is building, what growth is selling, and that the ops team is operationalizing within the company. So the clinical team and even the way that I've organized my team is that there's a arm of my team that's directly partnering with product, a team that's directly partnering with ops and a team that's directly partnering with growth.

Griffin Jones  29:35
Talk more about how your team's interface so in some cases, you're you're developing protocols, you're developing reproducibility and other people are executing on what's currently in place. How do how do your teams interface with each other while you're working on something new. We're improving something that exists and is already being deployed at a big scale.

Dr. Neel Shah  29:59
That's it Question? Well, I think, and these are, these are all really good questions, and they're so deep in the weeds that you're not getting a canned response on anything, right? They're just like, you know, I don't have like a schematic diagram, because it's so dependent on the use case. But I'd say generally speaking, there's a team that's like delivering the services, right, like day to day, like, literally like 1000s and 1000s of visits per week appointment. And then underneath that, there's a team that's QA it, which means like, they look at every single interaction with a member or patient that's less than a four out of five out of 10. They go through all of the comments that we get back as free responses, and then they audit the medical records themselves. They do random sample audits. So that's happening in the background all the time. Right. And there's a there's a dimension of improvement, that's just QA, which is like, isn't the right service quality? Is it clinically appropriate? You know, are there product related things that are getting in the way, then there's okay, we're going to stand up a new program around conception, because we've decided that among a fertility population, we think that we can help a lot of people conceive naturally. And we think anybody who should should be able to conceive naturally, we should support them to do that. So we actually have to build a more robust program. So that, you know, for example, if what they actually need is a $5, thyroid medication, we can identify that need and get it to them. So that team will spin up that program. They'll pilot it with a limited set of clinicians, they'll demonstrate that it works, they'll learn a ton about it, we'll model out, like how to scale it up. And then we'll deploy it at scale. And then the sort of QA team will sort of take over from there.

Griffin Jones  31:52
You have mentioned a couple of times how important it was for you to be an indoor cat meaning to have influence over the product itself, the operations, as opposed to an outdoor cat, one that might just be there for the figurehead of sales and thought leaders. Yeah,

Dr. Neel Shah  32:08
I mean, I like being outside. I just didn't want to only be an outdoor cat, you know, you're outside today.

Griffin Jones  32:12
There's this there's a little bit of,

Dr. Neel Shah  32:14
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, towards the tribe. Meeting, that was great. That was a lot of fun. But, you know,

Griffin Jones  32:20
So but you want to have a role in development for you what were specific, can you think of what the deal breakers were specifically, in other words, if I don't have control over x, then I'm not an indoor cat, if I don't have ability to work on these areas, or hire these people, or whatever it might be as specifically as you can, what were deal breakers for you, that would have meant I'm not an indoor cat.

Dr. Neel Shah  32:45
Maybe rather than deal breakers, I would like kind of frame it as what are the pillars of my role? And I think it's really important to think about that with a lot of intention. Because at a startup, everything about the company is continuously evolving, including like org structures, right? So, for example, actually, and until relatively recently, I oversaw a big part of our operational teams like the shift scheduling, workforce planning, you know, and then we brought out a great operational leader, and I gladly handed that off, I didn't feel like that was a pillar of being the CMO. Right? I think when I'm in the market, I want my counterpoints our clients, the chief medical officers of health plans, the benefits teams, you know, among the employers that we work with, I want them to be able to know that they can hold me accountable for the quality of services that we're delivering. So I need to control that. That's really important. How we qualify our providers, like is, I think the job of any cmo in any organization. The other thing is, you know, Kate and I are very aligned in one wanting to differentiate Maven. And hopefully this will be honestly less of a differentiator as digital health enters the Pruvit era, and more people are developing an evidence base, but, you know, I wanted to make sure that it was when I, when I, again, like look at a client, and tell them the evidence for how something works. I wanted to make sure that it met my standard, you know, because it's, it's very rare that things are totally black and white and either work or don't. Right. And so like, as a scientist, you're always hedging. But in the market, it was important to me to say, Okay, this is why we think this is a good product and why we think it will be capable of making your population healthier. Here's how we did the study. Here's how I think it translates to your population. So that was really important to me.

Griffin Jones  34:44
I want to ask you about the qualifying of providers and how you interact with them and feedback loop. But while we're on this topic of developing things with the CEO and the CEO, I've argued for some time that I don't see I don't see A clear cut separation from what people might call business operations versus clinical operations. And that I think that there are things when people say, Oh, we we don't make clinical decisions, we leave that to the doctors. It's what you do. Because you might, you might choose what software they're using, or you might choose what vendors they're able to access or a couple other things. And there's some overlap. And I think even when people say that in good faith, in my view, they don't fully understand that these things are not perfectly surgically removable from one another. And so in your view, what what is where is the separation between clinical apps and business apps? Where it's like, okay, okay, you get to say this. But when it comes to this, this is, this is my area.

Dr. Neel Shah  35:51
Okay. Kate is the CEO. So she's, she's, you know, there's very, very few things where I wouldn't defer to her. But I think the way that I would answer that, first of all, it's a really good question. And it's one that we've thought about a lot internally, too, because there's not there's definitely gray between the two. What made sense for us, for example, is we've got this big, wonky, complicated provider network, one of the one of the wackiest math problems in the world is how do you connect a person anywhere in the world anytime a day, to the right provider within 30 minutes, wonky math problem. Network ops can have that we and we have we have input into it, especially when it comes to the booking flow and the logic for how the matching works. And that's where that gray is where the collaboration is so important. But yeah, I mean, ensuring that our providers are paid on time, doing the projections around what we think our capacity needs are going to be in a seasonal business, it's really tied to benefits, like all that stuff, very happy for that to live with the expertise that it should with a great operational leader. And then the the clinical piece of it, a lot of companies actually have a kind of dyadic relationship between the two parts, right, such that, and you need to separate KPIs so that there's clear lines of accountability, I really believe in single points of accountability. But yeah, when it comes to the standard for clinical quality, how we determine clinical appropriateness, how we credential a provider, how we write the protocols for which medications we can prescribe, and how, like that very clearly lives on the clinical side. So I think it's a Venn diagram, I actually think it's fairly easy to figure out what's on the two sides of the Venn diagram. The hard part is like that middle part, right? I think so too. And it's not even defining what goes in the middle. Because that can be pretty clear to it's like, to your point, like how you actually operationalize that. So for us, you know, it's how we actually define a clinical need and put into the booking flow is right at the center, and our product, if that Venn diagram, it's a very, very close working relationship and with product as well.

Griffin Jones  38:04
So how do you met that's in that in that specific example? How do you manage it? You know, it's close? It's right in the middle of the Venn diagram, how do you manage it?

Dr. Neel Shah  38:12
Yeah. So like, basically, to do it really well, you need a couple of different inputs, you need user research, which comes from product products, job to make sure their KPIs or like make sure we're engaging people in the right way at the right time. You also need to retrospectively like, look at, you know, your notes. So we looked at like 1000s, and 1000s, of clinical notes, and we continue to do that ongoing basis. And we're like, what are people coming to us for? How do we put it into categories? That makes sense clinically, right? And then, you know, the ops team is like, Okay, well, based on our network constraints, you know, and the requirements were being given like, this is how we think we can set that up. This is how many clinicians in this service line we have to recruit, it's their job to model that out. So when you get down into the details, it kind of actually pulls up pretty cleanly,

Griffin Jones  39:01
To talk to me about qualifying providers, or perhaps even more the feedback loop that exists between you and provider. So you you're working on protocols, you're working on scalable processes for the company, how do you get feedback from them? And how does it? How does it get down to them? How does it get back to you?

Dr. Neel Shah  39:24
Good question. So we are in the fortunate position of getting to be selective about the providers we bring on, first of all, so we've got a pretty rigorous recruiting process that I think is the first step of qualifying. Then before they can practice on our platform. They have to be credentialed. So we have to verify their identity, we have to make sure they've got the licenses that they say that they have. We look at all their dealt malpractice history and review it with the committee in detail. And then once they're qualified to be on the platform, they get scorecards every month that are quantitative that show whether they've met the service level or not. are minutes like setting their availability 30 days in advance showing up on time, things like that, that they're meeting the right member experience metrics. So we look at a star rating after every appointment. And then we do a review of their records. And we check for clinical appropriateness. So they get that every month as feedback. And if they're below benchmark, they get a conversation, depending on where they land or more. In addition to that, we make sure that we have a service line structure with clinical leads over each one. So the communication is bilateral, we're getting product feedback from them all the time, we're taking care of an increasingly diverse population. So it's not just product feedback, sometimes it's about the populations we're serving, we're learning about what their needs are, for example, we relatively recently stood up a menopause service, and came out of the gates with a strategy to make sure we're getting people HRT that needed it. And we very quickly learned that there's six other ways we can help people resolve their menopausal symptoms that don't involve HRT. And so we had to adapt our clinical protocols to be able to prescribe gabapentin, or to bring on board physical therapists for people who have incontinence related issues that, you know, we didn't realize we're going to come in that way. So anyway, I think on a principles standpoint, it is very important to make sure that it's truly bilateral. And that, you know, there's sort of two ways of designing a complex care model. One is to draw a schematic diagram and hand it to people to deliver it. The other way is to put your best people in front of it and actually learn what they're doing, and then scale it up. And Maven is honestly doing much more of a ladder than the former.

Griffin Jones  41:40
Do you have people that try to go outside of that communication framework, like someone that's got your phone number, or they're hitting you up on LinkedIn, or, you know, you have the clear systems for them to give you product feedback, but they're like, I'm gonna text, Neel. Anyway, I want to text. Yeah,

Dr. Neel Shah  41:56
Totally. I do want it to do that, honestly, yes. But my point of view is, if they're motivated enough to just reach out directly, I probably want to hear from them. So, you know, I'm used to having, you know, kind of most of my career, I was a public figure with a email address that everyone could see my Harvard page just came down a few months ago, you know, and so the entire world could email me whenever they wanted. And that was something I just sort of got used to. And there were things that were pretty wild, that would come into my inbox, and there were things that were really compelling. The same is true now. but to a lesser degree, I'd say the ratio is even more skewed towards things that are compelling. Like if a provider really wants to reach out to me, it's because they've really got something to say, I should probably hear it. So you know, my policy last two years is to try to be as successful as possible.

Griffin Jones  42:40
That's an interesting thought, how much of a pre work requisite Do you think it is for someone to have been a public figure before they decide to be a chief medical officer? And even if they haven't been one before? Are they basically agreeing to be one,

Dr. Neel Shah  43:00
I don't think it needs to be a prerequisite to be a quote, public figure. I mean, what, what that meant in my case, was that I was an academic, and I saw my job as being a teacher broadly, so to my students, but also to like industry and to, you know, other people out there and ended up really enriching my academic career. Because it turns out, there's a very diverse group of stakeholders that care about the well being of people building their families, you know, elected officials, people creating documentaries, and it was really compelling to me to be a part of that whole ecosystem. I think that aside, I do think it's the job of a CMO to be accessible. I think that's a hard requirement, in fact, so you know, my team knows that they can reach me 24/7 All the time. Part of that mentality, honestly, came from being an obstetrician. And, you know, that being kind of my disposition towards my patients anyway, but always on. Yeah, and I think part of a safety culture is that people have to not feel like their barriers to telling you something uncomfortable, you know, so I really encourage it, and it's, it's benefited us, right. You know, I think things happen when you're taking care of people at scale, recover 15 million lives. And so, you know, there are all kinds of things, cases of domestic violence things, cases of mental health acuity where there are people that are really in trouble, and we have to go the extra mile to figure out how to make it work for them. You know, we've taken care of Ukrainian refugees, where again, we had to we had to go like an extra couple of miles to make sure that person was getting what they needed. So I don't I don't mind being accessible.

Griffin Jones  44:37
That brings me back to your honest brokers comment that you made earlier in the conversation and you talked about a sea of disinformation around fertility. Tell me more about that.

Dr. Neel Shah  44:49
Well, people are anxious out there, Griffin. And I think, you know, in high school, a lot of people are told how easy it is to get pregnant. And then as soon as they get to be a certain age, maybe just post college, they're told their fertility is rapidly declining, and they're anxious. You know, and I think that we need to be thoughtful to make sure that we're not stoking that anxiety in order to sell things. And I see a lot of examples of that. This there's a difference between misinformation and disinformation. So misinformation is well intended, but it's not necessarily factually accurate. You know, and that's a lot of like, for example, what's on tick tock, where, actually the plurality of people today are getting their fertility information as a primary source, then there's disinformation, which is intentional, and it's for power, politics or profit. And in our space, that is, there's a Washington Post article yesterday about a prominent Rei in New York City who's Hocking, a supplement, a hormone supplement that's considered dangerous by the medical establishment but has a stake in the company. There was an article in New York Magazine this month about a company that is selling sperm freezing services, which could have a lot of value for some people, but it's doing it in a way that may make many men think that they have to do it in order to preserve their fertility. And so I just think that we've got to be careful about things like that.

Griffin Jones  46:31
How would you like to conclude with an audience of many people who might like to become chief medical officers someday, whether it's something that maybe I didn't ask you or something you'd like that, that you want to expand on further about the role of being a chief medical officer, the floor is yours.

Dr. Neel Shah  46:49
That's quite an opportunity, Griffin, I would say, you know, a title is this a title. But healthcare is messy. And there is no shortage of opportunity to jump in and try and make it better. I think that a lot of I assume a lot of chief medical officers or people who maybe today are working in roles as forward deployed clinicians. I'll tell you, Griffin, I have never seen the clinical workforce more demoralized than today. It's it's really profound. And I think it's sort of partially related to the pandemic, but partially related to a whole bunch of convert converging forces, and it's very clear that healthcare is in need of more leadership, and that we're better off when clinicians stepping on roles where they can work alongside business operators, technologists, and others to make things better.

Griffin Jones  47:41
Dr. Neel Shah of moving clinic Thank you very much for coming on the inside reproductive health podcast.

Dr. Neel Shah  47:48
You bet Griffin My pleasure.

Sponsor  47:50
This episode was brought to you by Embie. To discover where your time is going and how Embie can transform your clinics efficiency, visit us at embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report. 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 guests appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser

198 What Goes into Building an AI Company in the IVF Space Featuring Paxton Maeder-York

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.


Whether you’re a fertility doctor looking to make an AI company or a tech entrepreneur entering the fertility field, this week’s episode of Inside Reproductive Health is full of interesting insights.

Paxton Maeder-York. CEO and Founder of Alife Health, breaks down how he started his medical AI company, and walks you through the business and regulatory obstacles required to stay in business.

Tune in to hear Paxton discuss:

  • How an AI company is funded and founded (And If it’s possible to bootstrap without outside investment capital)

  • The unbiased large heterogeneous datasets required to run AI (Not to mention the other companies needed to acquire this data)

  • How he chose his early investors and advisory board (Including former guest Dr. Michael Levy)

  • The monumental difference in data science between 85% good and 99.99%

  • Navigating the high regulatory burdens within the Healthcare Space

  • The criteria for when it’s appropriate for a VC funded company to acquire other companies.


Paxton Maeder-York:
LinkedIn
Alife Health

Transcript

Paxton Maeder-York  00:00

Data sciences, you know, it's not that hard to get to an initial assessment or to, you know, the 85% mark, but that last 10 to 15% of performance is all the difference in the world between, you know, you know, making something that is reliable and safe for patients that's unbiased, and making something that's really more of a, you know, a school project. And I think, I think that's a huge delta that we're gonna continue to see. And I don't just mean within IVF or even healthcare broadly, I think that's a problem that we're gonna see across AI as this whole sector continues to grow. We see it in enterprise we see it self driving cars, we see it everywhere. And so, you know, I think when you're talking about getting to that, you know, 99% or .99 following you know, it requires a really talented team and investment and thoughtful you know, methodical development, and that that does require a capital upfront.

Sponsor  00:55

This episode was brought to you by Embie. To see where your time is going visit embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report. 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 guests appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

Griffin Jones  01:33

Building an AI company in the fertility space, many of you have business backgrounds, many of you have medical backgrounds. What about bio mechanical engineering? What about surgical robotics? What about data science? Today, my guest is CEO Paxton Meader-York, I don't delve much into his company a life for what they do for the fertility field. Instead, I tried to give you an idea about how an AI company is funded, founded and managed from the start. We start with Paxton leaving Harvard with a degree in Biomechanical Engineering cutting his teeth in the Silicon Valley ecosystem working in surgical robotics going back to Cambridge getting his data science master's and his MBA back to Silicon Valley, how he chose some of the people on his advisory board and early investors including Dr. Michael Levy of Shady Grove and Dr. Allen Copperman of RMA of New York packs and talks about the investors that led their Series A round and their seed round. I asked Paxton if it's even possible to build an AI company bootstrapped no investment. He talks about those barriers, including the unbiased large, heterogeneous datasets that are required, and consequently, the companies that are usually required to partner with to get those datasets. He talks about the high regulatory burden, especially in healthcare, and the monumental difference in data science between 85% good and 99.99%. I tried to get criteria from Paxton why they haven't acquired a company yet, because I'm trying to get criteria for you of when it's too early for new VC funded companies to go off acquiring other companies. Finally, I get Paxton to talk a little bit about their tech stack, their org structure and their team, software product and so on. If you're a fertility doctor looking to build an AI company or a tech entrepreneur entering the fertility field, I hope you enjoy this founder story with Paxton Meader-York. Mr. Meader-York, Paxton, welcome to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

Paxton Maeder-York  03:18

Thank you so much for having me, Griffin, it's great to see you.

Griffin Jones  03:21

I look forward to talking with you. I've had a couple founders on recently, Dr. Brian Levine was one of them and that was a very popular episode. Got to go into the mechanics of how he started his company, I want to go into the mechanics of how you started your company. And I want to, there might be some things, likfe funding and structure that in some of the circles you run with might be elementary, but not as elementary to some of the people that want to start companies in the fertility field. And so let's maybe just start with how your company started. We can we can talk about the idea and the genesis, and then I'll really want to get into the mechanics.

Paxton Maeder-York  04:03

Absolutely. And thank you again for having me on. It's really great to be here. So yeah, I'll start with maybe a little bit of background about myself. So I've been passionate and in really engaged with medical technology for a long time now really started for me back in middle school where I was watching surgeries at MGH and doing robotics camps at MIT. I ended up studying biomedical engineering at Harvard undergrad, really focusing in surgical robotics, and then working at a company called Oris health out in the Bay Area that was focused on lung cancer systems. So I had lost several grandparents to lung cancer. It was a really important mission to me, and really got to cut my teeth in the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem. When that company got acquired by Johnson and Johnson, I went back and did a master's in data science as well as my MBA back at Harvard, and really became passionate around the opportunities for artificial intelligence and advanced analytics, more broadly across health care. My little brother's actually an IVF baby. And so infertility care has always been something that's been incredibly important to me both personally, and as we see the growing trends across the population, it's only of increasing importance to many folks. And so started the company about three years ago really with the mission of trying to bring modern data science techniques and personalized medicine to the forefront of the IVF sector.

Griffin Jones  05:29

So you're at Harvard for undergrad, and that's where you got your degree in surgical robotics?

Paxton Maeder-York  05:34

Yeah, so biomedical engineering undergrad, and then grad school was both masters and data science and then an MBA.

Griffin Jones  05:40

Okay, so biomedical engineering, and then that's what brought you out to Silicon Valley. And I'm sorry, you may have said it, and I may have missed it, were you the the founder of that company that you went to work for in Silicon Valley, or you're working for somebody else at that time?

Paxton Maeder-York  05:54

I was working for somebody else, and really was hoping to learn a lot from a very experienced CEO, Fred Moll, who founded that company actually founded Intuitive Surgical, which is the preeminent preeminent system out there in the robotic surgery space really pioneered the sector. And so you know, learned a ton from working with him and the other amazing folks there, actually, a couple of those I worked with at Oris came over and are now running a lot of the A Life team. So certainly was was an incredible experience for me early on in my career.

Griffin Jones  06:26

So you could have stayed and then worked for a different Fred, and a couple of Fred's and stead of going back to the east coast to get your advanced degree at Harvard. Why, why go back? Why go for the advanced degree as opposed to staying in the Silicon Valley ecosystem that you cut your teeth in?

Paxton Maeder-York  06:48

So you know, I think there are a variety of reasons for it. You know, my, my undergraduate focus was really in bio mechanical engineering, so medical device. And, you know, I got to learn a lot about the complexity of bringing robotic systems and complex medical devices to market, both from a development standpoint and a commercialization standpoint. But I've always been fascinated around data science, and really, its propensity to answer big questions, right? Whenever we think about asking a question whether, you know, it's in politics, or healthcare or any other sector, right, I think, you know, everybody turns to Google and looks at, you know, large scale studies, and really everyone's, you know, looking for data to answer that question. And so becoming more proficient at data analytics, understanding how to use modern data science, especially reinforced with the incredible computational power we have at our fingertips today was just an area I was super passionate about. And on top of that, you know, I always known I wanted to be a leader and hopefully found a company someday. And so by working and getting my MBA as well, it gave me a lot of context on the broader economy, how companies scale, and also hopefully, will allow us to continue to grow into the long term vision that we set out for at Alife. 

Griffin Jones  08:10

But what was it about either Harvard at that time, or the degree itself where you felt like you would get that leadership background more through an MBA and more of the data science understanding from an advanced degree as opposed to working for a couple other biomed startups or a few other, even maybe even more mature companies, out there in the in the tech sector? 

Paxton Maeder-York  08:38

Yeah. So I mean, I think it's a couple of things. I mean, one as an engineer, and I really consider myself as an engineer, first and foremost, you know, I always want to understand as much as I can about the technology before going out and, and building it either with a team or on my own. And so I certainly felt like the the advanced mathematics I was taking in my master's program, and also just really diving in and understanding how this recent kind of trend of artificial intelligence, I know it's a topic that has been talked about since the 80s, if not earlier, but a lot of the really exciting work that's happening in AI is really started in 2017, with a lot of the image based pattern recognition work, AlexNet, and so forth. And and then on top of that, on the MBA side, you know, I worked at Oris, got an incredible kind of mini degree from from that experience, I did spend a summer working with Google X. So got, got to scratch the itch and see what was going on inside of that black box. But with the MBA really gave me was the opportunity to look at hundreds of different businesses and all these different contexts and that type of pattern recognition similar to what we deploy on the actual medical technology side, you know, I think is really valuable as a young person as a leader and as someone who's continuing to try to strive to scale businesses and of course, deliver huge value to both clinicians and patients in the long run.

Griffin Jones  10:02

So I don't think this is degressing too much, I think this might be at the crux of why you went back versus why one might not go back to get that more advanced education. And I think of, there's a common adage that says, You don't have to be the expert in a given field. And they'll they'll cite Henry Ford, and they'll say, you know, Henry Ford was not a mechanical engineer, he didn't build cars himself, he, but yeah, but he knew a ton about cars. And, and I just don't believe that you can't have a certain ground level of understanding in a subject and then build a business out no matter how good you are as a, as a manager of people, as a capitalist in raising money, that you have to have some type of, you have to have some type of background. And for you building a tech company, I think what is, what would you consider the minimum level of background to know that you're not being fleeced? Or that you can, even if you're not being worried about being fleeced by people that work for you, that you can sufficiently instruct to them and delegate to outcome? So what do you think the basement is for that? Or where have you found yourself using your degree or to be able to, to use it to for the vision of the company?

Paxton Maeder-York  11:31

Well, I certainly wouldn't say that these types of degrees are required for anyone trying to start a business. And of course, a lot of the people listening to this podcast, you know, are extremely, you know, proficient, either in their field, a lot of people have PhDs or MDs, I think, you know, it's, it's a tough couple of different components. You know, one, obviously, the nature of the business, I think, is important, right. And, you know, if if there are many companies out there, where the founder may be technical, or may have a purely sales background, and those types of leaders can can bring enormous value to the organization, I think a lot of it does have to do with kind of the mindset of the leadership and how well you're able to accumulate a team of experts in those different domains and fit the pieces to the puzzle together. You know, having said that, I think if you're going out and trying to do something extremely technical, and also something that has, you know, pretty substantial ramifications for your end customer base like we do, in infertility. You know, I think at that point, it's, it's always valuable to have a technical proficiency in that type of technology. And so, you know, it was it was my approach, and it may not have necessarily been the one that is required for everyone. But I certainly wanted to have as much know how in medical technology development and all the regulation and quality management system and you know, kind of the domain level expertise in that having done that in the surgical robotics space, and then combine that with technical know how around data science so that we can look at these problems, and I can contribute, and also, hopefully recruit an incredible team of data scientists and AI experts to this specific application. Which, personally, I think is an incredible application of this type of technology. I think there's so much opportunity for advanced analytics across healthcare, but specifically, within IVF. Just to help support bringing personalized medicine and helping clinicians deliver the best care they possibly can, whether that's digitalising, the embryology workflow, helping to capture image and images and, you know, kind of manage, manage expectations on that side or, you know, helping to select the optimal ovarian stimulation protocol and when to trigger, which is another component of what we build at Alife. So, you know, I think the the short of it is, there is no basement, if that, if that makes sense. But I think, you know, certainly in this arena, I wanted to feel as prepared as humanly possible before I strove out and tried to build the company on my own to go and tackle some of these problems.

Griffin Jones  14:00

And did you strive out right after you got your MBA and your masters in data science? Or did you go back work for somebody else? And then that came later?

Paxton Maeder-York  14:11

No, I strove out right after my graduation. So actually, the application of using AI and computer vision on embryo analysis was kind of a the initial project and something I worked on as my master's capstone thesis. And then that spun out into the company. And then of course, you know, when you start a company, one of the great pieces of advice I got early on in my career from a close advisor was, as soon as you kind of have the pieces in the toolbox that you need, and you have an idea, you go off and do it and you start pulling on the thread. And of course, as you pull on the thread, and you start working on the problem, and you work with customers, and you learn more about the space and you build an advisory board and you ask what types of problems clinicians or patients are seeing, you learn more and more. And so when you look at the genesis of Alife and how much we're doing today relative to the initial idea, a lot of that has expanded over the last three years, and transparently a lot of those amazing technologies or product ideas didn't come from me. The holistic vision came from me of we're going to head in this direction and built incredible products and use AI to help support people who want to start, continue, or finalize their families, but great ideas come from anywhere. And that's really where, you know, bringing an amazing group of people together and working collaboratively, I think personally results in the in the best outcomes.

Griffin Jones  15:35

So you start working on it, at what point did you build the advisory board? Did you build your advisory board before you started raising money?

Paxton Maeder-York  15:41

I did. So you know, when I first started out, I kind of had this idea, I started talking to a few investors and immediately started talking to many different, you know, top doctors in the space, either through you know, connections or cold emails, there's a whole component of this, that is just straight hustle. And you know, over time you build rapport. And you know, some of the incredible folks, Michael Levy, for example, at Shady Grove, now US Fertility, was one of the first folks that I was lucky enough to get to work with. And then as you know, you kind of continue to build reputation in this space, more and more people and top clinicians got excited by both our team, how we were approaching the problem, how we worked on these types of issues together and integrated our clinical advisors feedback. And so our clinical advisory board just has continued to grow. And the whole team, which is now you know, over 28 folks strong, is constantly looking for feedback testing, working with those doc's to run studies to validate our algorithms. It's kind of a constant approach. And so I think that advisory board has been an incredible asset for the company, and we're super grateful to have all of their support.

Sponsor  16:53

Your clinic might be seeing 1000 new patients a year. Do you know how many REI hours per year you're spending on patients that don't convert to treatment? Over 700 according to the averages. That's over 700 hours wasted. There's finally a technology that scales access to care while allowing you to serve patients at the top of your license as an REI. Embie is that technology. Embie enables fertility clinics to treat more patients with their existing staff and infrastructure. By improving workflow and patient communication, Embie enables you to generate over $1 million in additional revenue per year. Embie saves REIs hours per converted patient. Embie saves over two and a half hours of nurse admin time per cycle. Embie enables you to see up to 20% more patients per year. How do we know? Embie has calculated 23 metrics for REI and clinic benchmarks and we are making them available to you. To see where your time is going visit embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report.

Griffin Jones  18:03

How do you manage the interests of different people either on the advisory board or some of those earlier folks that you're working on the problem and consequently the product with, so Michael Levy at Shady Grove is a very big center and group of centers. And as big as Shady Grove and US Fertility are they're not the entirety of the market. And any startup faces a challenge where they can they can fall into scope and create too much. So how did you how did you balance that, especially with that particular this is a really big center, you could build something that's just for them and assume that it's applicable to everyone. But there's a wide variance in workflows of clinics of all kinds. So how did you balance the needs of maybe this one, two, three, four people that we're working with now in this moment versus what's really going to be scalable for a business going forward?

Paxton Maeder-York  19:05

It's difficult. And I think, you know, this is a pitfall that a lot of people, you know, fall into right is how do you avoid just building a tailored solution to a single customer? And you know, while Dr. Levy was, you know, one of the first people I spoke to just through a connection right at the beginning of the company before I even raised. Very quickly, we built out a much larger advisory board, Alan Copperman from RMA New York who has been really involved with our story, a number of others. And then there's there's just a really thorough playbook that you follow of having a lot of discovery conversations, you know, going to clinics, seeing how they operate, finding those different you know, kind of similarities and differences. And you kind of look for the overlap in the venn diagram where this is a consistent problem across practices. This is something that the technology can you know meaningfully make an impact on. And it is different, you know, a lot of companies in the medical technology space, you know, pick one chief medical officer, for example, and bring them on. And a lot of the product development is done in relation to that individual. And one of the things I've learned in surgical robotics is exactly what you're pointing to, which is that different folks, different clinicians have very different perspectives on you know, what's important to look at. And, as you said, different clinics operate differently. And so, you know, we kind of went with this more broad approach of instead of having a single voice, let's get as many as we can have the top folks in the space, and that is, you know, both, you know, horizontally and laterally across clinics and vertically within those clinics. So, talking to frontline, you know, embryologist, junior embryologist, talking to clinic admin staff, talking to nurses, you know, talking to lab directors, it's really the entire encompassing of the field. And of course, we've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of patients at this point, as we've built free patient products, and also worked to figure out how we're going to bring value with the AI solutions that are going into the clinic. So it's, it's not really a crowdsource model, but it's almost kind of like that. And then, you know, in terms of how to how to really solidify what you're building, I credit our incredible product team, and especially Melissa Teron, who's our chief operating officer, for doing a lot in that that area, there are certainly playbooks you can follow and best practices and you know, modern product development and things like IDEO, you know, really paved the way for some of those things. And the Stanford design school has got a lot of incredible resources. But, you know, it's definitely an art that in terms of figuring out where the opportunity is, and how do you shape the technology to best fill that need. 

Griffin Jones  21:50

When you are getting your MBA, where there are different schools of thought about how you should approach fundraising, that you should phase it in this order, or you should try to get more in in an earlier phase or a later phase, or where there are different schools of thought, and how did you pick the approach that you ended up going with?

Paxton Maeder-York  22:09

You know, there's not only different schools of thought, within, you know, business schools, there's different schools of thought within the venture community. And then there's different schools of thought founder to founder. And that was something that I learned over the course of, you know, the first year and a half or so. And I'm lucky in that I have a number of friends who have also started companies at various stages. But what you learn pretty quickly is that the approaches that other people take around fundraising may or may not necessarily work for you. Now, there are obviously a variety of different types of capital sources out there, you can bootstrap a startup, you can look to private equity, or traditional LBO, you can do entrepreneurship through acquisition, you know, and then there's more of the traditional venture route, which is the route that Silicon Valley is known for, and the route that Alife has taken. But I think what's what's interesting is that, you know, fundraising and figuring out who the right partners are, for the long term, because as you know, as soon as you bring on an investor, and they've put significant amounts of money behind your vision, you're going to be working with them for a long time, they are invested in your story. I got really lucky that I found Deena Shakir, who lead our seed, and lead our Series A and she's been one of our number one advocates for the business since day one. She's been absolutely incredible, through and through. But I think that it's there's so much that goes into fundraising that is beyond just kind of the hype and the FOMO, and pitching. A lot of it in my perspective is about finding that right fit. And who is someone that is going to work with you in the long run? Very similar, I would, I would argue to creating a leadership team. I think a lot about my board the same as I do, developing my internal leaders and how different skill sets are gonna complement each other. So I think every founder is a little different about how they approach that problem. But for me, you know, it was it was a lot of conversations. And I was very fortunate to find some incredible folks, Rebecca Kaden at Union Square Ventures is another one who came on at Series A who just, you know, clearly understands and is passionate about the long term vision of the company. And, you know, I think it's really important to find those folks as early on as you can when you're going out and building something important.

Griffin Jones  24:23

What was it about Deena and Rebecca that made them a good fit?

Paxton Maeder-York  24:27

You know, there's, there's certainly, you know, kind of the more traditional, you know, filters that you can apply, right? Coming from great firms, you know, very sharp investors, certainly asking great questions, bring resources to the table, not just capital but also in terms of advice and network and, you know, you know, other kind of intangible assets. But I think you know, even more so than that, it really is almost a personal decision too. Who do you think are going to be a great fit for your company, the culture you're trying to build? Who, you know, is going to be the right fit for you as a founder? And who, you know, who you want to work with and you know, are ultimately going to be able to, A, keep you accountable, but B, when you need support from the board level or from your investors, or we're going to represent you either in the media or to, you know, follow on investors in later rounds, it is, they say that VC and raising capital is a lot like dating. And I certainly think that that's true. It's, it's, it's, you know, there's things on paper that make it important. And then there's kind of an intangible personality fit that I think is so crucial to get right when you're out fundraising.

Griffin Jones  25:36

Did you have relationships with either or both of them before you went to raise money? Did you meet them during the process?

Paxton Maeder-York  25:43

So I really met both of them during the process. So Deena works at Lux capital, which is an incredible firm, and probably the best deep tech investor VC that I know of, and they had invested in Oris, the company I worked at after undergrad. I had not met Deena during that experience. But you know, when I started Alife and was starting to tiptoe around the capital side of the business, Peter Hébert, one of the founders of Lux, put me in touch with Deena and Peter's a genius, and could tell that Deena and I were going to be a great fit. And then Deena and I spent months and months getting to know each other before, you know, we kind of solidified the relationship culminating in our seed round. And, you know, I really cherish that time. I think it was so valuable that Deena and I got to spend so much time together up front, it's deepened our partnership. And, you know, I think it's, it's ultimately, you know, I consider her you know, as a co founder of the business in a lot of ways. And then Rebecca Anaergia who is from Mavron, who's also incredible, I really got to know a lot closer during the Series A round. And that was a faster kind of, you know, relationship building period, of course, we're continuing to get to know each other and work closely together, every, you know, you know, board meeting and in between and our monthly calls and working through, you know, challenges and exciting milestones for the company, it's constant. But I think similarly, there's, there's just kind of a great fit personality wise, and also in terms of their passion for this space.

Griffin Jones  27:15

I just had Kim Abernethy, from PCA interview me for my own show over Inside Reproductive Health. I don't know if that episode will come out before or after this interview airs. But as I was searching for the central theme of what that conversation ended up being I ended up titling the episode Should Fertility Companies Stop Taking Outside Funding, and then making a categorical assertion that they should stop taking outside money. It was more a call to attention to, for many companies, to invest more in the product market fit phase. That it takes a long time to do that, I see a lot of people burning out money before that's established. And then and then it's really hard. And I think more people could do some bootstrapping, and we might see it as the economy changes over the coming years. I do not say that that's a categorical prescription for everyone. And I know that there's a lot of limit to doing that in tech, especially with AI. Do you think it's even feasible to bootstrap in AI? Now that you're in now that, you've seen the money that you spent, the people that you've hired, the things that you've built? Is it possible to build it to bootstrap and an AI company in the biomedical space? And if it's not, is it possible up to even a certain phase?

Paxton Maeder-York  28:36

You know, it's a great question. I think, to a certain extent, I would hate to say something is impossible, right. And I would love to see someone go out and do it in a purely bootstrapped fashion, I think there are a few things that come to mind that make it very difficult. First off, artificial intelligence really requires an unbiased and very large and heterogeneous data set, that takes a lot of time to develop. And you typically need some sort of relationship or partnership to be able to, to gather that data, and a lot of folks rightly so right, this is really valuable data, you know, want to partner with a reputable company that has all the right data privacy and experts and PhDs that are, you know, it's an investment in both directions. So I think that's one component of it that would make it challenging. I also think that anytime you're doing things in medicine or medical device, there's a high regulatory burden. There are clinical trials and clinical studies that you have to publish. There's quality management systems and making sure that you're you know, following all the all the metrics so that it is medical grade software, and that requires a lot of investment. So you know, I think to do it right, I think it does require a really expert team and it takes a certain amount of time to get a product to the to MVP where you could go out and actually charge either you know, a clinic or you know, a patient or whoever might be your customer across healthcare. That isn't to say it couldn't be done. I think that there are other approaches that one could take to building artificial intelligence, especially if you already had access to a significant amount of data through different types of partnerships or relationships. But, you know, I think, while software is still a lot less capital intensive than robotics was and hardware, obviously, you have to build manufacturing, and, and all the rest, you know, I think it still does require a lot of capital to get these types of technologies off the ground. And more importantly, to do them, right. You know, and I think that's, that's where a lot gets lost data sciences, you know, it's, it's not that hard to get to an initial assessment or to, you know, the 85% mark, but that last 10 to 15% of performance is all the difference in the world between, you know, you know, making something that is reliable and safe for patients that's unbiased, and making something that's really more of a, you know, a school project. And I think, I think that's a huge delta that we're going to continue to see. And I don't just mean, within IVF, or even healthcare broadly, I think that's a problem that we're gonna see across AI, as this whole sector continues to grow. We see it in enterprise, we see it self driving cars, we see it everywhere. And so, you know, I think when you're talking about getting to that, you know, 99%, or point nine, nine, following, you know, it requires a really talented team and investment and thoughtful, you know, methodical development, and that that does require capital upfront.

Griffin Jones  31:31

So there are certain verticals where the barrier to entry is simply too expensive. There's high regulatory burden, there's a number of things that partners might need if they're going to help get a burgeoning company to the MVP phase, then how do you make sure that you don't burn through all of your dough while you're assessing product market fit? Because I see lots of companies that say, Man, you don't have it, like you just raised X million dollars, and you don't have anything that people are going to buy right here. You had, like, you saw the problem, the problem was there, I don't think any more studies would have more clearly revealed the problem or even talking to more customer necessarily would have revealed the problem, they got that part. They, they had some type of solution to bring to the marketplace. And it just didn't fit together, like a lot of these these companies that that don't make it or or maybe make it a little bit never returned the type of profit that they would be projected to do so for what they were valued at. How do you keep yourself from spending through too much money while you're assessing product market fit? 

Paxton Maeder-York  32:56

Well, it's a it's a philosophical debate, honestly, you know. I think there are tons of books out there that have discussed this exact problem, you know, Crossing the Chasm, and, you know, the proverbial valley of death. Of course, I think, you know, it's a few things, I think, one, there is a certain amount of discipline that's required, right. And, you know, we have a very strong, talented, but lean team, that is very intentional, you know, we were always trying to make sure that our burn as a company is on track with the development and making sure that we're validating what we've built, both from a clinical and science perspective, but also from a product market fit perspective. I'd also say that, you know, getting to MVP, this, the proverbial product market fit is is challenging and, you know, you kind of going back to my analogy earlier of pulling on the string, you know, you you may have one hypothesis about what a product might look like, that's going to bring significant amount of value, you may test that out, you may realize that's not where there's an enormous amount of value, and that there's additional capability you need to bake in so that it's a compelling sale on a compelling use case for the end customer. And that is to some level and art, I would say come over time. But I think in general, you know, I think folks that have worked in different types of industries and try to come to healthcare, I think, typically will struggle with this. It is healthcare, in general is a much slower moving market than traditional consumer or enterprise SAS. I think, you know, it requires wherewithal and long term thinking and a methodical march towards product introduction, and, and ultimately, you know, you know, getting the system out there so that it can benefit both clinicians and patients alike. And, you know, I think we saw that and in a variety of different stories. It's something that I certainly experienced firsthand when I was working on robotic surgery and that was an incredible success story at Oris. But it's just kind of the nature of the beast. And so, you know, I think making sure that what you're trying to build and In that you're constantly innovating, expanding the vision, making sure that you're adding functionality that is continuing to add and drive more value creation for your end users is just a constant process that we expect to be doing in perpetuity, along with all the incredible research that we're doing with our advisors and our clinical partners and other folks. And so as long as you, I think, plan ahead and know that that's what the road is going to look like, I think there's a path to being a success story. In medical technology, I think, you know, frankly, there was a tremendous amount of capital being deployed over the last five years or so. And there are a bunch of incredible ideas that got funded, that are really more point solutions, and may not ultimately be able to support the types of valuations or the long term value that, you know, venture community is expecting out of those companies. And so I think you're gonna see a couple fold, you're gonna see a couple companies, hopefully, life is one of them, that continues to do things best in class the right way, thinking strategically long term, and working towards towards those goals with the expertise in house, and then you're gonna see some level of consolidation, because we don't need a million different point solutions for all these different subcomponents, they should really all be, you know, part of the same ecosystem of solutions that can help, you know, improve the whole the whole sector. So those are some of the things that come to mind when thinking about, you know, how do you how do you not burn out? And how do you match your capital raising with your burn with the stage of business that you're at, especially within healthcare.

Griffin Jones  36:35

You talked about needing to be prepared for that long haul, does that mean you need to match with VCs who are also prepared for that long haul? And is that something that's realistic to expect from VC? So you talked about the art of managing the product market fit. And when you bootstrap, it's it's pretty obvious. So you run out of money, then you figure out a way until it starts making money. When you when you're playing with other people's money it's different. And you mentioned that because healthcare has such a high regulatory barrier to entry move so much slower than other sectors might be used to, should we expect to see VC firms and not just like, you know, arms of VC firms, but should we expect to see VC firms that are exclusively dedicated to healthcare? Is that an upward trend? Is that not happening as much? Is, is that necessary? Because if it does take this long, then you need the funding to match how long it's going to take. And some people might not be ready for that? 

Paxton Maeder-York  37:37

Yeah, you know, I think, first I'd say that there are a variety of different types of investors. And I think that's really important for anyone going out and trying to fundraise, right? There is, you know, there are folks that only do enterprise deals. There are folks that don't touch healthcare. There are a lot of investors that don't particularly want to invest in women's health, for example, or human health, you know. And I think whenever going out to fundraise, you really have to be thoughtful. And again, going back to this dating theme of figuring out who the right folks are to be talking to and, and who has both interest wherewithal and long term vision that can share, you know, kind of where you want to take the business as a leadership team. To answer your other question. Absolutely. There are plenty of healthcare focused founders, or investors and founders. And I also think that the personally, I've found that the style of investment between East Coast and even West Coast varies, and one of the things I'm really grateful of is that I've got both East Coast and West Coast firms on my cap table, and I kind of have been able to accumulate a hybrid of those two different, you know, approaches to investing. And, you know, I think, again, it's it's really just about finding people that believe in the long term vision, see the high level opportunity that exists here, who have been through the pain point, for example, on their own, so that they know, okay, like this is a problem this, this whole sector is going to continue to need to grow, there's going to need to be better technology and analytics can an AI can play an important role on that. And and we see that opportunity down down the line. And you know, as long as the team is thoughtful about how they're spending that cash in very value creative and additive activities, then hopefully, in the long run, you're gonna go out and achieve that goal. So yeah, I mean, people talk a lot about patient capital. I think there, there are certainly funds that, you know, don't expect to return in the same, you know, eight year timeline as others. There's kind of evergreen funds, there's traditional private equity, which has a more much shorter time period of trying to get a return on their capital. So all those things need to be taken into account. But what one of the things that's been so wonderful that I found along my journey is that those investors do exist. There are definitively folks out there who come from incredible firms that believe in the long term envision and are willing to put capital behind things that matter both for the social good, and behind teams that they think are qualified to go out and make that type of difference.

Griffin Jones  40:09

Are you raising money right now? Are you moving on to a Series B?

Paxton Maeder-York  40:12

We're not raising at the moment, we're still heads down and developing a ton and, you know, working with our close partners to get our products out into the field, but we will continue to raise over the course of the lifecycle of the company. And, you know, I think there are a variety of different applications and use cases for that capital beyond just keeping the lights on and continuing to pay salaries and make sure that we're, you know, ever developing more and more of our core platform. You know, there's, there's lots of applications that you can use capital at the right times to supercharge and enhance what you're building. And given our goal is to supercharge and enhance, you know, the clinical care in in practice, the same thing goes for the right investors who have the right almost investor products that can work with great companies like ours.

Griffin Jones  40:57

So your last round your series, they finished when?

Paxton Maeder-York  41:00

A year ago in March.

Griffin Jones  41:02

How much has the market changed in terms of venture capital in the last year and a half since since March of 22? From what you can tell from your, your investors now, your peers, what's happening in Silicon Valley?

Paxton Maeder-York  41:20

So, you know, you can you can read the investor reports, you know, I think we're all looking at the same numbers, there certainly has been a decline in, you know, in both digital health IPOs traditional tech IPOs share prices are down at times, although they they fluctuate, obviously, and certainly, you know, smaller rounds, and where you're expected to be by the time you raise that round has, has evolved. Having said that, you know, I think there's an old adage that the best companies are built during downtime. And I think that's true, I think there was certainly a period where there was so much capital that was being deployed so quickly, people weren't getting to know their investors, and the investors not necessarily getting some of the portfolio companies that, you know, there was a lot of stuff that maybe shouldn't have been funded during that period. And I think those types of businesses that don't have kind of a strong long term goal, and you know, industry or market tailwinds behind them, I think some of those may struggle in the next year or so as they start to ramp up.

Griffin Jones  42:18

Are they still getting funded? Are you still seeing jokers get funded?

Paxton Maeder-York  42:22

I would hesitate to call anybody a joker. But you know, I think to a lesser degree, although, you know, I think Artificial intelligence has certainly become more of a hype term recently. We've been doing this for three years. I think the underlying data science that is backing this type of technology is super solid and real. Having said that, you know, I think unfortunately, there will be folks that may not have spent the time to really become experts in data science, are going to start companies and I don't just mean this in healthcare, I mean, this across the entire tech ecosystem. And you know, hopefully those companies don't, you know, do things that may harm the overarching ecosystem of technology implementation, which is really what we're talking about here, right, you know, AI is, you know, is a is an ever evolving field of data science. And it's based on having these large datasets and how you apply those datasets to real world problems, is, you know, where rubber meets the road, and you're building real businesses. So, you know, I think, I think there will always be some level of FOMO and venture hype that funds different types of companies. But, you know, I think for the folks that are in healthcare, specifically, infertility and IVF, is not going anywhere. If anything, we know that we're not meeting the level of supply that we need to meet the demand. So you know, I think it's a it's a fairly, you know, robust bet to make. Alright, there's, there's a real need here for the population, it's a growing market, you know, there's opportunity to bring technology and best practices, not only from across the United States, but also internationally and globally. And software and AI has this like, really remarkable, unique capability to make that a reality, and a in a very usable and impactful way. So I think from a high level perspective, you know, the, the trajectory in the vision makes perfect sense. I think, of course, then it comes down to well, are you going to be a best in class company? Are you going to do it with high integrity and really do all the clinical validation and make sure that what you're building is, is robust? And that all comes down to you know, how experienced is your team and whether or not you guys have the right mindset to go out and march towards that long term goal.

Griffin Jones  44:38

You haven't acquired any companies in this three year tenure have you?

Paxton Maeder-York  44:42

Not yet. M&A is certainly something that we are considering and when will probably will be part of our story in the long run. But right now, we really view what we're building today the Alife Assist platform, which, you know, is built for reproductive endocrinology to optimize ovarian stimulation embryology team seem to automate and digitalize their platforms. And then, you know, clinic management, that system, we believe is the core of a lot of opportunity to continue to bring this type of value to the clinic.

Griffin Jones  45:11

Did you consider any M&A and building that system?

Paxton Maeder-York  45:14

You know, we have along the way, we've looked at a number of different opportunities, and nothing is really, you know, positioned itself to us in a way that made us feel like this is something that is going to be accelerating our trajectory into the market. You know, there have been other companies that we've partnered with some companies have already come and gone. There, there are companies that you know, and team members, in fact, that used to work at other companies that we've kind of encouraged them to, hey, join our story, because we think we've got a great, you know, great team, great backers, and the right vision and the right resources to go out and get it. But you know, to date, it hasn't made sense to acquire any smaller companies yet.

Griffin Jones  45:54

I'm seeing if I can glean from you any kind of criteria of when it's too early. It seems to me that some companies are acquiring companies too early, but I'm just, that's just me, being a Monday morning quarterback, I don't know. And so I'm trying to see if if there is like any kind of criteria set where it's like, now this, you have to wait until X until it really makes sense to start paying for other companies.

Paxton Maeder-York  46:21

Yeah, I mean, you know, I think there's a difference between, you know, acquiring another business and merging with another business. And, of course, you know, the stage of business, you know, company that you're at, will dictate, you know, there, there are, you know, two plus two makes five situations where, you know, one company is kind of struggling and other companies doing well but kind of struggling together they have a much better shot. I think for for Alife specifically, and I can only really speak from our position, I think there are a number of different opportunities that we're constantly seeing out in the market, and that we know long term we would like to either partner with, acquire or build ourselves. But the way I think about it is I really want to hang those different types of new opportunities off of a core foundation that we've built. And right now being Series A, and having recently launched our products and are now you know, you know, working very closely with partners to continue to push them out into the market and get real world utilization, they're constantly getting better as we get more feedback. You know, that's, that's kind of stage where we are, as the as this platform, you know, hopefully resonates with our end customers and becomes adopted. And it's something that is really impacting clinical care for doctors and patients alike. You know, that's where we can start having really interesting conversations about like, what would be additive to our platform, what are some other things that we're in a unique position with either our data or the infrastructure we built, that is going to make us even more competitive if we either acquire or build some of these additional business opportunities on our own. So, you know, I think post Series B, Series C, that's typically where you see a lot of tech companies starting to do real M&A, with the exception of kind of early stage seed combinations that, you know, for folks that are just trying to continue to survive as businesses,

Griffin Jones  48:06

Let's wrap with the team and the tech stack, I don't expect you to go into anything proprietary about your tech stack, but to the level of detail that you can share, what does it look like just for someone that it might be a fertility doctor has never worked for an AI company? What does the whole tech side, which is the majority of what you're delivering, look like? Because there's a product teams, the the CTO, the tech stack, to the level that you can share? 

Paxton Maeder-York  48:35

Yeah, I think, you know, without getting too too deep into the technical side, because, you know, I think people are probably less interested in, you know, what, what back end resources were using as a company, I think that one of the things that can, that can be very, very useful is thinking about building a company almost the same way as you think about building a product. Applying engineering mindset to your organization. And so, you know, for us, we when we started the business, you know, we really were focused on R&D, and developing the early platform. And so you know, what that looked like from a leadership perspective is we had a had a software, I had a product and I had a data science, and each one ran their own divisions and data science was building new algorithms was publishing papers, was speaking at conferences, the software division was actually building the core infrastructure, taking the code from data science and haven't you know, making sure that it was going to run reliably, you know, making sure that we're doing all the documentation and testing, verification, validation testing is super important and medical technology. And then product was really focused in both the design of the front end user interface as well as you know, talking to all our partners and testing and making sure that what we were building was fitting that Venn diagram we talked about earlier. As the company has evolved, you know, we're constantly changing our organizational structure to meet the needs of the business at that base. So as we started to launch product, we brought on a head of Clinical Affairs to run a lot of our clinical studies and RCTs. We started to build relationships in Europe, so we have a head of head of EMEA based in Zurich. We actually have a wholly owned subsidiary based in Zurich to build partnerships across the EU really focused on trying to bring this vision of best practices from around the world to that patient that walks in the door at a specific clinic. And then we consolidated some of the units as well as brought on now head of commercial that's going to help us continue to drive the products and their adoption. So it's kind of a constant, you know, re-evaluation of where we are with the phase of the business. Are we in R&D? Are we commercial, you know, switching over to early commercial phase? But you know, I think really making sure that your team is structured in a way that allows you to go out and thoughtfully and efficiently go out and build what you want to build is, is I think paramount when you're starting your own company.

Griffin Jones  50:55

Paxton Maeder-York, thank you very much for coming on the Inside Reproductive Health podcast.

Paxton Maeder-York  51:00

Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure to be here.

Sponsor  51:03

This episode was brought to you by Embie. To discover where your time is going and how Embie can transform your clinics efficiency, visit us at embieclinic.com/report. That's embieclinic.com/report. You've been listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society, visit fertilitybridge.com to begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, The Goal and Competitive Diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

195 My Secrets For Selling to Fertility Doctors: Revealed


I share my secrets for having sold to over fifty fertility clinics in seven different countries despite having no outside funding or previous experience in the fertility field. 

Listen to Hear How To

  • Engage multiple decision makers at fertility networks

  • How to shorten the sales cycle to fertility clinics

  • How to pull in the chief decision makers like practice owners and CEOs when they kick you down to gatekeepers


Transcript

Griffin Jones  00:06

Do you sell to fertility doctors? How do you sell to fertility practice owners? How do you do this and a time when fertility practices are consolidating, when MSOs are participating in the channel conflict to get better deals, there are fewer buyers. When there's channel conflict on the player side, we have so many people trying to sell in to such a small percentage of people with me be 300 independently owned clinics in all of the US. and Canada, if there still are of that many there's only about 500 fertility clinics to begin with, and relatively proportionate numbers and other parts of the world. How do you sell to these folks, we're going to explore that today, fertility doctors and those of you that work in fertility clinics, I don't know if this episode is going to be interesting to you, maybe it will, you're kind of a bug on the wall, I suppose in this conversation. This is instruction to industry side companies, those businesses that are calling on you and I put industry in quotes, some people like the word some people don't. And I'm telling them how they can call on you and be more effective in their sales and marketing to you, you'll tell me if I'm totally off this episode is for them. But I hope you enjoy it too. So start off with what I think the problem is. And there are multiple problems, but you could distill it down to there is a divide between sales and marketing in the fertility field. In many businesses overall large and small, it's one of the things that you hear very often breaking down the barriers between sales and marketing, breaking down the silos between the two, it's very common in small companies to what it means is we need to connect sales and marketing marketing is just copy. It's just art, it's just promotion, if it doesn't actually connect to the sale, That's its job. And there is a bit of an under appreciation between the two. Sometimes marketing people see sales as a less noble approach to the same aim, that it's pushy, that it's not as creative. And sometimes sales view marketers is a bunch of artists and English majors that don't actually have to be accountable for a result, at their most cynical they can be right but what we want is for marketing to set up to sell. I'm not good at a lot of things in this life. But one thing that I have gotten really good at professionally, as I think that I've gotten really good at professionally is appreciating both that there has to be a bottom line result, a sale has to eventually come from your efforts. And that marketing can uniquely position you to be able to do that so that you're adding value to your prospects so that you have greater opportunity than you do have capacity. So you can walk away from lousy deal so you don't have to pressure people. So you can be that helpful resource that you want to be in the sales process. What does this disconnect look like in the fertility field? There's a lot of booths, there's a lot of sponsorships, maybe the webinars, you have brochures, you have newsletters, and sometimes those go out through marketing channels. Sometimes it's your sales people that are manning those different channels. But then it's very often disconnected from what the actual sales process is the prospecting, call your discovery call the sales download, follow up the sales meeting, the follow up the follow up. In fact, those names are so sales oriented, that is are very often is something missing in walking the prospect all the way through the process in a way that adds value to them, and puts you in a position where you're helpful where you can walk away and aren't just somebody trying to peddle something, of course it depends on what sub vertical you're in within the fertility field very often I asked you how did SRM God PCRs go? How did this particular event or that particular endeavor go? Very often responses? Well, you know these things, it's about showing up and about building the relationship. And those are good things. But that's still too fluid. For me, that's still too much of marketing being over here. And sales being over here and want marketing to set up the sale now want to have at least a good idea of how it's helping to do that. Not saying that you can quantify everything that is a mistake that many people demand of sales, you can't qualify and attribute everything. But we should be able to do better than that. So instead of having marketing over here, and here's all your marketing efforts, and here's all your sales efforts over here. I want to walk you through a process of linking these different phases together. This is the process that my companies use that I've used to sell 1000s of dollars in marketing services over the last few years and this has been from someone that came into the field with no money, no capital whatsoever, not just no venture capital, no private equity, not even a dime from a bank loan. No money coming in as a D student who had been a generalist Digital Marketer and have been able to sell millions of dollars in marketing services to a field that generally has not been interested in marketing services. My prospects fertility clinics have spent half a percent of gross revenue on marketing. And yet somehow we've been able to do this since because I've gone through this connection to marketing and sales. Let's think of these from your prospects point of view. From a fertility doctors point of view fertility practice owners point of view a CFO at an MSL, or CEO or CEO of a fertility network, you might have seen different funnels and different flywheels it's pretty similar. Let's start with indifference, they're indifferent to their problem, or at least they're indifferent to your solution. Then there's awareness where they become aware of their problem and acknowledge it, then there's consideration where they actually might start to talk to you and consider you as a solution or consider solutions period, then comes indecision. Indecision is that point in the sales process where every single person that's ever sold anything knows exactly what I'm talking to? will think about it. Oh, yeah, we're ready to go. And then you don't hear back from them. Oh, this is something that we really want to work on, we just have to talk about it was so and so. And that process, which sometimes when things are going really good happens right away, but very often takes weeks and months, not only does the indecision phase very often take several months, it can also become a graveyard where sales go to die, things that had been very promising conversations, end up becoming nothing if you can get past indecision, that's when you get to commitment a decision from the buyer. These five phases are when fertility doctors, fertility practice owners and execs are in when we're trying to get them to buy our product, when we're trying to get them to write to our pharmacy, we're trying to get them to write our drug, when we're trying to get them to use our carrier screening company or genetic testing company to buy our EMR to demo our new software. These are the five phases that they're but to be honest with you, I very often don't think of that this in terms of the phases that they're even though I will say, but to be honest with you, I very often don't even think of it in these phases that they're in from their end. Yes, I always believe in talking about the problem that your prospect is facing, not starting with the feature not starting that with what you do, we're all tempted to do that. See it all the gosh darn time, even though every sales and marketing book and every wisdom, piece of wisdom that has come out about sales and marketing wisely advises that we start with the prospects problem, we often skip that. And even knowing that I just often don't think of it in terms of where the prospect is, I think of it in terms of what I have to do. And it's a sequence of things that I have to do in order to get their attention and trust so that I can actually help them and actually provide value first, I'm going to attract them get their intention, then I'm going to engage them then I have to secure the conversation, the process the relationship. So it doesn't go into the graveyard to indecision, how they have to close the deal, actually get the person to sign something to a money for it, and then be able to deliver it to them. And I used to think of the nurturer and delight phase, just in that delivery form. There is some bit of nurture and delight that you want to do across all those days, you want to be nurturing and delighting a little bit while you're attracting them a little bit while you're engaging them a little bit while you're securing them a little bit while you're closing them to nurture and delight shouldn't just be saved for the delivery phase. In my view, I think it's best when it comes in the delivery phase, I'd much rather have a happy client than a happy prospect. I can't sleep when clients don't feel like they've gotten value. And I love it when you can get a prospect to buy at the lowest expectation for them. So that then you can exceed that expectation. So this is how fertility bridge has done it through inside reproductive health over the years to sell millions of dollars in client services to a very small niche with no outside budget, no fancy parties, hardly even any sponsorships. And one part time salesperson, wha who is also running a company, and this is all very visual. So if you want to see the visual, I will link it, you can download it, go to the show notes of this page, go to the email that you got this episode from or go to insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales, and then you can get an idea of what this actually looks like. So in order to attract the audience in order to get their attention, that's where the marketing series comes in. And even though the main problem that we're solving for today is connecting sales and marketing. That's our central theme. What's one of the problems that has come from the consolidation that's happening in the field, though, to be fair, I think it's there, even if you're selling to small, independently owned practices is that there's multiple decision makers, even in a small independently owned practice, you might have the physician you might have the physician spouse, you might have a practice manager that the physician really trusts and relies on On, if you're selling lab solutions, you might still have to talk to their lab director. If you're selling lab solutions in general, very often you need the lab director to buy in. But they can't totally say yes, or write a check without having a senior partner, physician or the managing partner. If it's a multi physician group, they have different decision makers involved of their senior partners, some of whom are very involved, some of whom are less involved, some of them make decisions on committees, if it's an MSO, you'll very often have a chief medical officer, maybe a chief scientific officer, maybe there are some junior partners that you need to come and advocate for you. There's a CFO, a CE, O N, sometimes other different relevant C positions beyond the CEO. So that's where you'll see different articles and podcast episodes coming out from me that target lots of different types of folks. We'll talk about IVF conversion, branding, reputation management, we'll talk about things that my company itself doesn't even help with mergers and acquisitions, operational improvements, physician recruitment, because that's engaging the different decision makers, we're getting lab directors here, we're getting CEOs here, we're getting ce o 's there, and then we're putting in different messages at different times to let people know about our services. But that way, when I do get invited to a sales conversation, it's more likely that the person's partner has heard of me that the executives have heard of me, and they've heard of me and my company in different places, a podcast episode here and article here, any book here. So I have different nurture pieces for each of these different types of decision makers. And this is what advertisers who advertise on inside reproductive health do the same thing. We just help them make their nurture pieces and put it in their different places, to the different decision makers that we reach. But the advertisers just like us can't jump all the way to the sales offer. Well, they can and sometimes they'll get lucky. But it's not the most trusted way of fluidly going through the process. Well, it makes more sense in our second phase to engage the prospective fertility practice owner or the prospective fertility Exec is to give them a marketing hook something of value. A great marketing hook is something that really talks about your prospects problem and gives them the insight and data that they probably can't get elsewhere or would be hard to get elsewhere without talking about your solution. Talking about your features. A couple of really great examples of marketing hooks that we've had that have been really successful. We ranked every fertility clinic based on our online reputation. And then we gave that ranking to people to be able to see where they were we did the same thing. With brand, we ranked every fertility clinic on a four point brand scale. And people wanted to see that we gave them the criteria for the scale. So fertility practices, got to see interesting information, things that they wanted to know without having to hear anything about our sales message. And they got that for free. The more generous you can be here, the better off you can be. This is what we counsel advertisers who advertise on the inside reproductive health to do and some are better than others. Some tried to jump too far, the marketing offer that they have isn't that generous. The information isn't that competitive. It's not that detailed, and so less people are interested. Another example of a really good one was psycho clarity. And I can share this because Dr. Shore has given me permission to use them as a testimonial and a case study very graciously. They were also very gracious and generous in their marketing offer. They gave averages for physician time averages for physician salary for ultrasound Time for Nursing time for time spent on ultrasound, and they were willing to give that away in exchange for some contact information. But without any thing about cycle clarity about all the great stuff that they do. It was just in trusting and valuable information that they were willing to parkways in exchange for building that next step of the relationship with the prospect.

To get an idea for how your company might be able to get multiple fertility companies as leads, you can get a visual of the process at insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales, that's a free visual that shows you what the process looks like when it's broken, shows you all of the points of the process when it works. That's insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales or you can just email me Griffin, griffin@fertilitybridge.com or insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales. Now back to enjoying your episode.

So now we're in our third phase. We have nurtured them to our marketing series one, we have got them on with our marketing OIC, which maybe I'll change to marketing bait, and nobody likes to think of themselves as a fish. I'm happy to be a fish as long as everybody's transparent with our interests. They people don't like that. But I think it's a valuable way of thinking about this and maybe I'll change it to marketing data because I've got marketing hook onto sales hook but you need something to grab on to at least time so I might keep the word up and you may be dispense with the fish analogy altogether, because really, it's just about latching on, it's about getting traction. First is the nurturing pieces that happen through the marketing series, then we're getting them we're latching on with a marketing hook that is valuable and generous to the prospect. And then the sales hook is really where we want to latch marketing on to sales, we want to bridge this gap, we want to successfully pass off the baton without having to get them so fully committed into the sales process. Without wasting the prospects time without wasting your time. If we don't know if it's a good fit, now there hasn't been that qualification. And that happens with your sales hook. Your sales hook should be low commitment to yourselves into the prospect and it's gotta be valuable to the prospect, it has to be more relevant than Hey, do you want to talk on the phone for 20 minutes and see how we can help you even if it is actually a 20 minute conversation, give you an example number the marketing hooks I was talking about the one of the examples I had was we ranked all of the clinics on brand that was the marketing hook, you had to download that you had to give your information, say this is something I'm interested in. And then the sales hook after that was a saw that you downloaded this ranking Do you want to see the criteria to I can walk you through it. So it's relevant, it's valuable to the prospect because they've already been interested in the ranking. And you're putting a constraint around it that you're not just going to take up all of their time or your time. That's one example of a sales hook. Another example is, for example, what we just talked about this visual that if you go to insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales, or if you download this from the email, or if you download it from the page that this particular podcast episode is on, that's a marketing hook, you're getting this visual, and then I can reach out to you if I if we haven't talked already, or if I think might be a good time to have a conversation and say, Hey, do you want to see the rest of these examples? Do you want to have a 20 minute conversation, and we'll go over this and I will show you the different points of exactly how we use each of these five different phases so that you can see for yourself in a perfect world, we'd go right from the sales hook to the sales offer. But we usually need a sales nurture series. First, this is really where the sales comes in. This is really where people often don't like to get their hands dirty. Everybody wishes you could just put an ad up someplace and then all of a sudden you get 10 calls in the prospect as their wallet out and they just want to buy your genetic testing offering you want to buy your new AI solution, they want to sign up for your software they want to demo your EMR usually doesn't happen like that, we have to continue to build the relationship provide value. But there are ways we can do that more systemically where we waste a lot less of the prospects time where we waste a lot less of your time. So when you see the visual, you'll see the sales nurture series in between the sales hub, phase three and the sales off for Phase Five. But really, I like to use it as like a phase two and a half and a phase one out, I like to use it between the marketing and the sales up to so what I like to do is get the sales conversation scheduled. But then I'd like to send the prospects some information before we even meet those sales nurture pieces that come even before the sales hook that first sales conversation should have to do with the prospects most frequently asked questions. And very often the most common objections want to send that to them ahead of time to show them that you've thought about this before. And if there are any deal breakers, that they should cancel the meeting, you're not trying to get them in a meeting, you're not trying to squeeze them into something, you want to show them that you've thought about a lot of their questions ahead of time that you're ready, you want to show them that you don't want to waste their time you want to give that to them so that they can cancel if there is a deal breaker and example of one of those sales nurture pieces for us that I use between the marketing hook and the sales hook is we have a very extensive FAQ page probably need to update it. There's a lot of stuff for especially inside reproductive health advertiser prospects that I don't have on there, but on the client services, and Marguerite said is really robust it as most of any questions they could possibly ask and says, you know, here's what the deal breakers would be if this is important to you, we're not going to be a good set. If this is important to you, we might be and it links to a lot of information about our sales and our delivered process. I like to get that to people before I have that sales hook conversation with them, because then they can cancel if they want. And very often that meeting just goes much more smoothly, because we're both prepared. But let's say we're in the sales nurture series, where it really is the fourth phase it is coming between the sales hook and the sales offer. This is where you want to do some objection busting. And very often your sales nurture pieces can also be marketing pieces, the marketing nurture pieces, and just like in the marketing series, where you're creating different nurturing pieces for each of the types of decision makers. You do the same thing with sales, nurture pieces, you have different pieces that can speak to the objections of different decision makers. And this is where you can really smash that sales cycle, the length of that sales cycle and that's where a sale Sales Person proves their value, you can resurrect some of the potential conversations that were in the graveyard, you can crank down that 910 1112 month sales cycle to a few more months at a time, you can take some of those few months sales cycles and have a couple more of those unicorns that just go through real quickly. This is where you want to really meet the fertility doctor, the practice owner, the exact where they're at and bring them value with the objections that they have for implementing your software writing to your pharmacy, writing for your drug, adopting your EMR, trying out your AI product, because they're so effing busy, they have so much going on, there are a whole bunch of good reasons, believe it or not, for them, not even try your product, much less to buy it. I know you wouldn't believe it if I told you but despite having done business with dozens of Fertility Centers, we still have not done business with the majority of them. Can you believe it the best marketer and salesperson on the face of the earth, oh, my goodness, it's because they're busy, they have things going out, there are good reasons for them, not to try my product or service, let alone work, spend money and work with us. And that's the case for you too. So we want to address their objections with well thought out pieces, so that it isn't just you responding to an objection in a conversation, you can send it to them before the objection comes up. They want to read, watch or listen to it, because it's valuable. And when it does come up in conversation, you can reference it. And it's more valuable than you just bring up a point because you want to get a sale, it's something that you clearly establish a valuable point of view on a couple more examples for you for this is for the sales nurture series, two of the biggest objections that a client services firm can get, at least if it's in marketing is we already have a marketing team, we already have a marketing director, or if you're a client services firm, you often need buy in from the top that is more than just the vertical that you're helping with. In other words, if it's marketing, you need buy in from the top because there's going to be operations, things that involve the outcome that they're ultimately in search of, if you sell some kind of accounting, it isn't just the financial department that you might need help with it might be from the sales department as well the way that they send invoices and, and do other things and bring people on to their sales process. And so we have those two different objections. The first is we already have marketing team, we have a marketing director, that's a really big one. The other one is that there are different decision makers and many of them want to kick it down to someone else they want to step out of that process, we have to solve for each of those things, I have a piece called should I fire my Fertility Centers marketing director, now it doesn't say you should fire your Fertility Centers marketing director, that wouldn't be valuable. It instead, it very lays out the different roles for Fertility Center for Fertility company that they could actually use for evaluation, what those different roles do, what levels of responsibility they can be expect to have, what outcomes can and should be assigned to them, and then what support each of them need in order to achieve those outcomes. It's a valuable piece, we send it to people. And then people can see how we can help them in different ways. Instead of shutting out we have them we have a marketing director, we have a marketing team, which could mean anything, they could have a physician liaison, they could have an in house ad agency, it could mean a number of different things. And they can see oh, this is how they might be able to help not because we're saying this is what we do. But because it's very valuable for them to be able to see the different functions, the different outcomes, and what each role needs in order to be able to achieve those outcomes. On the decision maker side, I have something called the 12 point spectrum. And I give this to CEOs I give this to practice owners and I show them here are the areas where you don't need to be involved. And here are the areas where you absolutely need to be involved. And here are the points where the handoff comes. And I give this to them because we don't want them getting sucked into things that they should be able to delegate that they have to be able to get off their plate so that they don't have to micromanage and to show them. Even if you have a chief marketing officer, there are still some things that only the visionary and the integrator are responsible for. And these are the sales and marketing roles that cannot be delegated beyond the number one person in the company and here are the other roles that can be and we show them that 12 Point spectrum. It's valuable to them. We share this with them. If I run into the objection in the conversations, I sent it to them beforehand. And those two things are really important from stopping sales conversations from going to the graveyard to get you out of indecision infinitum. And to move on to what the sales offer is there can be multiple sales offers, but I break it off into something digestible and this is something that I tried to get our advertisers to do as well try to advise them and workshop with them on how to do this Because very often our solutions are a lot, there are a lot for Fertility Center to adopt or to even think about want me to implement this software with all of my nurses, you know what that's going to do to our whole billing process? How much work is this going to take for my staff. So if you can break off a piece of what you sell, that will help you sell other bigger things potentially in the future, but at least give you something that the prospect has to part ways with money for that they can actually become a client in take them away from the prospect phase and into the client phase in a way that is valuable to build a working relationships. And now you're not just somebody calling on them, but you're actually doing business together, and in a way that doesn't have them create a huge commitment or have to make a huge commitment. It doesn't put you on the hook if they're not a good fit, and it must be valuable, whether they buy anything from you after that or not. It's a big piece. Think of what our prospects do themselves. Think of what fertility clinics do, do, you just walk into a fertility clinic as a doctor and have three cycles want a gestational carrier, you're gonna write this amount of Clomid by the way, go ahead and throw in a couple of donor gametes and some Miksi in there first, they do a console, they do a workup they go over the results, they give a follow up, some people might in could be disappointed if that doesn't go on to IVF it has to be valuable outside of just the potential of it leaving to IVF the best fertility doctors and practices know this and do this. And fertility patients all over the world appreciate those that do when you can give someone answers when you can give someone guidance when you can give them value for parting ways with a little bit of money $300, somewhere between 306 $100, right, and hopefully it leads to the next step, whatever that may be, but it has to be valuable. Either way, almost all of you can do this in some way. This is where we help people work shop and get creative within it takes a little bit of time, it takes a little bit to get good at our sales offer. Another example for you is the gold diagnostic. You've probably heard me talk about the gold diagnostic on the podcast before dozens of fertility clinics have done it some industry side companies have done it to maybe 10 industry side companies have done but it's four or five something dozen clinics that have done it up to this point. And it took a little while to make sure that it was really valuable. But now I know that's going to be valuable virtually every time that people that we engage with to do the goal diagnostic love that they learn a ton and only about half of them do we go on to do more business with and I set that up from the very beginning. Just like a consults, it makes it easy for the prospect to say yes to as long as you've done all of these other things. It qualifies prospects further and it leaves them with a valuable experience. You'll convert more folks, yes, but even the folks that you don't convert will leave saying you know what, you should talk to those folks, they got something there, they have a good experience. Yes, it takes a while to figure out we can help you figure out it took us a little while to figure out but guess what, when you're starting at something so small, you can make the value up if for some reason you fail, I always started off charging $600 for the goal diagnostic. And if I couldn't deliver value, somehow I could find a way to make that up before moving to the next phase. That might be the last point on the sales offer, as it should be called something that is worth buying, as opposed to discovery call demo, things of that nature. We call it the goal diagnostic because we turn it into a deliverable. They get something from it and you can do the same thing. I hope this has been helpful to you. There's a temptation very often to say doctors aren't business people are these people coming in to the fertility field, they might have MBAs and have worked in private equity backed groups, but they have no idea what they're doing and the fertility field. Those are all tempting things to say, as a great salesperson or as an aspiring great salesperson, I always want to put the onus back on myself, it's always my responsibility to provide value, never the prospects responsibility to just perceive my value, always, always have to get better always have to provide more value. Always, always always. And with that, I hope you can repair this disconnect. It doesn't just exist in the fertility field. It's in almost every facet of business where you have a silo of marketing here, you have a silo of sales here now just doing a sponsorship or a booth or creating a newsletter or making a brochure, you aren't just having a discovery call a prospecting call over here. That becomes a process that fluidly links sales and marketing where the fertility practice owner is that the indifference awareness consideration and decision commitment, and you're doing that attracting them, engaging him securing them closing now all while nurturing and delighting the entire time by giving them a nurturing piece, a marketing hook latching on to a sales hook, using your sales nurture series to get them out of decision, indecision hell in order to move things along in order to provide value, instead of arguing about objections and to have a sales offer then makes it easy for them to buy and for you to begin to become a relationship that isn't just prospect but his client and that allows you to add more value and continue to repeat this process. For those of you on the industry side I hope this was valuable to you again you can get the visual in the notes in the email that this episode came in by going to insidereproductivehealth.com/fertilityclinicsales, fertility Doc's and practice owners if you did the last through all of this episode, I hope that it was valuable to you I hope that it gets more value to you from the people that are calling on you if you found this episode valuable where you tell me where you email me and tell me I love hearing. I love hearing when that happens. And if you didn't find it valuable, will you just shout it into a pillow quietly in your house when nobody's around. Never tell anybody about how bad it was. I hope so. I hope you enjoyed this episode of Inside reproductive health and I hope it gave you something to add more value for you for your companies and for the fertility practices, fertility, Doc's and fertility companies that you call on.



Sponsor  31:09

You've been listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertilitybridge.com to begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, The Goal and Competitive Diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

193 Reviewing NYT's Podcast on Yale Fentanyl Incident and Preventing the Next One featuring Lisa Duran


This week on IRH we break down The New York Times podcast, The Retrievals, a five part series that provides an in-depth look at the Yale Fertility fentanyl scandal.

Lisa Duran, who’s consulted dozens of fertility clinics across the US and Canada and was the Chief Experience Officer at Inception Fertility, leverages her experience to offer up methods you can integrate to drastically reduce the likelihood of a terrible scandal at your own clinic.

She provides four big takeaways:

  • A Closed Loop Feedback System (Lisa gives some examples and how they work for patients and staff)

  • Recruitment and Retention (And the risk management necessities involved)

  • Leadership (How to engage your team to create consistent accountability)

  • Service Recovery (Validating feelings, getting more information, and taking ownership)


Lisa Duran:
Website, Lisa Duran Consulting
LinkedIn

Transcript

Lisa Duran  00:00

What happens is, of course, the patients were feeling like, how did nobody believe me? And I was telling my nurse, I was telling my doctor, and why didn't nobody believe me? Whoever was in that procedure room, how was I not believed after that? And and I found myself really thinking about that, going oh my gosh, how do you not believe hundreds of women?

Griffin Jones  00:26

Excruciating pain and public scandal. Those are the topics of a podcast that is much better known and will reach far more people than this one ever will. Well, you might be familiar with the incidence of fentanyl theft by a fertility nurse at the Yale Fertility Clinic that occurred in 2020. You might be familiar with the lawsuits that happened after it. And now there is a podcast that is currently ranked number one in all podcasts, a mini series from the New York Times and Serial called The Retrievals. By the time this episode comes out all five episodes of The Retrievals will be out at time of recording. They're not all out yet. The first episode is about the patients. The second about the nurse, the third is about the court case, the criminal court case that is not the civil one that came later, and the fourth is about the clinic. My guest is Lisa Duran. Lisa's been an in house marketing director for fertility clinics before she was the chief experience officer at Inception Fertility for some years, and she's consulted dozens of fertility clinics big and small throughout the US and Canada on patient experience management tools and leadership capabilities. Lisa listened to all four episodes that are currently out I think more than once she has four big takeaways that you and other fertility clinics can employ to drastically reduce the likelihood of a terrible scandal like this ever happening to your clinic. The first is a closed loop feedback system. She gives examples of those systems, how they work, how they escalate how patients use them, how staff use them. The second is recruitment and retention as risk management necessities and I share a couple of things I learned about recruitment and retention, reducing some administrative time to fill responsibilities that currently fall on your staff. Lisa's third takeaway is about leadership, how to engage your team's hearts, so there's always accountability. And in the fourth, she has three points about service recovery, how to validate feelings, get more information and take ownership the follow through. This is not a bright chapter for the fertility field. Hundreds of women suffered in excruciating physical pain. It's an embarrassing scandal and the cat is out of the bag. These media outlets are huge. And now the topic is very much in the public square. This episode isn't about Yale Fertility Clinic. Lisa argues that this could have happened at a lot of different fertility clinics. She shares why and she shares her takeaway of how you can prevent it. Enjoy today's conversation with Lisa Duran, Ms. Duran Lisa, welcome back to the inside reproductive health podcast for what I think is the fourth time. 

Lisa Duran  02:41

Yes, I'm so happy to be in one. Thanks for having me back.

Griffin Jones  02:44

We're on to talk about a current topic to have one that has just started to wrap up but it's still very popular that more people in our field are starting to find out about it. And it's from an incident that happened back at Yale Fertility three years ago. And the New York Times along with their subordinate companies, Serial, made a podcast that is the most popular podcast right now, a mini series, five different episodes about this incident that happened back in 2020. As it was released, you texted me like did you see this? I said, Yes, I saw this. I want to talk to you about it. I want to have you come on and tell us about how this can be prevented in the future. And we can go through it. Why don't you set it up? Explain to the audience what the podcast is about.

Lisa Duran  03:37

Sure. Okay. Thank you. I'm so excited to talk about this because I was getting texts from friends and emails saying, have you listened, have you listened. And so of course, I jumped right on. It's called The Retrievals. And there have been four episodes. The fifth episode of the last episode is dropping this Thursday. And I just I found just ranges of emotion throughout the, you know, the series of the of this podcast and I wanted to share them with you because I think they're really important. And this is not going to be about how Yale failed. This is not going to be anything about processes necessarily. Or you know, I don't have a clinical background in terms of I'm not a nurse, I'm really going to talk about the experience today. So the lens that I was listening to a podcast with was from the experience standpoint, and so the first episode was about the patients and about their horrible experience and hundreds of patients went through a retrieval with no payment because there was a nurse that was stealing the fentanyl and in replacing the fentanyl was saline. So the nurses or whoever was administering the what they thought were pain meds, and these patients weren't getting them and so hundreds of patients were complaining about pain, you know, going through an excruciating  ordeal without any pain management. And so of course, the first episode just tears rolling down my cheeks for these patients and just, you know, what they what they went through. And it was not just the physical, but it was the emotional of, you know, the, what we do as women is we talk ourselves in and out of things, right. And so many women said that what they did is they found themselves telling themselves stories about why this was happening, well, maybe I'm just not sensitive to, you know, this is just what I have to go through, because my body is not operating the way it should. This is just what I have to endure for this process. And it was just so sad, because we often do that as women is we just, you know, we try to explain it away. And we try to blame ourselves and just say, you know, what, just suck it up and deal with it. And it's going to be okay. And and I think one of the most difficult parts is hearing how after it all came out how they thought, you know, how did no one believed me? You know, how did the nurse not believe me? How did the doctors not believe me how to, you know, if whoever was in that procedure room? How was I not believed after that? And, and I find myself really thinking about that, oh, my gosh, how do you not believe hundreds of women, right? And so we're going to talk about that in just a little bit. So episode two was all about the nurses story. And I found myself tears rolling down my cheeks about her story and thinking, gosh, you know, what could have been done to help her alone? That third episode is about the court case. And of course, you know, you're saying, gosh, she should you know, she should get what's coming to her. But on the other hand, you know, after episode two and hearing her story, empathize with her as well. No excuse for her decision. But and then this last one was so good. It was about the clinic, of course, where was the clinic in all this and what was what was the patient's experience, and as well as the the employee experience, throughout this deal. So those are the four podcasts that I dropped, that you're able to listen to, and what I'm going to unpack during the scene of this talk, as we unpack.

Griffin Jones  07:08

Do you know what the fifth episode is going to be about? Do we know what it will be about before it drops?

Lisa Duran  07:15

You know, that's a great question. And I've been researching and trying to find out and I believe it's going to be more about the clinic and just really summarizing everything, but I didn't know to high. Thursday, Thursday is on my calendar.

Griffin Jones  07:29

And by the time this episode comes out, that episode will be out. But at least we've got four episodes thus far. First about the patient second about the nurse, third about the court case, and fourth about the clinic. And you talked about the patient's feeling like well, I guess I just have to suck it up. I guess this is just the way it is for me. Did they have any kind of recourse where they could have found out if other people were going through this? Is there something that could have been done for to do at least know, for them that this isn't an isolated incident?

Lisa Duran  08:05

Actually, I'm so glad you asked that question, it actually tees up its solution, but I feel would be would have been a great way to catch it early on, you know, what happens is, of course, the patients were feeling like, how did nobody believe me? And I was telling my nurse, I was telling my doctor and why did nobody believed me, I don't believe that that was the case, I don't believe that the women weren't believed. Or that that or that the nurse of the doctor didn't care. What I believe happens is that, you know, there's so many different people, so many different nurses and so many different doctors that are working with patients that they're not necessarily talking to each other. And so they're not seeing a common thread. And so your question, Griffin, about, you know, what, is there something that could have been done? And yes, there should be a formalized process for patients to give feedback, one that doesn't depend on one, two or 10 people to communicate, you know, and then finally, you know, how do you communicate that who documents that you with technology today, there are some amazing systems, you know, Qualtrics Medallia, they have an SMS real time surveying that can by touch point, you know, after retrieval within, you know, 24 hours or after the patient's recovered, can send them a text and say, you know, Lisa, how was your experience, or tell us, you know, how could we have improved this experience? And and if they would have something like that in place, they would have seen a common thread, Text Analytics would have picked it up and they would have seen a very common defect going on, they would have caught it earlier, because they would have seen this, this feedback being woven through a lot of the patient's feedback.


Griffin Jones  09:57

Okay, so there's the opportunity for patients to report using text they get they get how tell us about your visit. It was terrible. I felt like I was going through excruciating pain. It was a 10 out of 10 pain if they had seen this from a number of different people, ostensibly they would have been able to connect a pattern now, is there something in the technology that connects the pattern for them? Would they have to would have to connect the pattern themselves? Would somebody have to be monitoring it actively? In other words, so if they have this, and you get 10 patients in a week that all say I had excruciating pain in my, during my retrieval, that should send up a red flag. But what if nobody's at the helm? Reading it? How does? How does the other end of it work?

Lisa Duran  10:48

Another great question. The beauty of these platforms is that there are two things, there's text analytics, that will compile common themes, and will push them out to leadership. And when you're when you were building the system with whatever company you choose, you create the governance, right, you create the who it goes out to. And and the other thing is, there's a closed loop system that is absolutely beautiful, that if there's a you know, you set whatever the rating is, and if the patient gives it a rating, you know, you talked about, you know, the rating of 10. And let's say they gave it a five and a detractor would be a five. And there's a closed loop system that that does a real time right away alert to the practice administrator. And then the practice administrator can give that patient a call and find out what happened and close that loop. And there are actually systems in place to where, if that doesn't happen, an alert goes to the next person. And if that doesn't happen, then alert can go to the next person. So the idea is that no patient left behind no patient unsatisfied, or no patient that had a less than optimum experience is not followed through with a phone call right away to try and preserve that relationship and fix it. And you better believe that if somebody if a leader is getting no constant detractors on the same issue, that there is going to be some awareness there. And we are going to talk about leadership and in one of these conversations, and we'll dig a little bit deeper into what happens then. But the system is good. And it takes the subjectivity out of things. And it really creates data and, and helps you see, you know how much of a problem it really is. And I believe that this would have been caught a lot sooner had they had a system in place.

Griffin Jones  12:38

So that escalation would help to catch it and not for it just to be another normal issue, because you could have one patient that is keeps dinging you for I didn't get a call back about my lab results yet. I didn't get a call back about you could have that. But if you started, if you really started to get pinged from multiple people about the same issue, it seems like you would pick that up a lot faster, that you wouldn't have to be worried about the boy who cried wolf with this type of solution, because you're talking about a critical mass of people and critical frequency about a critical problem.

Lisa Duran  13:18

Yes, yes, exactly. And depending on how you set it up, as well, as it's not going to just one leader, it should be going to multiple and if an administrative leader doesn't think it's important, it doesn't happen or doesn't get paid attention to. So right, it becomes subjective and one person makes the decision and whether it's initially or not, this takes all of that away, because there are multiple people looking at it. And you see you've got leaders that are really looking at the big picture. You know, if one doesn't seem as it doesn't think it's important, there are many other eyes on it that may may believe that yeah, this is something very important that we need to be addressing.


Griffin Jones  13:58

Tell me if I'm jumping ahead too far, and if I am then un-jump, me back. But how did the patient, while we're on the topic of the first episode of the patients, how did they come to find out about each other? Was it not until charges were pressed on the nurse? Was it, did they find a way to connect with each other in a support group or elsewhere? How did they find out a bit about each other?


Lisa Duran  14:21

You know, that actually in the service recovery piece, that was my fourth, you know, I have four points of my four big takeaways from this and the first one was that having a system in place so that was the first one, the fourth one was on that service recovery piece and how it was handled with the patients and with the team. And so you have they you know, they found out via letter, they got a letter in the mail, the patient's got a letter, not a phone call, but they got a letter and and that service recovery piece, you know, I believe that that we all can be better at service recovery. And so as far as the patients they found out about each other and much later when when it became public when it became when it was on the news and and people started to talk about it, they did not feel comfortable talking about it in the clinic as they continue their treatments, some continued to treatment, some didn't. And nor could they talk to their nurses or their the team about it. And that that was difficult on the team. Because the team was instructed not to talk about it and completely understand that the company has to protect and make sure that you know, nobody says something that is going to damage the company or throw someone unnecessarily under the bus. But there's a way to equip teams to be able to have healthy dialogue about it. And when you tell them just don't talk about it, then it's

Griffin Jones 15:46

One, it doesn't work. Yeah, so I want to come back to that when we talked about service recovery. And, and so in your four takeaways we have the first one was closed loop feedback system, what was the second main takeaway? And what was the third? And then we'll go into them each individually?

Lisa Duran  16:05

Yeah, that sounds great. So the first one was on the patient experience, and you know, what could we do, and it's having that system in place? Where are they they can give feedback from real time, not not the feedback just once you get the pregnant, but each touch point at or at the very important touch points. The second one was, you know, like the second episode, Donna's story, it was the nurses story, and it was the employee experience, you know, I'm in clinics all the time. And I have such a hurt for the teams. And, and I see, you know, firsthand of places where they are equipped and more than where they are unable to give great patient care. And I also see where they suffer, you know, and in this particular case, what happened was, they had two nurses that had quit, and they had a new nurse manager that they were frustrated with. And so they were spread very thin. And that is no excuse for making the decision to autonomy, I want to make sure that that's very clear. What I will tell you is that, I think at times, you know, we think about employee retention, as something very important. And it is, you know, when you look at how much it costs the organization, it's 100% of their salary, you know, to, to recruit, train, or get them up to speed. That's not just about, you know, retaining great talent, it's also about managing risk. And so when you've got a team that spreads so thin, and it's, it's ripe for abuse, and again, very good intentions, with leadership, very good intentions, everybody doing the best they can, but it made me realize that employee retention and talent retention is not a nice to have it to have to have on so many levels. It's not only taking care of the organization, it's taking care of the people that are there, the ones that stay, and a lot of you know, the the nurses that they talked to, they said, you know, we didn't, we don't feel like we could give patient good good patient care, we became a nurse, because we wanted to care for patients. And when we're spread so thin, we couldn't care for the patient the way we wanted to. And one of the nurses said, I just find that I was constantly apologizing, and it wears on you when you're constantly apologizing when your heart is to give good patient care. And I just feel like there's a lot out there. And so that's why this is not about Yale, this is really about, really about in health care, how are we taking care of our people? And how are we ensuring that that when there are openings, you know, we can't always control? And we can do everything you can to be proactive, but when there are openings, and you've got two nurses down in an organization, what are you doing for the people that are there that are picking up? You know, the extra, the extra patients and how are we caring for them? And so that that was my second takeaway on as it relates to this series, but it's the employee experience.

Griffin Jones  19:04

I want to come back to that employee experience to talk about retention and recruitment more, especially as it relates to risk management. What was the third major takeaway for you? And did that also core, seems like each of your takeaways, like you had one major takeaway, per episode topic was the third did the third topic was was that also, did that also correspond with the third episode? Did that come from the court case? Or, or was that a different takeaway?

Lisa Duran  19:28

Actually, this was the only one on the court case. That was more of an emotional takeaway for me, because, you know, if I would have just listened to episode one, I would have been like, you know, throw her in the slammer. That's terrible to say, but after hearing her story, it reminded me that every life has a story. Right? And, and what could we have done? Or what could you know, what were the signs that we could have taken better care of her again, that's no excuse. There's lots of people that have the stress that she has, that doesn't that don't make the decision she makes okay, so there's no excuse. But the court case I just found myself, like the judge, actually, you'll hear the judge talking about not quite knowing how to navigate this, because you see both sides of it. And so so there really wasn't a huge takeaway, other than just my personal emotions on it, just the roller coaster of it.

Griffin Jones  20:20

So what was your third takeaway?

Lisa Duran  20:22

the third takeaway was on leadership, you know, and it's so funny, because what I'm doing now is, it's called an integrated experience, because I don't believe that you can just create a patient experience program, and scale it across the company and expect it to be fabulous, right? You've got to have great leadership a place to catch, you know, catch those wins, and celebrate those wins. And then coach for behavior change. And then, and then there's the employee experience, you know, people don't do what organizations expect they do, it's paid attention to, and they and you know, you want their hearts, you know, In leadership, we don't just want people's compliance and health care, you absolutely compliance is critical, we have to want their hearts because if we have their hearts, then they're going to take great care of the patients. And so what I found, my third takeaway was with leadership, you know, one of the, actually, the hostess, the host of the podcast said, who was managing Donna, you know? And I see this so often in clinics, you know, there's been a nurse that's been there 15 years, and she hands the nurse manager or the senior nurse or, or she, and there's a lot of trust put in that person. And I'm not saying it's not rightfully put there. But there needs to be accountability, not just systematic accountability, you know, for the meds and, and all, but there also needs to be personnel accountability at every level. And so where was, who was managing Donna? And who was the leader that was looking at the big picture. And so often we find that the in health care that there are managers that are managing tasks, but not leading people. And so it just, you know, it made me think of this new manager that they were very frustrated with, what was her experience or his experience? You know, what, what was that person's onboarding experience like? Is somebody coming alongside them and helping them to build trust with the team so that they can have healthy dialogue? You know, what was that manager's experience like? And so without good leadership, without strong leadership with people leading and servant leadership, then again, it's right for abuse. So that was my third takeaway.


Griffin Jones  22:32

You're a very efficient thinker. I know your your points don't perfectly correspond with the episodes, but they almost do and it makes it very easy to follow. So episodes go patient, nurse, court case clinic, your major takeaways go closed loop feedback system, a retention and recruitment as a means of, of risk management, leadership and accountability, and then service and recovery. We talked about the closed loop feedback system. Before we get into your second major takeaway. I am curious about what you found to, to what tugged at your heartstrings with the nurse because I think of you as somebody that actually probably wouldn't be a good person to have on a jury. Like in a liberal democracy. I feel like Lisa Duran is the type of person that you want on a jury to give to give fair jurisprudence to people and I think of somebody like my dad who has been selected for, not called on Lisa, selected for jury three times because he's so even keeled. My dad's the type of guy that you want on a jury. And I feel like they sit around somebody that you want on a jury. But what swayed you about the nurse?

Lisa Duran  23:04

Well, there were so many things, you know, she's a mama herself. She has kids. I think what drove her to the decision, you know, when you hear her life, and you hear about her, her marriage, that was a very unhealthy relationship. And you know, there were some some verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and how it was a very unhealthy situation. And you know, that it's my very favorite video is that Chick fil A video that's every life has a story. And it just really reminded me that, you know, what drives somebody to do something like that. Is this a bad person? No, I don't believe this is a bad person. I believe that this was a very, very hurt person who needed some intervention who needed some help. And so, you know, my heart went out to her, but then you get back to listen to episode, one and you hear these patients? And you're like, oh, it just I don't think I would be a good pitcher because I think I'd have a hard time making that decision.

Griffin Jones  23:45

You lean too much towards mercy and not not enough towards justice in that scenario.

Lisa Duran  24:15

You said that very well.

Griffin Jones  24:25

Well, then talk to me about how retention and recruitment are a means of risk management, and you alluded to it as you were covering the you're giving the synopsis of the point, but I want to hear more about how it's not just for to have butts in the seats. It's not just for productivity. It's not just for the the cost impact of having to retain and recruit somebody new and train them and that being 100% of their salary. But there also is risk when seats aren't filled. Tell us about that.

Lisa Duran  25:31

Yes, well, you know, my entire career, I've been doing patient experience, patient experience as a differentiator patient experience as it's the right thing to do, right and patient experience, as you know, it's it's a good thing for the team member, as well as the patient and their and championing for the patient experience, as as a good thing as a differentiator. And this made me realize it is all of that. And it is also risk management. Because it really highlighted the fact that when teams are spread very thin, what could happen in that, and this happens to be, unfortunately, a scenario that that's exactly what happened, a very skeleton crew, and now a new leader. And, and a decision was made without accountability and, and people that are spread too thin to pay attention to some of the cues that would have alerted them to something's not quite right. And they did in, in the podcast, I think it was, yeah, I think it was episode two, they and episode four, they did some of the team members did talk about some things that just didn't seem quite right, there were a few things that were off, but they're so busy, right, they were just going from one patient to another that they really didn't have time to process that or communicate that, you know, to each other or up to a leader who had the big picture in mind to, you know, to get that off of the pass or to, you know, address it or at least ask the right questions. And so when you have when people are spread, then it really becomes a risk management, not just a good thing to have for patient experience. It's also and it's also retaining the good people that you have, because, you know, as a few of the nurses said, Well, if we don't feel like we could give good patient care, you know, we come somewhere where we are equipped to give good patient care. And if there is an urgency in filling the positions with the right people, and please know my heart and that I think HR, HR leaders have the hardest job ever, just trying to find the right people. And they're working really hard to do that. And so hats off to the to the HR community right now. And this is really hard with a with a with a short list of people or with a shortness of of talent, of good talent there. So I know it's hard, and it's hard. But it really highlighted that this was, you know about patient experience, it was really about risk management as well.

Griffin Jones  28:03

Do you have any solutions for service because on the feedback from patients point you, you get a closed loop system, whether it's a self checks, whether it's a Medallia, whether it's another software, and you walked us through a little bit about how that can work, other than just posting more trying to raise salaries, trying to to maybe give people more benefits, or whatever it might be, do have more suggested solutions for how these managers might retain staff and recruit them for longer so that they don't make themselves liable to risk with a shortage like this?

Lisa Duran  28:41

Well, there are two things in your question. One was in how do you retain staff? And the other one was, you know, what can we do in the recruitment process? Or is there anything you know, that you can do? So I'm going to first address the retaining piece, and you know, how you retain people, if you care about them? Right. And so often we think the employee experiences, you know, is a pity party, or, you know, and those are good things, please, I'm not minimizing that, but you know, professional development pouring into them personally and professionally. And there's a way to do that, really caring about them, you know, building trust with with their direct, that's what the leadership piece is so important. And I've been probably doing 90% Leadership Development nowadays, because, you know, health care leaders are so often promoted into these positions, because they were good nurses and they weren't good, you know, in patient services, or they were good in financial concepts and they are not given the tools to really to lead people, they can manage the tasks but not lead the people. And so, you know, the, in my personal opinion, I would say that the biggest retention strategy is leadership development and how to lead people and how to care for them and how to be servant leaders. And that is going to make people want to stay you know, not go across the street for another dollar an hour, when you really win, and you know, we've all worked for people that really care about us, and we will, we will stay, despite her times, we will stay, you know, you know, just despite all the hardships because we know that we're cared for. So that's on the retention piece now on the, when it does happen, and you can't always control that, right when it does happen, and you've kept openings, this is going to sound a little cheesy, but you know, me, I'm cheesy, but giving oxygen to hope. And I know what I mean by that, is that so often the clinics feel that it is a secondary priority, to fill their open positions. And I know and I know, for a fact, with a few organizations, that is not the case, it is their number one priority. They you know, people don't often see the back end of all the people they're screening, you know, they're trying to find the right candidate, not just any candidate, but where the breakdown is, is in the communication. And it's, it's HR, being able to communicate or communicating the right message and giving oxygen to hope. And speaking to the fear of the clinic of the people in the clinic, and I know you're spread thin, and I know you're working hard, and it doesn't have to be HR is lucrative, I know you're working hard. And know that this is our first priority, and I am I'm screening 60 people this week, and I want to find you the right candidate. And those messages aren't always happening. And you know, when when people feel that, that their sense of urgency is your, your sense of urgency is their sense of urgency. It's amazing how much that could just kind of that how much better they can feel about, okay, I know, and give them confidence in the organization, they're working hard, because they know they're doing the best they can. And they know that it's a priority. They know that there's a sense of urgency there. So you know, speaking to the fear, giving oxygen to help, and communicating that this is absolutely there.

Griffin Jones  32:03

Let's use that as a segue into leadership then and talking about how to engage their hearts to lead them to instill that accountability, because that is partly also a retention tool. I gotta tell you this, I've probably you said, we've all worked for that type of people that really has engaged their their people like that. I've both been that person and both not been that person. And I've not been that person at times where you're crazy busy. And clients have a lot of needs, and your recruitment or retention pipeline is slow. And and then managers can end up taking on a lot of have that responsibility. And then they can become resentful at one time or another. And you know that that servant leadership can be difficult at a time, it is really difficult in a time where you're like, I am working my tail off, and I can't hardly sleep. I'm working from seven to 7am to 10pm at night. And I am totally focused on this. And I'm trying to keep my team from feeling that burnout. But yeah, eventually it's like, yeah, get the damn thing done like and and then you turn into a manager that you might not have been previously. And, and so I'm wondering if you can talk to that a little bit about from the leadership coaching of how you can be that leader at a time when everything is under water, where so many fertility clinics are right now?

Lisa Duran  33:41

Yes, yes. And I have to tell you, the organizations that I've been working with are amazing, and the hearts for their people are there. And you know, we can't always control our circumstances, we can't always control what happens in terms of people leaving, you know, or things that happen processes, protocols that need to be changed. But one thing I was put when I'm working with leaders who say my response is my responsibility. You know, I can't control what's coming at me all the time. My response is my responsibility. And I know for me, when you said you've been that lead, you've you've you've been that leader, and you haven't been that leader, I say very much the same. And I have an executive coach who has just been amazing and she talks me into the ledge all the time, and like help me get me out of my emotion, you know, help me to help me to formulate a response that's caring and and that validates the feelings of the teams as well as holding them accountable. And one of the things that I'm finding in clinics is that leaders are so afraid of losing someone that and I spoke to this on the last podcast, I believe, are so afraid of losing someone that they're not coaching for behavior change. They're not redirecting that, that toxic or that negative behavior, especially the leader, right and, and so equipping them for two things, equipping leaders to be intentional to celebrate those wins to be on the floor to, to put the task stay on, and it to be on the floor with their people and intentionally catching them doing something right. As well as addressing those, you know, those negative behaviors or those toxic behaviors, the gossiping, the negativity, the complaining, you know, it was complaining is like vomit, you feel better afterwards, but everyone else around you feel sick. And so. So as leaders really working with them, I'm getting very comfortable at that skill, and teaching people how to have a voice, but how to do it productively, and how to do it in a way that inspires change. Rather than just feed and plant seeds of negativity. You know, those are the things I think that that are bringing the most change in, in my experience, what I'm doing. And certainly just understanding my response is my responsibility. And as a leader, we have a responsibility that the words that come out of our mouth are optimistic, they don't have to be positive and lying, we can say, you know, we can say things are tough, you know, the definition of optimism is not the denial of the current state, the definition of optimism is saying, you know, this really sucks, or this is really hard right now, but it's gonna get better. And this is going to help, you know, streamline things for us so we can give better, you know, patient care. And so that that attitude of optimism and holding people accountable, catching them doing something great. And then realizing and teaching and just cultivating the call for the culture of my response is my responsibility. Those are the things that I that I'm seeing are really helping.

Lisa Duran  36:47

That axiom that you talk about of complaining, it's like vomiting, you feel better afterwards, but everyone around you feel sick, I really tried to take that into other areas of my life to lease and I think I hear your voice saying it to me, in my own head, like I want to, I want to complain to my wife, when she gets home about how the tech didn't show up, you know, to fix our Wi Fi or whatever, and try to like, who's that going to make feel better? Me for 10 seconds, and then you know, I'm just going to dump all over her day. So I try to I try to carry that into to other areas. You've mentioned, you've mentioned several times during this interview with this isn't about Yale, but let's take a similar situation where we have a clinic that is down at least a couple nurses, and and you've got managers running around probably doing a whole bunch of things out of the normal scope of their seat, how would you coach them from a leadership perspective to where they can still hold people accountable,

Lisa Duran  37:54

I'm not gonna claim that that's an easy thing to navigate, it is very challenging, especially because, you know, the rollout of new software, or the or the changes that doesn't stop regardless of how many openings you have. And so that could definitely present lots of challenges for a leader. But by showing them and coming alongside them, and really, really coming alongside them, arm in arm, and saying, you know, you can do this. And you can do this by identifying those that can do it with you, you know, who's going to come alongside you in the clinic and champion for that optimistic attitude. And, and prioritizing things in again, going back to caring for people. What happens so often in these situations is they're managing the tasks, and they're trying to fill their positions. And I was in a clinic once when the practice administrator had to be in an office screening, you know, resumes for, you know, six hours, and I thought that's, you know, and it was so hard for her because she wanted to be on the floor with her people. And so, you know, really just carving out time and putting those, you know, putting the tasks down where you can and investing in people and making sure that you're talking to people on the service recovery part. One of the things that hit in that episode for was that the patient is well as the teams were saying, we didn't get any genuinely caring communication. Nobody addressed our feelings about this. It was always the legality, the legal language, and anytime in service recovering I think that your question of how you know when there's a situation in clinic where you're short staffed and in and all those things, it's a little bit like surface recovery, where you have to speak to the fear. And you know, fear is a liar. Fear is a liar, but we listen to it. And so when patients are fearful because they're continuing their treatment in a situation like this, and they're walking into a clinic and they can't talk to their nurse about it because our nurse has been, you know, told you cannot say anything, you know, how can that nurse help alleviate those fears? You know, we need to equip people to speak to the fears. And equipping them means teaching them, you know, the verbiage. You know, what kind of verbiage you would say what would you say to a patient? And it's similar for a leader with a team? What do you say to your team? When you know they're working their tail off? Do you just tell them? Like do with it? I'm working on it? Or do you say, Look, I know this is hard, and I appreciate your hard work and just know that this is my number one priority. And I'm working hard to fill this and you know, is there something that we can do together? Yeah, what ideas do you have, you know, really partnering with your teams in the solution. And so often, leaders feel like they have to fix everything, when when you know, the teams sometimes have the best solutions. And so really partnering and not feeling like you have to fix everything. But caring for people is, would be my best advice.

Griffin Jones  40:59

I want to give something to the listeners that you made me think of when you talked about that practice admin that was going through 60 resumes, or however many you said, two hundred resumes, or whatever you said it was. And there's plenty of people listening that have to do that. And it's dozens or hundreds of resumes. And one thing that leaders can do that I did that completely changed my business was hire someone else to do that to go through the resume. So by the time my hiring manager gets a resume, it's a short stack. And the recruiting specialist, the HR person is going through those interviews, before going through those resumes, doing the screening interviews, like the 20 minute screening interviews, that are only a few questions, and then bring those to the hiring manager so that you are going through this process faster one, and two, you're not asking the hiring manager to do all of that. That was a life changer for me. And a lot of people are listening and think, well, I can't hire that person, because they were a small practice, you can hire that person as an independent contractor, you can hire that person part time. And for all the economic reasons that Lisa talked about, as well as the risk mitigation liability that she's talking about, it is a much cheaper solution. And I strongly recommend people do that I get more into that topic with Dr. Eric Widra, that episode will come out after this one does, but I am telling everybody listening, it totally changed my business. I was in a position where you when you're trying to do all the things that Lisa is talking about and and you do that for a while, and then you do it for a little while longer. And you're and you're still at this problem where, you know, maybe when you are trying to involve your team for solutions, you're involving them in areas where they shouldn't be involved, because they're supposed to be accountable for other things, I was doing all of that. And, and now having the system has made things better, I was key, I was not rewarding people quickly enough, I was not dancing, growing some people. And then because of that, I was also letting other people that should have been fired in two seconds, stay on and, and and, and not contribute to the solution. So that's a huge, huge thing that I think leaders can do. Get a couple of recruiters have some redundancy in HR, it's okay to have some redundancy in HR, you can do it at a part time, hourly independent contractor level, if you have to as long as it's scoped properly. And that can can really to help with some of those odd things. So you've talked about some that leadership coaching of how they can approach their teams about being prepared for the responses being prepared for the conversations, then how does that lead into service recovery? In, in your view? What what happened in this situation? And what should it look like?

Lisa Duran  43:58

Yes, service recovery is more than just when a patient is upset. I mean, that is that is worse teaching me how we talk about service recovery. Very, very important. But the concept, I've got three steps that I teach. And the concept is very relevant internally for leaders with their teams, as well as externally, with teams with our patients. And the step that we always forget to do is validate the feelings. And when I talk about, you know, speaking to the fear, when you're talking to a patient who was fearful that you know, what if this doesn't work, or what if i What if, what if I didn't pick the right doctor, or what if my body's just not going to respond? You know, when you can speak to that fear. When you can say, gosh, I could understand why you're feeling anxious. Even, there were so many emotions to this. Like, you know, I would feel that way too. And just now we're here for you. Right that venue foof then you kind of did, I wouldn't say diffuse But you communicate to the patient, or the person that I'm on your side, I'm on your team. It is not, I'm just trying to fix something for you. It's, I'm on your team, and I get it. And it's very normal for you to feel the way you're feeling. And it's the same. So in this situation, patients didn't get that. Right. So they relied on each other. And, you know, so there they were all in one camp. And then same with the organization that the teams did not. I'm not claiming that they didn't, it didn't sound like they did. Because they were told don't talk about it amongst yourselves, don't you know, share. And and firstly, they said, How can we not? You know, right, we're very affected by this too. We were very, we were betrayed by Donna as well. And so how can we not talk about this. And so speaking to their fear, and just saying, just, you know, if the organization were to fear, the leader, were to say, Listen, I know that you're fearful of the press of what's going to come out, and that people are going to think that you're working for an organization that's not desperate, that doesn't have their act together, or doesn't care about patients. Let me tell you, that is so far from the truth. And this is what we're doing to prevent that from going moving forward or from ever happening again, right, you're speaking to that fear, that's really important. You're validating those feelings, so that when you go to the fix that place, they're ready to receive that, fix it. And so and so the first step is validating those feelings. The second step is getting more information, tell me more about that. Invite the patient, invite the team member to talk to you about how they're feeling or about the situation or giving you facts, so that you can, you know, fix it in the proper way. And then the last one is to take ownership, right, and it may not be my fault, but it's my problem. And, and taking ownership of the follow through and not just, you know, sending it off to another department that you cross your fingers that someone's going to call you. So you personally following through. So it's a very simple three step recovery process. That really, and I think I realized that during this podcast, in that episode number four, that the service recovery that I've been teaching all these years for patient experience is very relevant here and the team member experiences as well.

Griffin Jones  47:17

so you validate the feelings, you get more information, and then you take ownership of that follow through, is this something that people can do even if there's a legal liability, because if I've done something wrong, I want to admit it, I want to share what I've, what we what we're doing to change it. I've also never been in a situation, this public profile, this high level of stakes, and it's all the lawyers that are involved. And I could only if my lawyers are telling me shut up and just keep your mouth shut, then I would feel it that would be really conflicting for me because it's like we did something wrong, I want to take ownership of it. But I also don't want to maybe accidentally take ownership of some legal liability that we really aren't responsible for. How it can they use this in this? Like, maybe that's what you were saying about not? It's not my fault, but it's my responsibility. They still, here's what we're doing to change it. Do you have any thoughts on what that would look like in a really litigious environment like this?

Lisa Duran  48:22

You know, Griffin, I will tell you, I feel very equipped, ill equipped to answer that question because I don't have any legal background. And I understand the risk of somebody saying the wrong thing. And I appreciate them trying to control that I really do. And so, so I think my service recovery in this situation was really more about leadership. And, you know, following the guidance from their legal counsel, absolutely. Follow that. And you know, that, does that mean that you also can't, you know, get your team together and have a very honest conversation about, you know, I understand how you're or tell me how you're feeling, you know, you just just tell us how you're feeling. Tell me how you're feeling, right? And, and to have some of those conversations, of course, within the boundaries I mean, you know, managing the risk there. And so, you know, that would be something that I would hope, though, that a leader of an organization, or a high level leader, would have that conversation with our legal counsel, and how do we take care of our people? What can we say, what can we do? What can we do with patients? Or can we say to patients, and it felt like and I'm just gonna say it felt like because I don't have any proof on this patient is perceived that that the organization was just trying to to care about the organization. And so I think that the question to your legal counsel, is, how can we maintain the boundaries and what we need to be doing legally as well as take care as well as care for our patients and our teams during this time

Griffin Jones  50:01

People can check out this mini series. It's called The Retrievals, The New York Times Serial podcast, by the time this episode comes out, all five of the episodes of that mini series will come out, it's called The Retrievals. First episode about the patient, second about the nurse, third about the court case, fourth about the clinic. Fifth, to be determined, but you've walked us through how we can prevent these incidents in the future by first having a closed loop feedback system. Second, by having by equipping the team to for retention and recruitment of personnel and viewing, recruitment, retention and recruitment as not just economic nice to have, but it truly is a risk mitigation factor. I talked about enabling leadership to engage the hearts of their team and to employ accountability. And then you also talked about three points for service recovery when something like this happens, and you need to make it right. What did I ask you? And, and or how would you, how do you think we should conclude this topic?

Lisa Duran  51:16

Thank you for asking that. Actually, you asked everything. And so thank you very much for that very engaging conversation. And thank you for putting in your your experience with HR and what you did. I think that's really helpful. I think that I, you know, when I first listened to this podcast, I wanted to hide it from everyone, because I thought, I didn't want any future patients hearing this, because they're going to be so afraid of fertility treatment. And so, so I strongly recommend everybody listen to this podcast, and I recommend that you listen to it with a heart of not looking at how the system failed, necessarily, but looking at what we can learn from this. And I'm realizing that although one person made a really bad decision, there are hundreds of thousands of people, there are hundreds and thousands of amazing nurses, amazing doctors, amazing leaders, amazing patient care specialists out there that are taking great care of patients every single day, and helping them achieve their dream of a baby or family. And so, so you just to go into it with that thought and that idea and putting things into perspective. And that, you know, this was one person's decision out of so many people that make great decisions every day, to really care for people, and just really going into it and what you can personally and learn from it. I highly recommend this podcast.

Griffin Jones  52:44

We'll include your contact info in the show notes and pages, but for those clinics that could use some leadership help they could use some team help with with some of the things that you've talked about today. How can they get a hold of you? 

Lisa Duran  52:58

Yeah, they can call or email me, they can go onto my website, which is lisaduranconsulting.com. I have all my contact information there. But yeah, I would love to come alongside you. And it's that integrated experience. It's not just one. It's all of it. It's leadership, development and patient experience and internal culture. That's the secret sauce. Thank you, Griffin. Thanks for having me.

Griffin Jones  53:20

Lisa the pleasure's always mine. Thank you very much for coming back on the inside reproductive health podcast. Thank you.

Sponsor  53:27

You've been listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertilitybridge.com to begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

188 Comparing Compensation Models for Fertility Doctors with TJ Farnsworth


On this episode of Inside Reproductive Health, Griffin delves into the pros and cons of compensation models for fertility physicians in conversation with the CEO of Inception Fertility, TJ Farnsworth. 

Here are just a few key points to pique your interest:

  1. Different performance camps and metrics: In the realm of variable compensation, TJ highlights the various performance camps and metrics that can be used. 

  2. Two main compensation sides: TJ explores the two primary sides of compensation for fertility physicians, namely guaranteed income and variable compensation.

  3. Challenges with KPI-based compensation: TJ shares the drawbacks and pitfalls of tying compensation to KPIs.

  4. Simplicity and variable comp: TJ emphasizes the benefits of keeping compensation simple and honestly shares the mistakes made by Inception Fertility with KPI-based compensation. 

  5. Importance of physician ownership and other roles: TJ sheds light on the significance of physician ownership in calibrating incentives within the practice.


TJ Farnsworth’s LinkedIn
Inception Fertility

Transcript

TJ Farnsworth  00:00

So when we step in, we're, you know, becoming a partner with these doctors and I'm a big believer in the concept if it's not broken, don't go fix it just for the sake of changing and and so if it's working for them, then great and a lot of practices, you know, there's like there's different providers who did that are in different phases of life and have different different goals.


Griffin Jones  00:24

Let's get you paid a senior REI wrote in with this question, one of your peers wrote in with this question asking me to interview a CEO on this topic, and I do what you say so you the listening audience, when you want to know something deeper about a particular subject matter, let me know i'll try to find someone who will speak on it. And I'll grow them with a bunch of questions. This topic had to do with the pros and cons of different compensation models for fertility physicians. So I brought on a CEO I brought back TJ Farnsworth, you know him as the CEO of Inception Fertility. And because he's been on Inside Reproductive Health, many times TJ talks about the two main sides of compensation, guaranteed income and variable compensation within variable compensation, you have it tied to individual performance tied to practice performance within those different performance cam. So you have different figures to which you can tie those performance metrics. So which I mean to say you can tie them to KPIs like retrievals transfers, or you can tie them to a percentage of collections. TJ talks about the problems with tying them to KPIs such as who actually performed the surgery was the doctor of record is the EMR reliable, did the person checking in the person check them in with one doctor but was actually a different doctor of record is the accounting system getting the right information, TJ prefers to keep it simple. He talks about some of the mistakes that Inception fertility made in doing KPI based compensation, and why he likes variable comp as a percentage of collections. He also talks about what that variable comp doesn't sell for and why physician ownership is so important in calibrating the incentives. That's physician ownership in the practice. We talked about profit sharing, we talked about when it does make sense to have guaranteed income only and we talk about the division of labor outside of productivity roles. When you have an administrative role a medical director role I pressed TJ a little bit when we were talking about the incentives of five to seven Doctor practices, I seem to think they're harder to align than he does not totally sure I got on his page about that question, but TJ really did thoroughly answered that senior Doc's question. And that was the whole origin of this topic. You might have other thoughts on compensation, you might point out questions I didn't ask. So email me them. Tell me what they are. Give me more topics and questions so we can continue to build valuable content, Mr. Farnsworth, welcome back yet again, to Inside Reproductive Health, TJ. 


TJ Farnsworth  02:47

thanks for having me. It's always fun to be on here with you. You seem like this guy. And you're the only guy in the fertility industry whose hair I'm jealous of. 


Griffin Jones  02:53

Oh, well, right now is looking pretty similar. You know, the vast majority of people listen to the audio, they don't watch it on YouTube. But right now, but both TJ and my hair doing what it wants. But I think this is probably the fourth or fifth time that you've been on the show I always enjoy having you on. And I like the fact that you came on to talk about a topic that an audience member asked for. So to give the audience context, this was a senior Rei who wanted to know about compensation models. Now this person has exited their practice, I think, is practicing again, as an employee somewhere. So perhaps this is why this person asked, but they asked would you bring a CEO on to talk about the pros and cons of different compensation models? And and I said, I know a guy. And so I think the people like you TJ deserve credit. Because some people would say, Oh, I don't I don't know I don't want to say the wrong thing. It's like the people are asking for this. Come on, try to be generous with some darn information. 


TJ Farnsworth  03:10

And so there's not a right or wrong thing, right so it's it's there's there's there's 100 different ways to skin this and I feel certain that there's a there's there's only one truth to this. There's there's not really there's no right or wrong answer to this question. There's just different ones. 


Griffin Jones  04:16

So let's try to lay out all of the ways that one can skin this cat, like give us just an intro to the different compensation models that exist and then we'll start to explore them. 


TJ Farnsworth  04:28

Yeah, so I think I think all compensation models have one of one or more of a few components. One of which is potentially some type of a guaranteed income, whether it be in the form of base salary, or guarantee on on variable comp, some type of a variable comp program tied to a provider's individual personal performance, then potentially some type of variable comp program that's tied to a practice performance, which could include or be an addition to an ownership model that includes profit distributions. And so I think those are the there are various different ways to do multiple do each one of those components. And some, some called models will include all of them. And some will, would will include, you know, just just certain specific components of it. 


Griffin Jones  05:25

Is it rare nowadays to see any model that doesn't have any variable comp, or is there still, some of that may be in the academic sphere? 


TJ Farnsworth  05:33

Probably in the academic sphere, you know, we have, we're a little bit unique in that we do operate an academic fertility clinic, and in those in those in those we do have variable contractors in place. But so we think the majority of them are going to have some type of variable cost, because even in major hospital systems, and academic centers outside of fertility, you know, that they're, they're measuring productivity of physicians, whether it be on an RVU basis, or collections basis, or some other way. So I would be willing to bet that, that almost everyone has some type of a variable compensation flavor to it in some way. And, and you know, but there are some models like that, in our operation, I'd be happy to talk about, you know, even specifics around how we do it, Inception, there's no, there's truly nothing that's secret here. And there, we have some we have some practices that may not have an individual productivity component to it. But they have a ownership structure that allows for profit sharing. So obviously, as the practice grows, that they allow for that, I think it's important that we also consider not only the quantitative aspects of things, but also the qualitative because what, what is quoted the right or wrong answer, as we were saying earlier, might be right for one practice, but the culture of another practice, a different model might work better. Usually, even within an exception, for example, we don't have one compensation model we use across the US and Canada, or we have, you know, what works in one market, but each individual practice has some of their own personality to it. And so it works for that practice, from that personality. And some of them have their some of their own, like, just practical differences in terms of the size and scale and, and you've got some of the larger practices where physicians are specializing. And, and, and so it just indicates a need for flexibility. But I think ultimately, those foundational variables in terms of how you're getting compensated are always part of the equation in America, no matter what, no matter which, which worked recipe, you're going to combine those with. 


Griffin Jones  07:37

Walk us through two different scenarios. And then because then I want to explain, and then I want to explore that qualitative difference between those, but walk us through two different scenarios of two different practices that have different compensation models. 


TJ Farnsworth  07:49

Two wide examples. So in certain scenarios, you have more what I'll refer to as eat what you treat models, where there is no fixed base compensation, it's all variable. So, you know, unlimited upside, unlimited downside kind of a structures to them. And, and those work in certain communities in certain environments, and in all cases, at least with us, 100% of cases with us, all of our physicians are either partners with us in the practices or on a pathway to partnership. So even if they're already partner, or they're, we're on our way to partnership, and so on and 100% of cases, at least for us, the everybody either does or will have some level of stake in the overall profitability of the business. So in that scenario, where it's an eat what you treat model, that eat what you treat concept would be tied to their own individual personal comp, productivity, and then the, obviously the ownership share, which would take into account the overall profitability of the whole enterprise. And then you we have models where, where there is some level of base compensation, I think this is a more common model, where you've got a more some level of base compensation either in the form of a, of a guaranteed minimum bonus, or in the form of a salary, and you got a individual personal productivity component on top of that. And then in addition to that, you know, either their, you know, the more you having or being or on their way to having a share in the overall ownership with the practice. So it gives them the base salary, which I think most most physicians, you know, at least starting out want, so they have some level of predictability around their income. And then you've got the variable compensation that ties to their own personal productivity. And then you have the ownership component that would tie to the overall profitability of the of the, of their practice. 


Griffin Jones  09:30

So let's talk a little bit about the qualitative that makes one model fit for one group and not another. What is it about practice that has that it's all eat what you treat, it's all variable with the unlimited upside and the unlimited downside, what makes it a good fit for them that wouldn't necessarily be a good fit for someone else? 


TJ Farnsworth  09:55

Yeah, so a lot of it is history. So a lot of it is just the sort of a culture that's built there. So when we step in, we're, you know, becoming a partner with these doctors, and I'm a big believer in the concept, if it's not broken, don't go fix it just mistake of changing. And so if it's working for them, then great and a lot of practices, you know, there's, there's different providers who did that are in different phases of life and have different goals, right. So any what you treat model allows that physician who's who's more interested in a certain lifestyle, to make less, but balance that with with more time for themselves and for family and time outside of the outside of work, while at the same time you generate EMR. So you with the physician who is in the phase of their life, where they want to, you know, you know, maximize their productivity and thereby maximize their income. And so I so allows for that diversity of things. I think, though, that is, we see that model less and less often. But certainly, it's a model, we use us in several different practices. And then, you know, the other side of things is you've got practices where I bet you think some more common model where you have, you know, 5, 6, 7, physicians, that that that you're all aligned, all sort of were recruited, and, and built a culture around sort of a similar level of productivity. And as similar lifestyle goals, you have there on that for a base with some type of an individual personal productivity, and then obviously, a substantial component tied to the overall profitability of the practice. And then I'll introduce a third one for you, we have a scenario where we have a very large practice with 20 Plus RBIs, that has no variable compensation tied to the individual doctors productivity. And so everyone makes the same terms of base, and then they have their ownership of the practice. And the reason that practice does that is that they've gotten so large, that there's that they're their is specializing happening, and so whether that's specializing in certain regions of a market, or specializing in certain aspects of clinical care, where, you know, there may be somebody who is, is clinically passionate about certain things, but that's higher than that, that doesn't, you know, doesn't generate as much from a revenue perspective, but it's really important to the practice to have that component. And it's really important as the group to maybe be in a certain region or geography. And they don't want to penalize somebody for pursuing that that goal. And so the idea being that everyone is contributing to the overall benefit, and, and so they, their variable costs, so to speak, comes from the overall profitability of the business. So rather than everyone rowing the boat in the direction of their own personal productivity, they're all rowing the boat in the direction of the overall profitability of the enterprise. 


Griffin Jones  12:44

So in that case, so the third example you use with no variable comp outside of the profit sharing, and that was a 20 plus doc group, does that model only work in a group that size or larger in your view? 


TJ Farnsworth  12:58

I think the the the, certainly it's got to be a big group in order for it to make sense. And part of the reason why that group does that is that as they expand into new markets, as they expand into new regions, there's not, if they had a scenario where where where a physician was, you know, half their compensation was based upon their personal productivity that none of the doctors would ever agree to go out there, if so at that new office, and start sort of new and so they developed this culture, where where, you know, whether it was expanding to new geography or somebody who is going to, you know, focus on fertility preservation, and it's early days, where there might not be as much business for that yet until that practice is built, it was overall important for them to be building those aspects of the business, whether it be geography or that aspect of clinical care. And knowing that they want they didn't want to penalize somebody for going in pioneering that new business line or that new office. And this they developed this model do that with. And so I do think that it's unique that you have, you have, that you need a practice that's got a certain level of scale, to get to a place where in the world that's that that's necessary, but they started with a variable compensation structure, they just they migrate that over time. 


Griffin Jones  12:58

Are all the salaries the same? Or does that vary depending on seniority? 


TJ Farnsworth  13:49

Nope, salaries are all the same. 


Griffin Jones  14:20

So then how does profit sharing work in a model like that? If so, I would direct listeners to a book called Great Game of Business, which started off in the manufacturing sphere, but lays out an interesting model for profit sharing and the way profit sharing works in the great game of business model is that people get bonused a percentage of their salary, so it's not, so profit sharing is different from the person that might be make everyone in a company shares in the profit, but it's the person that's agreed or making minimum wage gets a percentage of what they make and then the senior executives that are leading their divisions get a higher percentage because it's a percentage of their salary. And so what how does profit sharing work in a model where everybody has the same salary? 


TJ Farnsworth  15:10

Yeah, so I think we're, I'm using the term profit sharing really as a placeholder, because in different markets, there's different in different states, there's different rules, different laws around how you can how physicians can be owners at a practice. And so in most cases, our physicians are just owners. And so they are taking profit share by virtue of the fact that they own a percentage of the practice, if they own whatever that percentage might be, they own 10% of the practice and the practice, you know, generated $100 profit, they're getting $10. And so in certain, in certain areas, we are able to do that because of the regulatory structure in that market. So you just use contractual park profit shares, you can give voting rights and all those types of things that come with with traditional art. 


Griffin Jones  15:56

And so in that example, of 20 plus docs, not every doc has the same owns the same percentage of the companies that correct some own more?


TJ Farnsworth  16:04

 Some of the more senior doctors own a little bit more. But it's not that it's not as big of a disparity as you might think. And over time, their model is that generally speaking, as us as a rule is, in the event that we do have, what I would refer to as more senior partners with more ownership that you want to migrate them to an equal ownership model, creating multiple classes of ownership is really not good for the culture. From our perspective. 


Griffin Jones  16:29

Really, we're talking about owners distribution, in this case, I should clarify that the profit sharing outline and great game of business is for the entire company. So even if you have 1000 people, and it kicks in after a certain net profit, threshold, yeah. So you know, if it's under X percent net profit then nobody shares in that bonus, and it's phased so that people can make it up in different parts of the quarter. But the whole idea is that everybody in the company knows what the target is, and they're all going for that. Do, is there, are you familiar with that model? Do you use that model anywhere where everyone in the company or everyone in the practice can share in the profit after a certain amount? 


TJ Farnsworth  17:12

We have the practice wide bonus structures in place in various different markets. But we don't we don't have, you know, company wide profit sharing plans in the way in which you're referring to it that is common in some industries? 


Griffin Jones  17:25

Perhaps it's because of the regulation that you were hinting at. But I wonder sometimes why don't some practices just do profit sharing with their partner docs as opposed to actually making them part owners of the business? What would be the con to doing that? 


TJ Farnsworth  17:40

There really isn't any pro or con, there's some some scenarios and some of the areas where there's tax advantages. So I think that the probably the biggest driver is tax advantages to it. But But I think generally speaking, physicians from emotional reasons want actual ownership rather than profit share, even though we can design structured profit shares to look and behave exactly the same way as traditional equity does. And our preference usually is just to do traditional equity. It's simpler. It's usually more tax efficient. But but it's oftentimes dictated by the regulatory rules around, you know, the corporate practice of medicine or statewide referral laws that might exist in any given market. 


Griffin Jones  18:26

Have you come across any funky state laws off the top of your head that you can remember that, oh, it's harder in this state, or people have to look watch out for this in this state? 


TJ Farnsworth  18:36

No, I mean, there's certainly there's their states that are more complicated. But the reality is, is that the, you know, the joint venturing, 


Griffin Jones  18:45

Did those complicated states rhyme with Alafornia and Zoo York? Or, or is it not always the usual suspects? 


TJ Farnsworth  18:52

It's not always the usual suspects, you might be surprised. Those certainly are complicated states. But even the state of Texas, which you think of, as you know, your way into the free market is one of the more complicated states. So it's not not quite that quite as straightforward. But I will say that any and all of those markets and all those states there I mean that there have been structures in place and have been in place for a long time to accommodate for physician ownership. And just like any, any regulatory environment, there's there's some group of attorneys that have that have constructed a very aboveboard and transparent clean way of doing it, that generates them some fees. 


Griffin Jones  19:31

Tell us more about the difference between variable variable comp tied to individual performance versus when it's tied to practice performance. 


TJ Farnsworth  19:40

Yeah, so we don't see the what I'll call just sort of traditional comp that's tied to practice wide performance very often. We do have it in a couple cases in our clinics only because they existed before we were there. And we prefer that the we as a company, I think most of the are this way as well. I would prefer that the way in which you participate in, in practice wide performance and improvement is is through profitability, because that I'm a huge believer in aligned incentives. And so if, if my incentives are the exact same as yours, it helps build trust, it helps build confidence in the decisions that we're all making, we all sort of we all win and lose together, that's, that's really, it's got a lot of value. So that's the way we lean on the practice wide accom structure, a variable comp structure. On the personal comp structure, there really are, I think, you know, two main models, one of which is tying productivity bonus to certain KPIs, whether it be retrievals, or adding retrieval being the most common, the other model, which I think is what we prefer, and which is some something tied to a percentage of overall collections of a productivity from that individual physician, that way, you're not tying it to some sort of clinical activity, I think, certainly, the intent of the bonus per VOR concept was likely never to try and drive some type of, of a clinical behavior, because obviously, we trust all of our physicians to make the right clinical decisions, you know, that's, that's, that's their specialty. But, you know, obviously, to do certain number of VORs, you got to usually you have to get through so much diagnostics, and so many IUIs and there's sort of some some mix of all that in there. But I do think that as you're moving more and more towards more managed care coverage for services, whether it be progeny are kind body or traditional Aetna, United, otherwise, you as well, as you see it, generally speaking, a an environment where you've got some physicians that like doing more surgical cases, you've got some physicians who like doing more for Brentford or fertility preservation in their practice, whatever it is, you know, a variable comp is tied to just collections, you know, allows for, you know, there not to be any, any environment where you're, you know, you're encouraging one behavior or another. And that's where we are moving to as a company, I think a lot of people in the industry are. Doesn't mean is that that's not to say, we don't have several practices that still operate off of, you know, what I call a KPI based model where they're using, you know, VR is or IUIs, or transfers or some other metric or combination thereof. But it's, it gets complicated. And I, I'm, I'm a sales guy at heart, and I'm a big believer in people's compensation program program should follow the kiss strategy, you know, just keep it simple, and make it easy for everybody so that there's no unusual complicated math to be done at the end of the month or quarter. 


Griffin Jones  20:11

So I started my career in radio ad sales, it was my first job out of college, which for anybody that's not familiar with that, it's here's the phone book kid. It's 100% commission, there's no training, it's a, you're a 21 year old kid, great, go figure out a way to have this 57 year old business owner who's been doing great in business for 30 years, give our company money, surely also had someone at our company who had burned that person in the past and it was 100% commission, I learned a lot from that. But the Keep It Simple was, that's what worked from It's Okay, if you want to sell more of this, tell me what the commission on it is. And but it sounds like, you know, just percentage of collections is a little bit different for so in my case, it was if you got this much new direct business, it was this percentage, if you could sell this much of our new online revenue stream, this much of our event revenue stream different commissions, is there that within that the percentage of collections or just percentage of collections just tend to be flat, because otherwise you'd be back in that KPI model? 


TJ Farnsworth  23:43

It is the flat otherwise, you're really back to a KPI model. That's just not fixed dollars. Yeah, percentage of collections tend to be, you know, maybe there's a sliding scale involved. But you know, in terms of thresholds of dollars collections, but but it's still just all dollars, not, you know, I just think it's from our my perspective, it's, it's adding a level of complexity to the to the model that, you know, again, I'm all about aligned incentives and trust. And if you don't ask, if I have to get on a spreadsheet to show you, how a calculation is done and take you take 45 minutes an hour of your time every month or every quarter to make sure the numbers tie out like you think they should. Yeah, it's just it's it's more administrative headache, and the fastest way we can burn out and frustrate our clinicians, which obviously include our physicians and providers. of all kinds then is its administrative BS. And so we prefer not to add another piece of that to the table. 


Griffin Jones  24:41

Aligning incentives makes sense but what's complicated about what's that where does the administrative headache come from? It seems straightforward number of retrievals or number of transfers or whatever, what complicates it? 


TJ Farnsworth  24:41

Yeah. So you know, it's, you know, I, you know, who performed the retrieval versus who was the doctor of record, making sure you can pull that out of the EMR consistently and reliably you know, and accounting is doing that from from Nashville, and does that actually align with what happened in the practice? Because just because somebody, you know, just because somebody at the front desk, check them in for retrieval, under Dr. Smith, when Dr. Jones was the doctor of record, and has a economic impact to that physician, it's just it from a, it seems simpler than it is from an from a from a, from a practical application perspective. And it's not overly complicated, look we do it, but it's just simpler to go, you know, you had $100 and collections, you get this percentage of it. And it's it's black and white. 


Griffin Jones  25:35

So it doesn't that that makes sense why you'd be moving toward that as a company. But doesn't some of that appear in the in the collections, you know, that if it was the doctor of record versus the visiting doc, how, how was it more clearly attributed with collection?


TJ Farnsworth  25:50

Because on the claims data, when we know when you submit a claims information, it's it's much cleaner that way, versus pulling out the EMR has a lot of impact on who's just charting it and otherwise. And look, ultimately you're solving for the same thing, you know, a certain number of these KPIs all add up to a certain, you know, on a blended basis, all at a certain dollar amount, you're, you're solving for the same thing, it's just how you get to that solution.


Griffin Jones  26:16

You said something earlier, in the when we were talking where we were talking about the different models, the blend of guaranteed income and variable comp, and you've got some that are almost all guaranteed income, and then you got some there, all variable comp, and then you've got the blend. And you mentioned, you know, sometimes you'll have a 5, 6, 7 physician practice where they've got similar productivity, they've got similar lifestyle goals. And I was thinking TJ, I've been under the hood of a lot of five to seven Doctor practices, and they never are aligned on on productivity and lifestyle goals. There's always one or two workhorses, that are a little bit grumpy, that they're doing a lot more volume, or, or they just, you know, they'd like their partners to pick up the pace or, and that's where a lot of the things that you come into, like was it actually my patient was? Were they using my nurse, etc? Come into to play? And so how do you align a group like that?


TJ Farnsworth  27:20

Yeah, I think that goes to not having the base comp be, you know, all that substantial from a from a I mean, it's obviously an important component, certainly, as a physician starting out, you know, they're fresh out of fellowship, that that's a more important component, the long term, you know, the variable and ownership components, I think are, you know, are always going to better align everyone's incentives. And not just, you know, I, you know, when I say better aligned incentives, I'm not just talking about Inception and the physician, I'm talking about physician and physician, a lot of times physicians are concerned about how does, how does this affect my relationship with inception, and who's got what incentive, and a lot of times, to your point, it's not us, they have to worry about, it's amongst the doctors, and I think that's mostly, it's mostly acute when you've got some generational differences, where you have some physicians that maybe are in the middle of their career that that, that kids are gone. And then they got some younger physicians that maybe have young children, and that want to be there for certain things. And I've got a seven year old and a nine year old, and certainly, it pains me sometimes when I'm on the road traveling, and there's a school play, and I understand the desire to be there for those things. And, and so it's always a balance, and, and it's never a perfect world, but I think you're trying to get to a place where you've got as much aligned incentives as possible. So that, so that, you know, the physician who is, you know, interested in a different lifestyle than another, you know, but they're both equally interested in overall profitability, the practice, you know, maybe one person is able to do one component of the business, maybe somebody is able to do cover the lab more often and do more retrievals earlier in the morning, so they could be done later in the day to look and be a little bit more of a division of labor that that occurs, so that I, you know, I could take some workload off you, or you can accommodate some component of my career, that alignment to the incentive allows for that. And then for the guy who wants to or gal who wants to just, you know, I mean, work seven days a week, you know, 12 hour days, you know, that, you know, having a component that allows for you're rewarded for that make sense. And, and so, we try and have a combination structure that allows for there to be as little animosity as possible, developed from those varying different places. And but I will also say that, you know, aside from those generational differences, most of our practices tend to recruit like minded physicians, so yeah, whether you know, whether it'd be somebody who's whose kids are now gone. They're, they're empathetic to the physician who's got up third grader, that hey, I was that place I was that place one time in my career. And, and people were empathetic with me. And and I'm going to I'm going to help them at this stage in their career. And so those are those are qual, those qualitative differences that exist from, you know, I call practice personality perspective that I think are important when you're evaluating whatever, comp structures,


Griffin Jones  30:22

I see the generational side go both ways, sometimes. On one side, you might have someone whose kids are out of the house, and they they're ready to work because it's that,  golf or their spouse, and they, they just, they'll go to work and, and sometimes you'll have physicians with younger kids that need more time with the family. But I also I see a lot of young ducks who, they they go home, they kiss their kids Good night, and then they go right back to work, you know that? 


TJ Farnsworth  30:49

That's absolutely right. That was just meant as one example. 


Griffin Jones  30:52

And then there's a lot of Doc's closer, who are a little bit older than say, Man, you are, you're traveling the whole globe, you're going everywhere. 


TJ Farnsworth  30:59

Yeah, and I want to I wanna play more golf or whatever. Yeah, totally. There's no question that goes both ways. And I don't mean to say that the one is, whose kids are gone, or is always more productive. That's not the case at all, we absolutely have lots of young physicians who are just absolutely be focused on the greater degree of productivity. It's really just, there's not one or one right or wrong answer, right? Like, I completely understand why I mean, I'm a workaholic with a seven and a nine year old. So I totally understand that that person is sacrificing something and, and there should be reward at the end of that for that. And I totally also understand, my wife just retired earlier this year, after 20 years. And because she wanted, both was want her to have more time with the kids. So yeah, neither one of those is right or wrong. So


Griffin Jones  31:44

You brought up something else that begged another question about the division of labor of things that are outside of productivity, different administrative roles, if someone is part of you know, they they are part of a committee that makes marketing decisions?


TJ Farnsworth  32:01

If someone could take more call. I mean, there's all kinds of things, 


Griffin Jones  32:05

But what about those types of things that the practice needs to run? But maybe they have an administrative role? Maybe they're the medical director, maybe they're running a fellowship program, if you've if you've added that on, but they're not aligned with productivity? How do you align incentives? Or how do you account for that? Because they're, they're still contributing to the overall group, but they're not as their collections aren't as high.


TJ Farnsworth  32:29

And that's why the ownership vote component is so important, right? That that aligns everyone perfectly, because, you know, and then all of those other things that you're doing that healthy overall practice on a more global basis, you see that benefit yourself and the rest of the group see that sees that benefit of that work you're doing and is appreciative of that?


Griffin Jones  32:49

Does it still tie it because if we're all sharing at the at the the overall level, but you're able to see more, folks, because you're getting a higher and you're getting a higher percentage of collections, but I have to do this? It still seems like Person A is winning out?


TJ Farnsworth  33:05

Yeah, I mean, look, there's not I mean, you know, perfect scenario, right? There's no one perfect answer. And so you have to look at individual situation and say, Okay, maybe there's something you need to change here. You know, there's, there's all these sort of guidelines and rules, and they're all made to be broken, so that so that you can make the right structure for that one group. But some groups might say to themselves, hey, this doctor is going to do make it, I mean, going back to that practice, I mentioned that it has no individual variable costs, because at this individual doctor is going to do more of this one thing, that you may generate less individual collections, but it helps the overall practice. And that's why there's certainly a more common structure in our in our world where, where a small component of things or smaller component of things is tied to very their individual variable, personal productivity. But still, a lot of their comp is tied to the overall profitability of the enterprise, because obviously, their individual personal productivity, and everyone's individual personal productivity impacts the overall productivity of the practice, too. So all this is tied together. It's, it's as you pull one lever up and down, it impacts the other levers.


Griffin Jones  34:07

How does overhead play into all of this? 


TJ Farnsworth  34:11

Well, I think that's what that's why the ownership component is so important, because when when physicians have ownership there, all of a sudden, as just as interested in all we are, and being efficient with our use of overhead costs, and why I say efficient, I don't mean, you know, as low cost as possible. That's, I know, there certainly are operators in the market, that sort of focus on low cost. And there's certainly a market segment for that, and a component for that, and that's fantastic. They're meeting the needs of patients in that segment. That's not our model. So, you know, we are, you know, but but at the same time, you're always trying to be cognizant of not spending more than you need to because all of that ultimately has to be passed on to the patient in terms of higher cost of services. And so, you know, or lower product or lower profitability for the for the owners and so, so I think It's it's in, it's important that it helps to align the incentives. Okay, we're gonna go expand and build a new satellite office and invest in that. And that's going to reduce our profitability for a little while, but at the same time, it's going to long term grow our profitability, and it starts to get everyone thinking, longer term time horizon versus just what are my collections next quarter. And, and it really gets us more aligned in terms of what the strategic goals are, for that practice.


Griffin Jones  35:30

So it the two balance each other out their collections gets them thinking about what they're doing in the present, but the ownership accounts for all of the things that that collections might not account for, or you simply sometimes need to counterbalance both things like if I have, like, if I had an employee satisfaction score only is it well, that could come at the cost of just letting my employees do whatever the heck they want, and not having any accountability to the business or not having any accountability to the customers. So you might want two or three and this sounds like two you have ownership and you have individual bonuses on or individual comps somewhat tied to collections. So how do these so So then how do you make some of these decisions involving partners is that some decisions are going to be made at the executive level? Some you involve them more? How does that work? If someone says, Well, I think this is wasteful, I think we're wasting money on this supply that we could get from a cheaper place. How do you make those kinds of decisions?


TJ Farnsworth  36:38

Yeah, I think it depends on the individual decision. I mean, clinical decisions, we obviously rely entirely on the physicians, when it comes to business things, some of which we make on individual practice basis, we discuss it as a group and make it a decision together, some of which has to be made, you know, on a on an enterprise basis, and we wouldn't choose different accounting systems for different practices, for example, that just doesn't make practical sense. Yeah, we uniform, you know, health benefits, right? We buy. Inception is 2600 employees now in the US and Canada. And we buy health as health insurance for everybody at once, right? So we are not we're not we're not sitting down with practice individually going here, our options between United and Cigna and that decision is being made globally. But that that alignment of incentives builds the trust to know that we're making the right decision because it impacts us all equally, I'm not going to, you know, we're not going to we're not going to make a short term decision, then have terrible employee benefits that ends employee ends up in the end bad employee satisfaction, so that we have high turnover, just to just to benefit the bottom line. But we're also not going to go out and you know, purposely pick the highest benefit choice for no reason.


Griffin Jones  37:53

I thought of another question that I want to make sure I asked you before we're done. But to clarify, we're going back to the the the way that collections is tied to comp that it's not collections minus overhead is it's 


TJ Farnsworth  38:08

No, no,no, off the top. Otherwise, everyone starts to wonder what that overhead means. I mean, the the collections minus overhead is their ownership component. That's that is. That's, that's that piece of it.


Griffin Jones  38:21

Tell us about the difference in equity at the practice level equity in the parent company level, and how each of those can work.


TJ Farnsworth  38:31

Yeah, I mean, it can be the equity and the practice level, you know, the, the, the physicians, and everyone that participates in that can see, hey, I do X, and it impacts y. Right. I mean, you know, ownership and the inception level. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, you know, any individual activity is diluted by the same by the scale of the business. Right. So it's, it's hard to see how your individual participation impacts the overall whole. In addition, the our practices all make profit distributions on a monthly or quarterly basis. Inception doesn't do that Inception invests reinvests its earnings in in growth. And and so the only time that physicians would participate in the profitability of their or their or their ownership at the inception level, is it a liquidity event, which obviously has got a lot of benefits to those physicians, but you know, it's there's not like the new one is not as a right or wrong, it's just they're just have different different positives and negatives versus, you know, the monthly or quarterly profit distributions that happen at the practice level, that obviously impact the lifestyle of that physician in terms of their ability to support themselves and their family.


Griffin Jones  39:44

Can that misalign incentives between practices though, if people are bought if they if they share in the profit of the at the practice level, but not at the parent company level that that makes one practice Want to go in one direction or another in a different?


TJ Farnsworth  40:03

We don't see that? No, I mean, we have, we have both. So we have scenarios where physicians are ownership at the at the parent company level. And but in all cases, physicians are either owners at the practice level or are on their way to be owners at the practice level, because that's where they can see the impact of the profit distributions. And obviously, that profitability, the local level impacts the profitability of the parent company level. So that's where the alignment of incentives happens between the practices and the parent. 


Griffin Jones  40:35

I've asked you quite a lot about different schema that can be used for compensation. What haven't I asked you? Actually, before I asked you that question I want. Are there any examples that you think of that you're comfortable sharing of? Hey, that was a mistake we made earlier on that we we did something and it it misaligned what we wanted, but is there any example that you'd share?


TJ Farnsworth  41:00

Yeah, I think that, absolutely. I think I think, I don't know about you or your listeners, but I Oh, we learn a whole lot more from the things I do wrong than from the things I do right.  Because it hurts. Yeah. And yeah, I think, you know, going back to an earlier comment I made, you know, we have certainly our past created compensation models and structures that we thought drove alignment of our interests, through the through compensate through complicated variable compensation structures, you know, you know, complicated sliding scales of percentages, complicated thresholds, of hurdles, you know, separating, you know, revenue associated with certain services, from others and complicated KPI models, and it always breeds a certain level of like, or somebody, you know, are you are you playing with the numbers are you gaming in the system, you know, are you and it it, it creates some a level of mental gymnastics that, that is brain damage for both Inception and then also for our physician partners, that it's just, it was unnecessary, and it was a it was, and we, and we created a scenario one time, where, you know, we we segmented once the ownership of the business into the physicians, and inception. And those physicians, you know, all a shared in the profitability of the business after the compensation of the physicians using this as an example, the second example of things we did wrong, and what it ended up doing was an unintended consequences. It made those physicians, you know, an incentivized to hire new doctors, because those new doctors would only impact their side of the profitability. And that just made no sense. And that's why, you know, we've gotten to a place where we're real big on, you know, we there's no, there's no, there's no classes of ownership, while certain state states might say we've got to, we've got to create, you know, create that call them super separate things, because one's a physician and one's not, you know, we don't get money, we, you know, Inception doesn't get dollar one, and the doctors get dollar two, we all share in dollar one. And we all share in it the same exact way. And it just creates a scenario where there's a level of transparency, and a level of trust that's developed from that, that I think, you know, we we, in certain instances, frankly, screwed up at various times in the past, you know, that in code in combination with screwing up the variable comp structure through various overly complicated models that I think, again, when it gets so complicated that everyone's got to get an Excel spreadsheet out to understand it, it just creates a scenario where you just naturally breed mistrust. And that's not what we want.


Griffin Jones  43:43

Well you've certainly answered the original question from the doctor who wanted us to cover this topic. I'm gonna let you conclude.  How should we conclude about compensation models for fertility doctors?


TJ Farnsworth  43:55

You know, I would tell you that I think it's important for everybody to realize there's not one right or wrong answer, that the individual dynamics of a specific practice might drive the there might be really good reasons why something's been done that way. And And certainly, if you got a physician who  is evaluating a job, I think, oftentimes asking the why question like, why do you do it this way? Like, you know, and why have I take this job over here? Is the structure different than the job over here? I think it's really important, because, you know, I think, in most cases, I think there'll be a really good explanation for why and it'll make sense and it'll, it'll give you the sense of confidence in making that decision. And I think, you know, whether it be like the geography or the size of the practice or the individual culture of that individual practice, you know, it's really important to find the right answer for that right practice. Not, you know, hey, there is one right answer for all practices.


Griffin Jones  44:52

TJ Farnsworth, it's always a pleasure having you back on. I look forward to having you again. Thank you for coming. 


TJ Farnsworth  44:55

Thanks, Griffin.


Sponsor  44:55

You've been listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society, visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

187 How Fertility Doctors Start Tech Startups with Dr. Brian Levine


With Dr. Levine we learn:

  • How he leveraged his connections to unite with his fellow CCRM New York co-founders

  • The “Aston Martin” amount of money invested to validate the business concept (and how that number was chosen)

  • The first people hired (and why)

  • His criteria for establishing new partnerships with other firms and businesses

  • How he gets founders and executives of elder care companies to come knocking on his door (and what the heck elder care can teach us about reproductive health)

  • And more…


Company Name: Nodal
Dr. Brian Levine’s Social Media: LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok

Transcript

Dr. Brian Levine  00:00

I started actually seeing that my participation, this was actually could be construed as me being complicit in the current system, I actually felt super responsible for trying to fix it. And because I saw what I think, is a very tangible, easy to use solution that helps reduce the cost and make it more accessible for people. I felt like that is completely in line with the oath that I took when I graduated medical school, which is to do no harm.


Griffin Jones  00:34

Finally, starting that idea that you have for a tech startup, almost every fertility doctor seems to have one of these ideas. And for some of you, it is bugging you crawling around in your head. So I decided to bring on someone that is going through this journey. Right now, you might know Dr. Brian Levine, he's been on the show before. He's the founder of CCRM, New York. So we talk about that establishing an established business, Dr. Levine has had his take on building something in New York. But CCRM is an established company versus what it's like to be the founder and the founder of something that isn't a practice network, but as a tech company that serves the verticals of which his practice sometimes overlaps. We talk about the concept for the problem in this case having to do with surrogacy, but I'm more interested in Dr. Levine's rules for how he articulates the problem and the solution. We talked about the connections that Dr. Levine leveraged to both explore the concept and unite with his co founders. We talk about the Aston Martin amount of money that the three of them put in to validate the concept and how they chose that number. We talked about the first people they hired and why there are rules for structuring market research talk about Dr. Levine's strategy for approaching a two sided marketplace. have Dr. Levine tell us about what he's doing with the money he's raised, what he plans to raise next, and who he's looking at selecting to partner with him, or at least what criteria he wants for those individuals or firms. And we talk about how Dr. Levine has done deep investigation into different verticals. To understand how those lessons can be applied in the reproductive health space. He shares how he gets execs and founders of elder care companies to talk with him and what the heck, eldercare could possibly teach us in reproductive health. If you're a fertility doctor or someone else in the reproductive health space considering starting a tech startup, I hope you enjoy this conversation with Dr. Brian Levine. Dr. Levine, Brian, welcome back to Inside reproductive health.


Dr. Brian Levine  02:34

Thank you so much, Griffin, I'm super excited to be back again.


Griffin Jones  02:36

The first time we spoke it was about starting a practice group within a network setting. You started the de novo CCRM in New York, and we spent the that episode talking about running that operation starting that operation. Today we're going to talk about what it's like when a physician does something even more entrepreneurial, perhaps in a related space. And so let's talk first about maybe some of the differences. So you have started a program for that's in the surrogacy space that in many ways seeks to disrupt the surrogacy space, the first your venture with CCRM, you, you were operating a system that was established, certainly with your own flair, but you weren't the first CCRM practice. And you deliberately went with a group that had an established system. So how did those two things differ? And maybe even before we dig into that, let's let's just dig it into what gave you the itch to start something new in the marketplace? 


Dr. Brian Levine  03:50

Sure. So,you know, as we talked about last time, the approach that I took back in 2015 was not the standard, and it was not the common approach. Typically, fellows were graduating from their fellowships, and they were moving on to going on to an established program, typically not academics and a couple of us into private practice. For me, I felt like there was a need to kind of change the model. And CRM afforded me the opportunity to have an incredibly tech driven approach, where I thought we can infuse some high touch Customer Care. And I think that's what we've been doing now for the last seven years since we opened the doors here. And it's amazing to think that it's been seven years since we opened the doors. As surrogacy was legalized in New York State, which happened in February of 2021. I was super excited. I kid you not I was like the single most excited person ever. Because before that, we had to ship all the embryos out for people who are doing gestational surrogacy. And then what happened was after about five months of doing this in New York, I realized very quickly that my patients were being preyed upon. And what I noticed was that the model of so Argosy in the United States, was not just unique the experience that I was having, it was a common experience across the board, which is that it was becoming price prohibitive and time prohibitive. And so I had no desire to start a business, I had no desire to be entrepreneurial, again, like the CCRM is very good and life and the practice is pretty amazing. But this problem, I couldn't unsee it. And I couldn't fix it. And because of that, it's why I took that step to kind of build something different and to fix something.


Griffin Jones  05:29

Maybe I'm making an erroneous assumption. But I've got to believe that you've seen many problems that you feel like you could contribute to fixing in some way that are a pain in the neck for your patients, that there's some solution that could be better if you pursued it, I got to believe that you could go down a list in your head of those things. And that more than one thing has irked you in the in the eight years that you've been running a practice. Why this one?


Dr. Brian Levine  05:58

So all the other issues that I've seen in reproductive health and the delivery of fertility care, are exciting and frustrating, and all the things in between that get, you know, under the skin of an entrepreneur trying to fix something. But when I started seeing the supply and demand economics as what was taking hold of servicing, and I started actually seeing that my participation, this was actually could be construed as me being complicit in the current system, I actually felt super responsible for trying to fix it. And because I saw what I think, is a very tangible, easy to use solution that helps reduce the cost and make it more accessible for people. I felt like that is completely in line with the oath that I took when I graduated medical school, which is to do no harm. And so to answer your question, why did I jump in with two feet and my wallet into trying to fix this problem? Because I felt like if I didn't fix it, I was part of the problem.


Griffin Jones  06:56

So it starts off with a feeling of responsibility that you part of the problem that you're not fixing it you can visualize this solution, how did you begin to explore it.


Dr. Brian Levine  07:05

So started, like most entrepreneurial activities happen, which is with a formative phone call, I called my friend who had an incubator in Florida. And I said to him, Hey, if you find any businesses in the services space, let me know, I'm happy to invest. I'm happy put some money behind because I think it's a broken system. And he then pushed me a little bit further. And he said, Well, what's the solution? And I said, Well, look, if a life insurance or health insurance company can underwrite risk on me, in a matter of minutes to figure out how I'm going to live for 20 years of premium payments. I think we could underwrite someone's uterus for 10 months using very similar databases. And that approach is what I said to him. And then he said, the most powerful thing ever. If you can articulate the problem, and you can articulate the solution, it's your responsibility to actually move forward and try to do it. So I did.


Griffin Jones  07:54

So how did you articulate that solution?


Dr. Brian Levine  07:57

What was it about the problem that you were seeing that made you say, we can do something similar to how insurance companies are underwriting their customers? So I think today, right now, everyone talks about the entire system being supply constrained, everyone says there's a shortage of surrogates that a shortage of capable individuals who are able to actually carry a pregnancy to full term. And because there's a shortage of supply, the costs have gone like through the roof. So I felt like if you just got more supply out there, the cost would have to go down. Right, if you make it more affordable, more accessible, while the access can be about supply, and that would dictate the economics and make it more affordable. It was a feed forward approach, fix the supply, you'll reduce the cost, reduce the cost, you'll improve the times and the wait times. And truthfully, as a doctor who was on the other side of it, he was not aware of how crooked the system had gone. I mean, if it had gone, not even crooked, I'd say it wasn't broken, because it's untracked. And what was happening was that, in reality, surrogacy services in the United States were being served to really only the 1% of 1%, who could ever afford that. And that's not why I went to medicine. That's not why I wanted to healthcare, and go into healthcare just to serve a very small population. I became a doctor because I want to help people in general. And so to me, I felt like if I could figure out how to supply the system with better surrogates, and really do what I call top of the funnel, then I thought that if we can do top of the funnel well, and we shorten the funnel, well, then ultimately we'll be able to make a meaningful outcome at the end. Was it really one phone call that one for that one phone call? It wasn't multiple phone calls and deliberating and looking at things from different angles? No, because actually got even it got even weirder than that. So when I said to my friend, John, who's the guy who I had that phone call with, and I said to him, this is the problem. This is the solution. And he says to me, Look, if you can articulate it We need to fix it. He then said to me, Hey, Brian, let's start the company. I said, I don't know, how did you do that? And he goes a simple you need money? And how much money do you think you need? I said, I don't know. He's like, I'll tell you right now, you'd have a million dollars. So why don't you me and some other guy put our money together. And let's do this on Monday. And this punk was on a Saturday. And with minimal approval for my wife, before I knew what I was wiring him effectively the cost of an Aston Martin, to start this company within 48 hours.


Griffin Jones  10:27

What made John such a confidant that one he was your main phone call and to that when he did propose going into business with you that you jumped on it?


Dr. Brian Levine  10:39

So John has a serie is a serial entrepreneur. And he had incubate a number of companies in the past. And he's a tech guy who I trusted. I've known him for a number of years. And, you know, like most things this world is, you need to have a friend that you trust, and there needs to be an element of excitement. And the trust and excitement that was there was the right combination. And I think the right prescription for what I needed to get me out of my comfort zone.


Griffin Jones  11:02

So this can accelerate things for those that might be considering venture if you have people that you trust. And if you don't have people that you trust with subject matter expertise in business development and venture capital in tech, then it makes sense for people to start networking and start making these relationships beyond simply their medical colleagues, because they might need the connections to move a little bit faster. And this could have been John, for you. It sounds like it was I want to get to the jumping in with the money. But how did he make you articulate the problem to him? And why was that sufficient enough for him. So this is your space. He's in a different space, tech finance. And somehow you were able to articulate the problem clearly enough to him that it was worth him wanting to do to be part of and put in some of his own money. What was he looking for?


Dr. Brian Levine  12:05

I think he was looking for a problem that was easy to understand. And I think when you start talking to people about health disparities, which is probably something we don't talk about enough in the fertility world, right. I mean, right now, it's June, and it's Pride Month. And we don't talk about the rates of infertility and LGBTQ plus population, because we don't know them. And right, we don't understand a lot about the health disparities. But when you start saying to someone, there's a real system, that's not fair. And you tell someone that it's really designed to help a very small subset of patients. And as a clinician, it frustrates me. And he started telling him about all the broken promises, and I tell him about all the tears that I see in my office. And the tears and the broken promises, and the frustrations were all related to the cost of surrogacy to the time associated with surrogacy. And I told him that I think there's a way we can fix this with tech. He's like, amen. He's like, You just gave me an elevator pitch without even realizing it. I'm in. Now, I do have to tell you, there was more than one phone call, actually called one of my oldest friends from Cornell, where I went for undergrad. And I said to him, Hey, Scott, tell me why I shouldn't start a company. And he's like, What are you talking about? I was like, here's my concept. Tell me why I shouldn't do this. And what he said to me was, Brian, you should do this. And I'll write your first check. And he was my first investor.


Griffin Jones  13:32

So how did John come up with and then offensively three of you come up with the magic number of half a million dollars?


Dr. Brian Levine  13:42

Completely pulled out of the air. So completely, he said to me, luck, I've incubated, you know,


Griffin Jones  13:49

What I think the three of us can scrape together without having to get too much buy in from our wives.


Dr. Brian Levine  13:55

Correct. He's like, I think you made a ton of companies. And $500,000 should give you enough runway to figure out if this is a viable opportunity or not. And that should give you enough runway to hire two or three employees to really do the market research you need to do and to put the infrastructure in place and to build a brand. And he goes and that's the right number. And to be honest, he was completely right. Right. That was exactly the right number spot on was, you know, you could probably start a company for much less. But we want to be effective and efficient and have first mover advantage, which we have today.


Griffin Jones  14:26

So you put in half a million dollars together. What did you do with the first half million?


Dr. Brian Levine  14:33

We hired two people. And the first two people we hired our Chief of Staff, Talia who's still with us today and Odle. And then we hired VP of engineering. And the first guy who is with us was amazing. And in fact, the entrepreneurial bug bit him so hard, that after being with us for 10 months, he started his own company. And so he actually left nodal to go start his own company, but we're able to hire an Unbelievable VP of engineering to come right in behind him. We've been amazing with us today. And ironically, since childhood best friend. 


Griffin Jones  15:07

The VP of engineering makes sense because you're building a tech platform and you want more tech brain in the organization early on, Chief of Staff seems could see mod for an organization that had two people why Chief of Staff? 


Dr. Brian Levine  15:21

Great question. So I think a Chief of Staff is an underappreciated swiss army knife. And knowing that I need to spend my time and days running both a fertility clinic and running a company, ie to have someone who has a skill set that can be multifaceted. And so when we look for this, for this person, this chief of staff who was our first hire, we wanted to make sure that he or she ultimately, as a she had all the right tools and resources at their fingertips to help start and grow and scale a company. And so it's actually the beautiful, most perfect title for someone who does everything from, you know, the initial scheduling to the accounting to the design, to the hiring, the marketing to hiring the general counsel. And to this day, because this person was intimately involved in every single hire is the appropriate title for them today, still, to this point to be a chief of staff.


Griffin Jones  16:15

It's a hard set of skills to find, because you're looking for someone who is as entrepreneurial enough to help build something from the ground up, but not so entrepreneurial, that they're the ones that are already doing it themselves. So how did you how did you select this person?


Dr. Brian Levine  16:35

So we went through the classic entrepreneurial workflow, which is you tried to find someone who had health experience in the past, who had the entrepreneurial bug within them, who was early enough in their career that they were willing to take, you know, a leap of faith, and most importantly, was a good fit for us. And we got so lucky through our network of friends of friends that we found Thalia, who's with us still to this day. And to be quite frank, I view Talia as the future leadership of this company as we grow this company continuously. And it's amazing to see that she's taken her entrepreneurial skills to help start really with us from zero and to build and to grow and to stack and to scale this company to what we are today.


Griffin Jones  17:16

So this initial funding, you hired two people, you're proving the concept, what did you do to prove the concept?


Dr. Brian Levine  17:22

So what we ended up doing was doing a ton of market research. And it was good old fashioned market research. So Talia and Kyle who started with us, the two of them started calling agencies. And they started asking questions, how does it work? As it how do we do this? They started calling fertility clinics, what do we do next? How do we get started. And they literally did market research from ground zero of what's it like to be a patient or intended parent to learn all about how the process goes. And then what we did was we did all of our research in a very structured way. And we organize our research answers, using spreadsheets and data sources and whatnot, to really help synthesize to make sure that we were asking the right question and that we were poised to answer that question appropriately. You see, what I've watched happen to all my friends and my friends of friends, who started companies where they haven't been successful, there seems to be a common denominator across the board. And it's called mission creep. mission creep is a very dangerous concept. It's almost a utopian concept where you think you're going to solve one problem. And then you realize you have these tools at your fingertips and you start branching out to solving everything. That's the jack of all trades, and masters of none. And as a 43 year old founder, I realized very much so that you need to be focused, need to have a focus that's on a specific goal on a specific mission, a specific approach. And that was the goal from the beginning. And so I want to make sure that our approach was data derived and was rooted in the research that we did, which it was,


Griffin Jones  18:58

What data were you sticking to and what little bells were trying to distract you?


Dr. Brian Levine  19:04

The data that we stuck to and we started asking people wait times, we started calling up agencies and saying, How long is it gonna take Alan's gonna take to go from hello to baby? And that was typically our number one question. And what you can see that we are started setting confidence intervals and you know, median time to start doing statistics on it. And then we started asking other intended parents, we started joining Facebook groups of support groups, how long is it taking you? How long are you waiting? And then we started realizing that there was actually a disparity between what people were quoted and what people actually were getting. And the little bell they were trying to distract us was everyone's like, don't focus on wait times, you know, focus on donor egg, focus on donor sperm or things like that. And what we kept saying to ourselves was focus on Saturday, see, focus on supply, focus on widening the funnel, focus on shortening the funnel, solve one problem at a time and that's what the job of a leader is. Right? The leaders do. Be the infectious optimist, which is what I've been doing my whole career as a fertility doctor, right, helping people understand there's possibility when they think they lost all hope and opportunity. And then also helping people understand the problem at hand and that the problem was is within grasp. And that's what I do every day at nodal right, I help the team understand that they are fixing a broken system. And then their hard work is going in directly to the efforts of helping people ultimately achieve their goal, which is either just start grow or complete their families, this obviously,


Griffin Jones  20:32

Isn't easy to do, because you have to be so receptive to such a small amount of feedback, do you know what I mean? You have to be maximally receptive to a minimal amount of feedback, and it's your job to vet what that is exactly, because you can't ignore everything part of what you're doing is proving concept and you need to understand what the market is telling you and then you need to assess product market fit and all the more so but you'll you'll get everyone's opinion in there, you'll get them prioritizing their own problems or or some other thing that they see in the marketplace. And and you're hearing things like oh, focus on donor egg and, and a few others, what arguments were they making to you? And how did you decide to tune them out, at least for now?


Dr. Brian Levine  21:20

So everyone was saying the same two things. And by the way, that can be VC companies. Or it could be friends or could be fellow investors, which is the TAM is too small. The industry is too small. You're fixing a niche. Why focus on a niche when you can focus on you know, blue ocean as a guide, you don't understand. The current system of surrogacy today in America only addresses 8% of men need 92% of the people that hope to use surrogacy as a way to grow or start or complete their family can not do so. And the reasons they say they cannot do those things are because it's cost prohibitive, time prohibitive, and emotionally expensive. So focus on the problem that we have, and as a company stay focused on that problem. And then of course, we can spin off other derivative companies with the same tools that we're building today. But focus on the problem at hand.


Griffin Jones  22:15

Jeff Bezos could have picked any number of categories to revolutionize ecommerce he started with books, you have your reasons for, for choosing surrogacy and ignoring the what are currently distractions, at least for the time being until you've established what it is that you're trying to build. So you've proven the concept, at least on the market need side from the market research at this time when you still just have two employees and that initial seed money that came from you all? Or did you have anything yet to assess product market fit? Did you have any kind of prototype? How did you build that?


Dr. Brian Levine  22:53

So we initially learned very quickly was that if we said to an agency, hey, if someone comes with their own surrogate, we give them a discount? They all said yes. And we said, hey, if someone comes to me with surrogate, will you help them get across the finish line? And they all said yes. And very quickly, we understood that we could be collaborative, and not just competitive to the current system. And understanding collaboration in the setting of competition is really important. And once we knew that, we had that there. The next question is, well, how do you do it? And the answer was a two sided marketplace. Right? The answer was letting service onboard themselves, letting them be able to build a profile for themselves. And because I believe in equality and transparency, I felt like you need to put the power back into the woman who's the surrogate. So by offering an opportunity for her to make the first move, Allah Bumble, or she picks intended parents that she wants to work with, instead of being assigned to an intended parent, we felt like was a great way to change the model upside down, and to offer them and also empower people to be more engaged on the platform.


Griffin Jones  24:03

It's hard with two sided marketplaces, because you need two sides. You need the Uber drivers and the Uber passengers you need the Airbnb guests and the Airbnb hosts, you decided in your two sided marketplace? Let's start with Sarah gets. And is the reason that you did did you perceive a greater shortage of surrogates or greater challenges in recruiting surrogates than intended parents and you feel that you felt like by giving them the opportunity to make the first move that you could make more headway on that side of the marketplace? 


Dr. Brian Levine  24:38

So we felt pretty quickly in our company's trajectory that it was important to give opportunity and agency to those women who are taking the greatest risk to their own family. By definition, a surrogate must be a mother and we know that these women who are unbelievable partners in helping to grow family and start families need to be shown that I think the brighter side of the transaction, they need to understand what's going on. And I think they need to understand that they are in control. And so the only way that made sense to me and again, this was our thought as a team of three at the time. But how do you give someone controls you let them make the first move? And that's what we did. And that's what we've done to this day was really letting them make the first move. 


Griffin Jones  25:28

Technically, what went into the first prototype? Or the first maybe if it was even pre prototype, but demo? 


Dr. Brian Levine  25:35

So the first, the first prototype was that could we build a platform where people could just onboard themselves? So that's pretty standard that you can build that out? The second part was, could we throw out a little marketing or a little test kitchen to see if we actually could attract potential people who'd be interested in becoming a surrogate, or learning more about surrogacy? What we learned very quickly with some very quick AV testing, that we were able to message and market to people the right way. Ultimately, the big marketing push happened six months later, but that was the initial AV testing was, could we build this? And could we build a marketplace?


Griffin Jones  26:11

How much time passed between initial seed funding of your 500k between the three co founders, and when you decided to raise additional money? It was approximately six months. Who did you go to first? And what did you develop in your, your pitch deck? How did you build that?


Dr. Brian Levine  26:30

So one of the rules was that the pitch deck had to be 10 slides or less. I realized that everyone, my role, I realized that everyone is busy, and they have a lot of time. And if we cannot articulate the problem and the solution in 10 slides, and we have no right raising money, we have no way starting a company. Because if we couldn't be succinct, we couldn't be effective. So the goal was to build a 10 deck slide, which we did. And I went out to friends and family. And these are the people who've been rooting for me since I started with CCRM, New York and the people that I'm rooting for me, since college and grad school and med school and residency and fellowship. And I went up to my friends and family and I said, Hey, guys, this is crazy. But I can't unsee this problem. And I'd love to have you on this journey with me. And initially, we thought we'd raise just $1.5 million. That's what we thought we needed. And I was gonna do it all BSafe, which is financial structure that comes from the Y Combinator, what we learned very quickly was that doing this via safes was a very easy way to do the transactions. And the challenge of getting 1.5 million was actually not that big of a challenge. In fact, they sold the 1.5 million in three days. What I learned very quickly was that we were very good at fundraising because everyone knew someone wanted to use surrogacy as a solution. But no one actually knew how broken system was until they were educated by us marriage Jack and our story. So then what happened was I basically went around and I said, Hey, guys, I am so sorry, I didn't actually mean to raise at 1.5, I actually was hoping to raise a little bit more money, because it appears that there's a lot of people here who have similar thoughts to you, which is, let's fix this broken system together. And I want more people like you around the table. And that's how we ended up raising the remainder of the money, which was $4.7 million in the end. 


Griffin Jones  28:19

That's all from one round? So it was about that the seed round? Or is the second one an angel round? Or tell, tell us about that?


Dr. Brian Levine  28:26

I mean, I think the nomenclature people use all the time, it's just silly, but the initial was about 500. The next one was around 4.2, in the end, that we raised. And so you add all together, there's your four, seven, but you called you know, initial capital, and then he called Seed past that, but we haven't done an A, obviously, is that coming next? I think the future is a series i i have some very specific KPIs I'd like to see us hit before doing a series I think that in this current economy, need to be so respectful of the markets. Because we're in a weird time, I was incredibly lucky that I started a company in a very favorable economy. And if I would have started this company six months later, or a year later, I don't think it would have had the same success in my fundraising opportunities. And so to me, I'm actually going to set a very high bar for the Series A, which is gonna be important. The most important thing for me and this next round of funding that we hopefully will do with our Series A is that the VC partner that we picked to do this has to do this with someone who wants to be our partner from the A to the B, someone who wants to be our partner for the big picture for the long road who's willing to be there as a partner, shoulder shoulder. And of course when you do a series a with a lead, that ends up becoming the most important individual because you end up usually having them be a board seat member. And I think a board seat members are working board seat, and that's really important to us. I'm making a note because I want to talk about what that Working board see my look like and how you select for the people that you want to be on your board. But let's talk about those KPIs is that there's certain KPIs that you want to hit before you raise more money. Tell us more about those. So again, it's in partnership with the right VC and the right time, but I think there's gonna be certain dollar amounts are gonna be certain volume of mounts, you know, doing enough matches, making it up, or producing enough revenue, being profitable. There's certain numbers we have to hit before we actually get there. Are you giving yourself a timeline, or is the money that you have the timeline, so the money that we have right now is given us a good amount of runway. And we're in a really good spot right now where we're comfortable that we can keep building and scaling and growing with enough runway to go. And I think, from a big picture perspective, we need to take a, I'd say a top down view of how the markets are looking and how the partners are looking, right? It's all about finding that not just product market fit. So finding that company market fit. And timing is everything. And so I'm a very patient person, as I think you know, and so I'm willing to be patient to find the right partner at the right time to do this successfully. And quickly.


Griffin Jones  31:08

Let's talk about what you want that partner to have. Because partner is one of the most ambiguous words in business, the word partnership is so ambiguous, one of the things that I'm writing in our editorial guide is inside reproductive health expands news coverage, not just the podcast, but covering the trade media happening on the business side of fertility field, and writing this so that the journalists know, the word partnership is used all the time, you have to figure out what it actually means. People say partner, because they don't want to say they bought a company when they acquired one, it can mean a capitalist merger, it can mean no merger acquisition whatsoever. It's a strategic partnership, like a joint venture. And so when you say that you want, you're the the firm that ends up leading that series A to B with you from A to B, and ultimately, to serve on the board and to be a partner with you what specifically do you mean?


Dr. Brian Levine  32:05

I want that individual company to put enough capital and that they have a real meaningful ownership opportunity in our company, where they will get to enjoy the upside, and the win. And that they will also feel like they're taking risk with us. So they understand the importance of that investment. But most importantly, is they're completely aligned with our success. It's easy to write tickets for someone to write a check, it's hard for someone to come up to four board meetings a year, it's hard for someone to be in the in the dugout, and in the trenches. And to actually give real critical feedback, we want someone who's not just gonna say, hey, everything you do is great. We want someone who's gonna say what you're doing is good. But we can get you to great if we scale you in this way. And we need someone who has experience


Griffin Jones  32:55

You have someone with experience in the reproductive health space, or within healthcare or tech or what kind of experience?


Dr. Brian Levine  33:03

So I think it's, it's different, right? So every VC has a different, you know, flavor, and a different approach. It's about finding a VC that is willing to be nimble with us and patient with us, but also has experienced in scaling marketplaces and healthcare to the right place.


Griffin Jones  33:22

When you're approaching the the next phase, what do you find yourself learning the most about now? What What have you spent the last month or two studying the most with regard to new concepts or, or areas of business? 


Dr. Brian Levine  33:37

I love this question. Because I would say that for every 100 questions, I get 99 knows, which is the best, right? You know, you talk to someone, get feedback, talk to a company feedback. So one of the things I do is I I've joined a support network of other entrepreneurs and founders to ask them and to learn from them, because we're all kind of going through this crazy founders world together. And so learning about just other companies and how they've grown and how they've scaled and how they've become a little more market resistance, a little more tough on his time. But for me, actually, I'm really obsessed right now with studying elder care. I've been studying elder care companies for the last six months. And the reason I've been studying elder care is that in this country, there's a lot of great companies that are out there that are helping address loneliness. And they're helping do case management for the elderly. And insurance companies have really helped these companies scale in a meaningful way. That's really cost effective. And I view a lot of parallels and similar as to how we take care of elder care and do case management and social work care for the elderly, and how we can actually manage circusy in a digital transformational platform. Learning to look at actually how we can do case management light instead of doing the traditional analog system. How do we digitize this? How do we do high touch high feel How do we take care of grandma safely? Using a digital tech platform? Well, why can't we just turn that upside down and read instead of reinventing the wheel, just retool that wheel, and figure out how we now can do that for the surrogate, but the gestational carrier for the intended parents. And so I've spent a lot of time studying elder care right now. And studying social work, and studying case management systems, because I view so many parallels between that and the system of surrogacy. 


Griffin Jones  35:31

Oh, interesting. I wouldn't have thought about that and go looking into elder care and social work for the purposes of learning more about case management. How are you taking in the information? Are you just following blogs of people that lead in the space? Are there books out there? Are you trying to dig into company records that are public? Are you one of the guys on the other side of the consulting call that you and I both get some times when it's people entering the reproductive health space? And you're on the other side of that call calling people that are in the elder care space? How are you taking in the information?


Dr. Brian Levine  36:06

 So I won't deploy capital for those consulting calls, because they're really expensive, so much that I do one better. I go into websites and find the founder. And I just ask them the honest question. A I'm not in your space. I think there's some parallels here. Can we do a 30 minute chat. And I reached out to everyone, and I dig on LinkedIn. And I dig through website, and he just cold email people. And a lot of them are met with no response. But some of them are. And so there's a company out there called Papa that I'm absolutely obsessed with. And I met with Andrew and I got to talk to the founder and talk to him how he did and how he scaled his business and his b2b solution and how he was able to take this company from, you know, dollars to hundreds of dollars to 1000s to millions to billions. And you know, how did he get his valuate from that, but what did he do? And he and I now have, you know, bonded over this. And, you know, I talked to someone who did this and another service profession, I talked to someone who just did, you know, a mental health platform for management for psychologists for writing notes. Because right, every surrogate needs psychology screening. And if we could figure out a way to digitize a lot of this analog stuff, we can make it both reproducible and reduce the cost and make it safer. And so it's all cold emails, and cold calls. And if I find a phone number, I call it and find, you know, phone number, I typically try to text it first, and LinkedIn, and anything that's free at my fingertips. 


Griffin Jones  37:32

How are you balancing this new pursuit that you have with your current business with your current role as a an individual contributor and a manager in your current business, not just a part of the not just part of ownership? And you're proud dad, I see you on LinkedIn, you're a really proud father. How are you determining what amount of time gets allocated and where?


Dr. Brian Levine  37:59

I set boundaries. And that's been really hard lesson for me this year. Last two years now, I set boundaries about everything. I'm here, I'm here, when I'm in my office, seeing patients I'm seeing patients, I don't get distracted. And I have a full schedule. And I see patients, you know, I still put in my 40 hours a week here. But then when I finish my day, my clinical day, I'm 100% nodal nondistracted. And I have an incredible team. And we now have 15 people. And our team communicates through slack, which is an unbelievable asynchronous tool for allowing for continuous communication throughout the day and night. As you probably know, I'm a painful early riser. So my morning routines have been optimized allow me for jumping into notable for anyone else's awake, when I don't eat much sleep. So most nights at home, I'm at home on the computer once I can get my kids to sleep. As you know, bedtime is incredibly precious to me. So after bedtime with my kids, I'm on nodal. And what I'm able to do is because I have an incredible team of people who help support each other, and I'm able to impart the clinical side of it, it works. This is not the model for everybody. But for me and for the nodal team. It's been an unbelievable way for us to build and scale this business.


Griffin Jones  39:17

You have a lot of venture capitalists listening to the show, you have a lot of executives listening to the show, but I'm thinking mainly of your colleagues, many of the RAS who they will tell me over a drink. I'm thinking about this, you know, there's something that's bugging out and that sound like it originally bugged you. Let's conclude with that thought, how would you like to conclude about starting an entrepreneurial venture within the field of reproductive health, but is isn't building a clinic? It's building a different kind of solution. How would you like to conclude with that theme to that audience?


Dr. Brian Levine  39:54

So as doctors, we spent our entire lives educating our calls and training to solve problems that are put in front of us. Don't let yourself get pigeonholed to only clinical problems. Take a step back and look at the systems that we work within. And I think the best advice I can give everyone is find someone who's willing to say no, but someone who's willing to say yes. And so the reason I spoke to my friend John to ask him about starting nodal, and telling him about the problems and him telling me start a company, and then I spoke to my friend Scott saying to him, Scott, tell me why shouldn't do this. You got to find people are going to be honest with you. And make sure that you can describe your problem to a lay person and let a non Rei let a non doctor, not your spouse, kick the idea around, of course, talk to the people within your clinic and network, make sure this is kosher and okay with them. Right, I had made sure that I talked to everyone here and made sure everyone knew what was going on. And I've been completely open and transparent since day one. But most importantly, you don't get to become an REI without a lot of support friends and family. And what I learned from starting nodal was that I had a lot of support around me. And I have a lot of support around me both for CCRM and also now for nodal and it's super exciting. So tackle those problems, because there's a lot of them that need fixing.


Griffin Jones  41:15

Dr. Bryan Levine, thank you very much for coming back on to Inside Reproductive Health.


Dr. Brian Levine  41:20

Thank you, Griffin. This is always so much fun. It's great to see you.


Sponsor  41:23

You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

186 How Fertility Centers Can Save (Patients’) Money, Line By Line with Dr. Mark Amols


Let’s save you and your patients some money!

From the materials you buy to the software you invest in, it can be difficult trying to find where to safely and effectively reduce, replace, or eliminate to save money and maximize your practice’s bottom-line.

We talk with Dr. Mark Amols, founder of New Direction Fertility Centers, and he walks us through his low-cost affordable IVF model. He reveals where and how he invests, or doesn’t, to keep his practice thriving.

Dr Amols breaks down his four categories when purchasing materials and services:

  • Which line items can be completely eliminated

  • Materials that can be reduced or replaced with cheaper alternatives

  • Finding cost-effective versions of necessary commodities

  • How to know the expensive must-haves to pony up full price

Dr. Amols opens up his playbook and gives specific cost examples from his own practice, so listen in and see where you can cut your bottom-line.


Dr. Mark Amols’ LinkedIn
New Direction Fertility

Transcript

Dr. Mark Amols  00:00

There's nothing special we're doing. I mean, this is typical supply and demand type of economics and in when it comes to the vendors, I think one of the most important things that I do as a business person is I don't look at it as me trying to get the lowest price. I don't try and get the best deal. I kind of look to the vendor, I say, how can we work with each other?

Griffin Jones  00:28

Let's save you some money. Let's go through your income statements, fertility doctors, let's go through your costs and see how we can save you money by eliminating, replacing, reducing, negotiating. But before we do that, I have to fess up to some technical difficulties that messed up this interview a little bit. It was my part I know that breaks your heart, you're not going to get to hear all of my witty insights the same as you would if the recording for the audio went properly. But Dr. Amols who was our guest, Dr. Mark Amols from New Direction Fertility in Arizona, gave us so many good insights. I was late to the interview to begin with, but no good excuse just my carelessness, I didn't want to have to bring him back on for his time for the audio issues that were on my end, but my audio stopped recording about a quarter of the way into the conversation. So I re recorded my questions, I tried to do my best to match them up with how the conversation went. And the answers that Dr. Amols gave, if any of the answers seem off, blame it on me. But the insights in this episode are terrific. I asked Dr. Amols to walk us through his low cost affordable IVF model that he's had a lot of success with in the Phoenix area, I have him go through those things that he spends less money on things that he doesn't spend less money on in his system for approaching that I definitely wanted to have him back on for another conversation about top of license, not just the REI, but everyone in the fertility practice, going through the accountability chart and what that would look like. But today, we focus mostly on materials and services. And we break those into four categories. The first is those materials and services that you just don't need, you can eliminate those costs altogether. The second, which ones can you reduce or replace with cheaper alternatives? Because you're reducing them in some way? The third is those commodities that you need them. But there's a wide range of prices and not a wide range of quality. So how do you get the cheapest? And then the fourth, maybe there is a wide range on prices, maybe there isn't, but there is a wide range on quality. And you really have to pony up sometimes. So we break into those four categories. We also talk about things like software and professional services. And Dr. Amols is very generous. In this episode, he gives specific examples, he gives specific costs, he opens up some of his playbook very transparently. And he shares that with you. So if you talk to Dr. Amols, please tell him thank you because I want him to come back on and share more. But I also want everyone to come on and share a little bit more. And it always pushes the envelope when somebody's willing to just share a little bit more makes that episode that much more popular, more valuable. And then people want to mimic that and they tend to share more valuable information and give more value to the audience when they come on. So enjoy this conversation with Dr. Mark Amols, Dr. Amols. Mark, welcome back to Inside Reproductive Health.

Dr. Mark Amols  03:28

Thank you, I greatly appreciate it.

Griffin Jones  03:31

I thought to invite you back on because I was in a meeting not too long ago, with an older physician who was expressing distress in their voice, I could hear how troubled this person was that they wanted to reduce costs at their IVF center because they wanted more people in their area to be able to afford treatment. And they legitimately did not know how to do that they're already being squeezed on the margins, I could see their numbers. It's not like they're raking in a whole bunch that you know, it's just coming out of a inflated top line for them. And there's been a handful of people that have been able to do a lower cost affordable IVF model in the country, only a handful. And you're one of them. You've been on the show to talk about that for and that's still one of the most popular episodes. And I remember at that time we did it live and it was during the COVID shutdown and we had more people than we had capacity for in the Zoom Room we had we had to you know upgrade our our account. And so I wanted to have you back on and I wanted to go through with you how you select your partners, meaning your strategic partners, your vendors, because a lot of people would like to be able to lower costs and they just feel like they're getting squeezed everywhere. So how do you think about this challenge?

Dr. Mark Amols  05:06

Yeah, you know, it's interesting when you told me about the topic, I was kind of confused when he said, How do I choose my vendors, but it actually does all come together? I think the question isn't so much how we do it. But why other people can do it, there's nothing special for doing I mean, this is typical supply and demand type of economics. And in when it comes to vendors, I think one of the most important things that I do as a business person is I don't look at it as me trying to get the lowest price, I don't try to get the best deal. I kind of look to the vendor, I say, how can we work with each other. And so for example, like I understand the vendor has shipping costs. So if I want them to send me something every month, I realized that's gonna cost them more money. So I'll work with them say, hey, whatever, I just take like two large shipments a year, I'll take a huge volume, you give me a lower cost. Now you're not paying shipping all the time. And I'm, you're guaranteed dismount every time I'm again. And so that helps kind of like, you know, look at it as a relationship in that standpoint. But the other thing is, is I understand the point of volume. So when you're talking about low costs, I mean, it to go like Target and stuff, you have to have more volume, if you don't do more volume, you're going to lose. And the way that traditional IVF is set up is really this kind of, you know, we're gonna get 1020 patients in per month to do IVF. And so they rely on making a lot of the sale, and they don't have the volume. And so when you do have the volume, or at least if you're going to have that volume, you can go to these vendors and say, Hey, here's my volume, here's my projected volume, you can see how much growing each year. And I tell them I say listen, if you make a deal with me, and help me, I will stay with you. You know, even your prices go up a little bit, I'll stay with you. And so down to the vendor pick, like we were saying, so getting back down to how do I pick my vendors, you know, it depends on your product. So there are some products that are made by multiple vendors. There are some products that are not right. So if you think of, let's say, fairing, or you go up at the end of the men's out there, that's like the electric company, you really don't have a choice, right, you only have a choice between Gameloft and follistim. But when it comes to manufacture, you really don't have a choice. So for those type of companies, there's really not much you can do that the relationship is really just them being nice to you and your stuff to keep buying their product, but with Folsom and go limp off, so you can work with them to try to get better pricing for your patients. When it comes to things like product for the lab, you're a little bit limited, because there are quality differences. Luckily, it's been very standardized in their industry now. So you know, most we're using the same products now. But with those vendors, it comes down to, I think building some type of loyalty with them. So you know, you work with a company every single time they know you're going to come in and buy, you know, six ultrasound machines, you know, 620 incubators the same time, they're going to, you know, keep giving you better prices through the years because they know you're gonna stay with them. And again, building that relationship with them, you know, always sending stuff that way. And then the other vendors are going to be your vendors that have multiple vendors that do the same thing. So when you talk about things like speculums, or you talk about things like drapes, you can get drapes from multiple companies, there's stuff I buy off the Amazon, because it's cheaper for me to get them off the Amazon than it is through my suppliers like Henry Schein, they have tegaderm, which goes on the skin after you put an IV in. Bye bye for them. It's like 100 bucks for 100 of them or 80 bucks. I got off amazon for $15 the exact same things. So when it comes back to choosing the vendors, going back to that question of how do we make it work? So one of the things is, is I tried to find those strategic partners. And and I talked to them like they're a business, I don't talk to them, like I'm trying to buy their product. I taught them to say Listen, how can we both help each other? What do you need me to buy? How much have you need me to do? Because like there's things I want a lower price, I'll go to come I said I need this at a lower price. And they said, we can't go any lower, it's okay. But if you buy more of this, then they'll offset I can lower that price. And so again, it still ends up the same, right? We're still looking at the same thing, which is overhead, which is your expense versus what you make. And that's really all it is. It's just the differences. It's harder to do. So I'm not trying to say that about most doctors, most doctors don't want to do business. I mean, why would you still want to become a doctor, you want to go out and just make money. And so for most people, they see money in their bank account, they're happy, they're like, it's going up, I'm happy I see the numbers going up. But that doesn't mean they're efficient. That doesn't mean that they've actually at the point that they're getting the most amount money they make. I can almost guarantee you that if they went and got a person like you know, Scott Robertson, you know, from practice up, they got him to go through their practice, I guarantee they'll make more money just by him going through and finding out where they're wasting tons of money. And so in those situations where you have those practices that already have this high overhead they're trying to do this low cost model, but they're not efficient. And that's really that the main thing is you have to be efficient, and there's more to it, we'll go over that in a little bit more detail. But that's really the biggest thing is when you're looking at vendors, you're trying to make sure that, you know, you pick vendors that you can build that relationship with. So you can get lower prices and be able to offer things you know, better cost. So things like speculums. I mean, I, my spec homes costs, I think some like 10 cents. Whereas like, when I was at another clinic, it was a buck 50 per speculum, and it wasn't needed. And so again, there's things you can do to get better pricing, that doesn't matter. No one's gonna have a bad idea of cycle because respectable isn't great. But they aren't going to bear the IVF cycle, if they're incubators bad.

Griffin Jones  10:47

So I do want to go through those different categories of what's more interchangeable versus what you think is less interchangeable, and I want to break up those different categories. First, I want to think about how do you approach looking at this systematically? Or do you like do you do you just start to negotiate and look for different options? When you're ordering something? Do you go through your p&l at different points of the year and, and go line by line and say, How can I start with this and go all the way down the spreadsheet? How do you approach it?

Dr. Mark Amols  11:21

Yeah, every three months, I go through and I look at everything that we order. And I find out if it's one of those categories of where we can't change, right, there's no option. It is something that we can change, but we can have very little room because it might be something like an incubator, I'm like, I can't go for the crappy incubator, or is it something that's easily changeable, like a drape or something like that. And then what I do is I always go through and look for the best price. And so for example, like propofol is one of the drugs we use for anesthesia, I found a way for us to get propofol at 20%, the cost we originally paid. And again, it doesn't sound like a big deal. Because most clinics, if you're only doing 10, 20 cycles a month, you're not going to notice a couple of dollars here and there, when you started doing 100 Something a month. Now all of a sudden, that becomes several $100 Every month in that one product. And so those little differences make, you know, make a big difference. And so yeah, I go through every every three months, I look at things, I'm always looking for ways to reduce costs. Here's example. So one way we reduce our costs for bloods by 50%. So we made more margins was I know this, we were buying 10 milliliter tubes to fill the bloods up. And then one day, I was wondering, they make smaller tubes that cost less. And we went and found that they make like four milliliter or five milliliter tubes. And so we went and got five milliliter. And then later we found even made a smaller tube when we run like six tests in our clinic, so we realized we could use less blood, it costs half the amount and we reduced our costs overhead for those supplies by 50%. So just things like that, looking for things, looking at what do you need? And what are you getting, and you may not need what you're getting, 

Griffin Jones  13:04

I would love to have you back on for another topic to talk about top of license throughout the accountability chart. So you and I can go through the accountability chart of fertility center together, because we often think of top of license as just the REI. But the whole purpose of getting someone to practice at the top of their license is to get the next person to practice at the top of theirs down to the person that is checking someone in and bring someone to their room.

Dr. Mark Amols  13:32

So it means a culture, right. So as a culture as a clinic, we all believe in the same thing, which is making this affordable. So everybody knows that the better our overhead is the lower we can keep costs for patients. And so my lab, you know, will always look for the best price and other times they'll come to me and say this is all we can do. And I say okay, let me look at it, I might look into a little bit more. I have to be very nerdy. I love numbers. Like a dat in there. So I love that stuff. So I enjoy doing it. But yeah, I have other people who will do a lot of that for me. And then when they can't, they'll come to me and but I'm I'm always thinking of ways that we can reduce costs, just because our field I do believe has a lot of fluff and a lot of overhead. It's not needed. You know, we made some big changes just recently on just even staffing away I thought the box of we have staffing our clinic different where you know, medical assistants are very difficult now to find. And you know, I kind of looked into the legality of like, do we really need medical assistants for every little thing and so we found out that we could even just put greeters out there who can help us just you know, put patients in rooms and then again, that brought cost down so it's just it's not resting on your laurels and just saying hey, this is what we're gonna do. It's always gonna be this way we're always changing and adjusting. Same thing with vendors, you know, always looking at different things. Now, there's the point where again, once you have that relationship, you know, if you're constantly just changing for the lowest price, well then no one's ever gonna work with you. So I mean, there's a little bit of flexibility you have to have right so if someone's give me a great price now and then two years later that go up a little bit. And they're a little bit more than next one, I'll still stand with them. Because at that point, I know I've built that relationship. And again, that's an I'll talk to them and just say, hey, it was a little harder than we need. Is there anything we could do to get that down? Can we can we purchase more at one time? Can we do this stuff like that, but things like there was little things like shipping all those different things working with your vendor, you can get better pricing by just working with them and ordering more and committing them more. So

Griffin Jones  15:25

For the sake of this topic, let's break it into four categories, those costs which you can cut, eliminate entirely those which you can reduce significantly, either by replacing them with something else or reducing them by a lot. Third, that which is a commodity, you need them. But you can find a wide range of prices for not a wide range of quality and that fourth category, those things that really matter, there might be a wide range of prices. But there might not be and there certainly is a wide range of quality. And it's too significant. 

Dr. Mark Amols  16:01

Exactly. 

Griffin Jones  16:02

What are those costs that fall into the first category that you can eliminate entirely. 

Dr. Mark Amols  16:06

One of the things I when I was in other clinics, you know, obviously did this with one person training and then prior business I was with, is there was a lot of stuff we did to make, like a few dollars, but wasted a lot of our time, I think the thing that's most important understand is there's only so much time in the day, right? As a physician, I only have so much time, I'm probably when you think about when it comes to resources, the most scarce resource in the clinic. And so what happens is, is that there was a lot of stuff I was doing as a physician that made absolutely no sense. So we used to do what are called IVF consults, where we would sit there and go over the whole process with the patient of the IVF, we used even do a surgical visit the day before then make an extra dollar or two through the insurance. The problem is that same hour and a half being used for retrievals could do three retrievals. Or I could do two consults. And so one of the things that can be thrown away is really using people who can do things in their category. So for example, there are things no one else can do that I can do right as a fertility doctor. And so those are under my license, any nurse can do those things I was doing before those other clinics. And I can guarantee you there are claims out there today, where the physician is still doing a ton of stuff. And there's no reason to do that. It's a waste of money, it's a waste of your time, you'll never build do this low cost money, because you're looking at going, I gotta spend all these different employments eight payments, before I get to this point. Now you don't you have a team that that can do this stuff. And so part of what's important is, is you want to utilize people to the max they can be what's the most are allowed to do as a nurse. And then but you also don't want to waste their time doing things that you don't need to right because you're paying them too much. So when you look at overhead, so when you talk about what can you get rid of, it's for not getting rid of it, but adjusting it to out of the wrong hands instead of the doctor bringing it to the nurse, bring it to maybe you have a specialist, that's all they do is bring in someone, let's say off the street, you pay him 16 bucks, Darren, you're like, you teach them everything about IVF, you say this now is our IVF consultant, and they're just going to tell them about IVF. And you know what, they're gonna be pretty damn good at that job. You don't have to pay someone $80,000 a year as a nurse to do this every day when someone else can do it. And they'll do just as good because that's what they're specialized that that's kind of the way I look at things when you're looking at these models. I think one thing that's really interesting, though, about our clinic versus some of the others is that I think it's really important, though, to stay a high quality clinic, you know, not seeing other claims are bad, and I won't name the clinic. But there are a lot of people who do what I do, and have very poor pregnancy rates. And there are clinics like me who have very good pregnancy rates. And I think that's really important in this big thing. So when you're doing all these things, you're making these adjustments, you don't lose being a good clinic. You know, it's not about just getting low cost and having bad service, you have to stuff that service. So all these things I'm saying when they take them out. It's not that they're there's none important, like I said, so one of the fluffs I always talk about is like, most people don't want to sit there for an hour and hear about the idea of like, you know, the prepper rather read it on paper or give it to him in a text or something like that. So just stuff like that is how I've taken those things out product wise, is more just choice. Some physicians like use an iodine, you don't really need iodine. There are other changes you can do, but those are very small.

Griffin Jones  19:24

How about the second category that which you can reduce quite a bit or swap it out for a much less expensive alternative?

Dr. Mark Amols  19:31

Yeah, I mean, a lot of the things it sounds crazy, but like going from four by fours to two by twos for certain things, you know, we just did it away. We we always did it one way needles. You know when I'll give you example, one thing that a lot of clinics use, is they use other fine needles. Butterfly needles are really expensive. I mean, the best price you're gonna get for them. It's maybe a buck, but usually they're like a buck 52 bucks. You go to a regular needle mean the pennies and so Oh, you know, you think about your doing 1000 or 2000 needle sticks, you know, every few months as 1000s of dollars versus a couple $100. So that's something where, you know, we still had those if needed, but any phlebotomist knows what they're doing does not need to use a butterfly. But yeah, clinics use up you can get skinny needles that are still butterflies. So another example, too, was not only going from the five milliliter tubes was a big difference. But we actually found out that there are other brands of the tubes. And so a lot of people when they use like tire top tubes, most expensive from you know, Beckman, but you can actually get these ones caught we call McDonald tubes, or they look like a McDonald's franchise, too. And those are when I say lower costs, like 1/10 of the cost of the other tubes. And so again, something as simple as that can save a ton of money.

Griffin Jones  20:56

And how about that third category? Those things that you definitely need, but they're commodities, you can find them from enough for a number of different vendors for a wide range of prices? How do you find the best price for those?

Dr. Mark Amols  21:08

I think one is, obviously you have to have a company where you can keep looking at you have to look at see if they have multiple companies that sell that product. Now, here's an example of drapes, the pads the patient's sit on. So we were buying a certain size, but they were kind of too big. And I found if I just get a size, it was like two inches smaller, we see it like half the amount. This is like little things like that, and always ask them the question of do we need that, we obviously need the purpose of protecting the patient so that you know, but not sitting on a drape. But if it's falling over the sides, well you can wear when there's two inches smaller. And now you see a cat and mouse like little things like that that we look at. One was a male stands we used to use Mayo stands all times when you do surgery thing called Mayo stand up, put up a sterile drape over and then that way it protects anything on which you obviously want to have is sterile. But then one day I was I was wondering why why are we putting a male stand that we put a sterile thing on top of already when we open up the instrument. So instead, what we did is we took our instruments by a slightly bigger kind of like the truth that we cleaned it with, put it on there, we opened it up, and now that becomes kind of our sterile drape. And we saw at the same benefit, as if we were being the man stamp, but we're paying a fraction of the cost. And again, we're not losing a sterility, everything's still the same is that we just use the drape that it came with that we have everything cleaned in sterile area. I think of other things where we've we've made some changes to sorry, is that there's a lot of things I mean, but you know, those are kind of some of the big examples of you know, things where we would just look at everything. Here's another one, I just thought one was a probe covers. So when you buy pro covers, if you buy them in bulk, you get a huge difference in costs. If you just buy like the 100 pack every time you pay a premium, but you can buy like 1000s of them in bulk, and they're clean. And then that way you just put those in into your rooms and then use those. So again, another place you can save a lot of money. I think the big question for speculums is you have to ask what what your volume is. So if you're only doing let's say, five a day, you're probably going to save more money than using something like a reusable one and just you know, clean them but that takes money cleaning those it takes a person cleaning them in a busy clinic like mine, that could never happen. You have to use disposable. And like if you use the common disposable, you'll pay a lot of money. So here's one I'll give away. This is a good one people really like so if you buy Welch Allen lighted speculums they're very expensive. The light that goes in them are very expensive. Everyone loses those all the time drives me nuts when my nurses there were some because they're like 300 bucks for those lights. The speculums themselves cost about once you about $5 Each speculum. So Henry Schein makes another version of it. But the problem is, it's a wired version. So the problem is you have to put a wire into it which is which is horrible. You want to have it you know portable. So there's a company that actually makes a little light that fits into the Henry Schein when I figured it out. And so we were able to buy all the lower cost Henry Schein lightest speculums and use a disposable light. So the best part about it is, is that if a man loses a light, it was just 10 bucks on that light. And the second thing is we reduced the cost by half of our speculums. Just another thing I found by researching things though, it's not always just the supplies you use, but also the time committed to it. So for example, like a Sano histogram, way most clinics I've seen do it, they by saline models, they pull the ceiling up into a 10 cc syringe. And then they go and they do their solo histogram pushing with the st lame. When we used to do it that way. We had to do solid histograms about every 15 minutes. And then I found prefilled syringes, and I thought well if they're more expensive, we're gonna pay more, but then we'll have to To time into it and said, How fast can I do it? We're using everything prefilled we end up doing them every eight minutes. And so again, one of the things you also look at is not just the cost of them, but you're also looking at, does it make it more efficient. So we switched over now completely to prefilled ceilings. And back to that thing where I said about the 10 CC's. So we were just buying 10 CC's for everyone. And then I went spoke to the nurses, I said, Well, how much do you use, they go, Oh, we only use about three or five. So then I went looked up and found out they make three or five milliliter ones, or those lower costs, and they were so at that point, okay, oh, by the lower cost ones. And the same thing with like propofol, people, when I got the better price, one of the things I found out was sometimes when they're given propofol, they open up a whole nother bottle for just a tiny bit. I thought, well, one of the really tiny bottles so that way, we don't waste so much medicine. And they did. So we bought those. And so then and this is all just these need a little bit more use smaller bar, which cost less. And so it's not always just about getting a different product, but finding out are these these little areas that you're not using so much, you know, and stuff like that is really how you do it, even on the pay what you do each ESGs for, there's several bottles, and you'll find that there's one bottle, it's about a third the cost. So so back to that fourth category. Yeah, you know, again, I think it depends on how you look at your clinic. And that's why I made that point. They were the biggest difference or clinic, we have, we have to have high quality, I feel like what good is do they have a lower cost, and you're just gonna have bad rates. And so the things that I feel like you can't come away from are some of the main products, you know, good incubators, you know, you really have to be up to date on their incubators, I think there is some adjustments you can make between them. But you know, I feel like, Sure, you can get a cheap pair cell incubator, but it's not gonna be the same quality as a benchtop incubator. Same thing with things like gases, you know, I would love to be able to use cheap gas. But you know, you're not able to if we're using mix gases, we, you know, we have to have it certified, that we did find another company again, for cost again. So we always are working on that. And we're even looking at now mixing our own gas to save money. But but the point is, you can't, you really can't do much, you know, now there is like, like I said, when it comes to medicines of it, you can't change that. There's nothing you can do the company. But when it comes to things like incubators, you know, we look at a lot of things, we buy a lot of them so we're able to get good deals. But there's really not a lot of like I said adjustment. I mean, other than when you want to be one of the top, you have to use some of the top stuff.

Griffin Jones  27:29

What about other costs, particularly related to your tech stack things like your EMR, your payroll, software, other software, your billing and scheduling software?

Dr. Mark Amols  27:38

So EMRs I feel they all suck. I don't think there's a good one. If anyone says they have a good one, I want to know about it. But I don't believe there are any good ones. So when I looked at I said, well, listen, there's no good ones, I'm just gonna go with something that gives me the fastest speed. So we went with a system called Dr. Chrono. And what's unique about it is is you can do the whole thing on the iPad. And it's very fast. It's not made for fertility, we're actually trying to make a component for for fertility. But so we went with that, but it's free, doesn't cost me anything. So my EMR costs nothing, they do my billing for me as well. And take the same fraction amount and take it from any other biller. So we just use a company, sometimes there's some things that are cheaper to do when you outsource until your volume gets high enough. So obviously, like a big company, like Pinnacle or CCRM, right, forgive them when they charge and stuff. But for smaller places, it's actually cheaper to just find the company that will do it, than hiring someone to do it. So we do all that outside. 

Griffin Jones  28:36

How do you approach paying for professional services? Things like business consulting, marketing, consulting, accounting, financial consulting, legal expertise? How do you pay for professional services or think about costs, like, associated for those?

Dr. Mark Amols  28:53

So because I like the business side, I do a lot of it myself. Honestly, I only have so much time in the day, I do have a CPA. So my CPA does all my bookkeeping does that. We do have a legal firm that we work with all the time if needed. Luckily, we don't have to use them a lot, except for all the expansion we're doing right now. And through the other cities, when it comes to financial stuff like that. I do a lot of that myself. We don't do much for marketing. Luckily, we're very fortunate that we don't have to, but I do do my own marketing when it comes to things like Facebook, my podcast.

Griffin Jones  29:25

My recommendation for professional services is to separate them into sporadic engagements whenever possible. So sometimes you need professional services for execution, some marketing services, some things that you might need for legal help in terms of drafting documents that are pretty easy to do here and there. Just the drafting part of it. I'm talking about things that you might need accounting services like bookkeeping, those ongoing things. Try to minimize those costs as inexpensive as you can and then be willing to pay for professional services as at a high hourly rate. That's something thing that I do now I charge at a higher hourly rate. And I could do packages and things, but that allows people to engage us at a rate that works for us because they're paying high by the hour, but also works for them because they don't have to lock it in every month. So go ahead, pay for expensive business consultants, expensive legal consultants, but try to separate that from the ongoing costs of monthly implementation when possible.

Dr. Mark Amols  30:25

Recurring costs are one thing that can kill a company. And so you know, you're hitting right on your right things like consultations, you don't need recurring forever, but it's worth getting the best when you do it. And usually, that does cost more. And you know, now that we're doing all this expansion, we use lawyers more. And so we've been looked at potentially going to have an in house lawyer, but again, recurring costs get expensive. And so I agree with you 100%. on them,

Griffin Jones  30:50

You're still independently owned, I sometimes see independently owned fertility practices having more leverage because of consolidation. Because there are fewer people to buy services, there is more emphasis on those buyers that remain. And so even if you're not the size of the networks, as an independently owned, Fertility Center, do you have more leverage, because everyone else is consolidated? And people have to make deals with those that remain? Or am I fantasizing too much about this? 

Dr. Mark Amols  31:23

You know, I think, again, comes back to that slide the man or thing, right, so if you have a clinic that's not using a lot, I mean, I don't know how they're gonna be able to really get best prices and things like that. I think clinics that do more, you give example I see and why and you see why it's humongous, or I'm in the summer, like 4000 retrievals a year, they're able to get the best pricing just as big as like a pinnacle or CCRM. You know, and so I think I would tell someone, if they're trying to do what I'm doing, is I think the most important part is explaining, show them your growth, right? If you can show growth every year and say less number grow in play in expanding, then you become kind of your own group, you know, Purchasing Group, and you say, Listen, every client I opened up, I'm gonna still order from you. And that helps it one of the things that you I think you and I spoke about one time is why not all the little guys teamed together and make one group you know, and then that way, we'll be our own Purchasing Group. I think it's a little bit fantasizing, I think, as a company, if I was a company, and symbol was so low, and they were doing a lot, I wouldn't give them lower prices, you know, because that's the only reason you're given the lower prices at the bigger companies is because of the volume they're doing. And it just wouldn't make financial sense to give it to someone who is using very

Griffin Jones  32:33

Giving us really specific examples. You've also given us a framework for practice owners to go through their own books and see how they can lower costs, how they can increase profit for themselves and ideally pass on a lot of those savings to patients. How would you like to conclude?

Dr. Mark Amols  32:52

If anyone's ever interested in learning about this, I mean, I don't try to hide at this you know, I'd love for everyone to make fertility more affordable. And I think there's always going to be those niche, you know, offices that offers you know, that one on one the whole time process with with a doctor and those are going to do great, but if anyone's ever interested, I'm more than happy to talk to you if they want some of the ideas. I have the reduced money costs, you know, on their overhead, more than happy to talk to you about but hopefully I was able to help some people.

Griffin Jones  33:20

Dr. Mark Amols, owner of New Direction Fertility in Arizona. Thank you very much for coming on Inside Reproductive Health and I look forward to having you back on for another topic very soon.

Dr. Mark Amols  33:31

I look forward to it.

Sponsor  33:33

You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.

185 How to Increase the Number of REI Fellow(ship)s. And some ideas for Funding with Dr. Rachel Weinerman


Everyone says we need more REI Fellows, but how do we get them?

In this episode, Dr. Rachel Weinerman sheds light on what is required to make more REI Fellowships and Fellowship Programs, and why those two solutions aren’t exactly the same. Dr. Weinerman talks about:

  • Creating REI fellowships: Exploring the steps in establishing robust REI fellowship programs.

  • REI fellowship funding and operation: What Medicare pays for vs what the institution pays for.

  • What an REI must do vs what another ‘IVF specialist’ can do

  • Specific resources that SREI and ASRM can contribute to Fellowship growth

  • ACGME’s role vs ABOG’s role in accreditation and certification

  • The limitations and scarcity of Privademic Partnerships


Dr. Rachel Weinerman’s LinkedIn
Company Website: uhhospitals.org

Transcript

Dr. Rachel Weinerman  00:00

So where are we now in 2023, we have comprehensive training programs that train OB GYN who are already fully trained OBGYN to become reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians. Now, I said reproductive endocrinology and portfolio positions. This is very different than training an IVF physician


Griffin Jones  00:28

Who the heck is going to pay for all this? Today we talk about Rei fellowship programs and Rei fellows answering those two questions because they're not exactly the same question. The question of how you get more Rei fellows isn't necessarily the exact same question as how you create more fellowship programs. But we do talk about both of those questions. My guest is Dr. Rachel Weinerman. Dr. Weinerman did her fellowship at Penn. She's been at university hospitals in the Cleveland area since 2015. She's been their program director for the fellowship program there since 2021. And she's got some ideas. First, I kind of poke at her for a little bit. And I make us spend some time on this question that we've talked about a lot on this show, which is what does an REI need to be doing versus what does the IVF specialist need to be doing? Because very often, we approach that question from the other way, the way we usually approach that question is how much Rei training does an IVF specialist need to have? So I tried to take that question from the other way. And I made us spend some time on it even though it isn't the main topic of this episode, because I wanted to try to isolate how important is the scarcity of REI fellows? If the volume question isn't at play, if technology solves for a big chunk of the volume question is the lack of Rei is still a problem. I wanted to isolate that and I think we did successfully then we started to get into the steps of setting up an REI fellowship starting with the roles what's a Boggs role, what's ACGME his role, we talked about ACGME rules. We talked about Medicare rules, we talked about what Medicare pays for not a lot. And then we talked about what the institution pays for. And that got us in more to the costs of running an REI fellowship program, the irei salary, their insurance, their mail, practice their benefits, paying for program coordinators, paying for other conferences, training capacitation and other professional development. Finally, we talked about who's going to pay for all this and what are some ideas ideas, including allow Rei fellows to perform those services for which they can build up to the capacity for which they're allowed to build national organizations like ASRM and Sri possibly contributing to a fund and things those national organizations can do beyond just funding like standardizing a didactic curriculum suggested rotations and we talk about this trend of private Demick partnerships, but also their limitations. Why have we only seen some of them and not an explosion of everyone doing them? Everyone seems to agree that we don't have enough Rei is coming out of fellowship, regardless of where they stand on how much Rei training they think IVF specialists need. I've never had anyone argue the opposite, that we have too many Rei fellows or that we don't need more if you do have that viewpoint, you're welcome on the show. But this is a problem that everyone seems to have consensus from that I can tell. And so I hope you enjoy Dr. Weinerman's insights on why this is happening and what we can do. Dr. Weinerman, Rachel, welcome to Inside reproductive health. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. You were a profile of person that I wanted to get to know that I am glad I've gotten to know this year because I really am interested in how the REI fellowship works, how we get more of them. What's necessary what's not necessary because I'm not a clinician I can't get I don't have a dog in this fight of that we should be training OBGYN to do A and Rei is don't need to be doing B I can't really opine. I can only facilitate the conversation and try to pull in as many points of view as I can. You are a bit more qualified to opine. And so I want to start with just let's start with the importance. What are the important things in your view that REI has learned in fellowship that can only be learned in Rei fellowship? 


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  04:05

Yeah, great question. And thank you for having me on the show. I want to start by saying that my opinions that I express are my own. I'm not representing any official organization within the world of Rei. I am program director. So that makes me I hope qualified to discuss this topic, but I'm really sharing my own opinions. So first of all, let's think about what is the history of REI training. So Rei fellowship has existed since the 1970s. When these evolved and adapted, you know, in 1974, when the first board exam was given in Rei IVF didn't exist. So what we've done in training our REI has obviously evolved in the last 40 plus years. So where are we now in 2023. We have comprehensive training programs that train OB GYN who are already fully trained obyns. To become reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians. Now, I said reproductive endocrinology and fertility positions. This is very different than training an IVF physician. Because what we're trying to accomplish in an REI fellowship is to train subspecialty physicians who are experts in reproduction, who can serve as consultants to general OBGYN and other physicians, and who can provide comprehensive clinical care and infertility and other reproductive disorders, as well as innovate and move the field forward. So that we are constantly improving our knowledge and what we can do for our patients started. That's the overview of how we frame our fellowship training. And I think that really informs what we do in a fellowship. 


Griffin Jones  05:48

So how much of a rabbit hole do I want to go down? Now? I guess I will touch it a little bit that where someone who is doing IVF doesn't necessarily need to be in Rei, are you simply making the distinction that Rei is a lot more involved than just IVF? 


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  06:03

I would say the latter. I think that currently the way that we structure IVF practice in this country, and we can discuss whether that's going to change the future or not, in order to practice IVF, with the full depth of the field, you have to be trained as an RBI physician, and ri physician doesn't just do IVF. But the knowledge that you get the depth of experience that you get informs your ability to provide proper care in IVF. To put it up maybe a little bit more specifically, the way that I train my fellows. I want them to be able to be creative, and how they provide IVs care, I really don't want them to practice algorithmic medicine. And in order to do that, you have to understand the basic physiology, you have to understand what's happening at a molecular and cellular level, in order to make decisions that best account for the information that you're getting in real time.


Griffin Jones  07:03

 Is that at odds with an operational scaling system, I had one guest, a CEO from a fertility network in India that that that episode will almost certainly have aired before this one does. And he was speaking about their network has one set of protocols, there's one protocol per patient profile, and they have 250 physicians. Now there isn't an REI fellowship in India. So these are OBGYN physicians, but they have 250 in their network, and they're all practicing from one set of protocols. And I said, I have worked with two Doctor Rei groups in the US that have different sets of protocols. And so is what you're saying where you don't want your Rei is necessarily practicing algorithmic medicine. Is that odd with a scale of operations of something like having one set of protocols?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  08:05

That's an excellent question. And I think this gets to one of the biggest questions within medicine is do you practice based on what we call standards or algorithms? Or do you practice based on individualization? And I think that in America, we have excellent outcomes. And IBM, obviously, they couldn't always get better. And what accounts for our excellence? Well, there's many, I would say many things. But I think one of them is our ability to provide high quality of individualized care. Now, that's different, right? In large practices versus smaller practices. And you might say that large practices do have more of a focus on standardization, which is another word for algorithm. But when you have physicians that have that in depth training, they can pin it. So the way that I tell my fellows is, you can do the first cycle as an algorithm. Right, but in that first cycle is successful. Great. But if that first cycle is not successful, what's going to be your next step? How are you going to pivot and change your treatment plan to account for what happened in that cycle? And that that's very difficult to create algorithms that account for each situation that you might encounter.


Griffin Jones  09:14

So that's on the side of, of how much RTI training should IVF specialists be able to have or at least be involved in? How much else should RBIs be doing beyond? IVF? So I'm thinking of the question this wave, when we have David Stabler and a number of others, I will say we're doing about 200 250,000 IVF cycles in the US we need to be doing somewhere around 2 million perhaps more than that. And, and so that is to suggest that we need more IVF being done, but if there are other ways of being able to scale IVF what else should RBIs be doing beyond IVF?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  09:59

That is Excellent question. I don't think I have all of the answers to the scalability question, because I think that that might entail a significant reimagining of how we provide care. So I think that's an excellent question. I don't think I have a very specific answer to it. Because I think it's a really philosophical debate about how do you provide infertility services and IVF. Specifically, what a reproductive endocrinologist is trained to do, and we were able to do after fellowship is provide comprehensive care. So that means that if a woman comes with irregular periods, with abnormal reproductive hormones, with fibroids with malaria, and abnormalities, all of those can be addressed in a way that allows her to proceed with her reproductive goals. So that is what every doctor of endocrinologist can do. Can that be broken up from IVF? Again, I don't know the answer to that question specifically, but you can't provide full comprehensive infertility care without those additional areas.


Griffin Jones  11:05

What distinguishes our AI train doctors from other physicians in the field of infertility?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  11:14

Yeah, great question. So I'm going to assume that what you mean by other infertility physicians are OBGYN,


Griffin Jones  11:21

OBGYNs are, yeah, almost almost certainly OB GYN 's or I guess, advanced practice providers working with OB GYN.


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  11:28

Right. So those are two different categories. So advanced practice providers typically have two years of schooling, after college, and then they don't have any formal clinical training after they graduate their program. So a lot of knowledge gained by advanced practice providers is going to be in the clinical setting on the job, what you might think of as an apprenticeship. And they are trained for the clinical work that they'll be doing, but specifically by who they're working with. So that might their practice styles may change. And then the depth of knowledge that they have is obviously different. And OB GYN will have completed four years of medical school and a four year residency in OB GYN and they they have you know, significant more depth of knowledge, their experience in Rei specifically, may be more limited. Most OB GYN residencies require at least a month of REI training, but sometimes it's only a month. So that's, you know, they obviously have that expertise in many areas with an OBGYN, but they may not have that depth of knowledge to be able to practice infertility and a lot of that learning that would require that would be necessary if they were to practice infertility would have to come after training,


Griffin Jones  12:37

I'm thinking there's a few Fertility Center practice owners that I can think of that were sort of grandfathered in prior to fellowship requirements that never had an REI fellowship. And then there are others that I can think of that work in fertility practices they work with and under an REI in many cases in they have for years, but they never had a fellowship. And and so I don't believe that they're board certified because you need you need the fellowship in order to take the boards, right. You can't.


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  13:07

Yeah, so I can go over that in more detail for you.  Yeah, this question of okay, you have some Doc's that were grandfathered in. And you have other Doc's that maybe they weren't grandfathered in. They're still working with REIs, but they've been doing it for 15 years. And so what does an REI fellow What does someone gain in Rei fellowship that they might not have gained? Well, first of all, is a great question. We do have doctors who are grandfathered in, I would say many of them are older, you know, pre board certification for i o that that is tend to be phased out. You know, 15 years is a lot of experience. I would say a lot of OB GYN working now may not have that length of experience going into an infertility practice. But let's talk for a minute about what Rei fellows do do and fellowship. Currently, fellowship is three years in the past used to be two years, there's some discussion about whether that link should change. Fellows are they do at least 18 months of clinical rotations, that includes training in infertility and what we call a RT, not just IVF. They do surgery. They do genetics, they do male infertility, endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, and increasingly spending time in the IVF laboratory learning IVF techniques, then they spend at least 12 months doing research. And that research culminates in a thesis called a scholarly thesis that has to be presented. And it represents a significant scientific effort, which demonstrates knowledge not only of the scientific literature on the scientific method, but how to critically appraise what is happening in the world of scientific knowledge and Rei, and how did you innovate in that field that demonstrated by doing that type of project, and then they typically also have six months of electives, which can be individualized to the fellow and their and their training requirements. So that's The overview of what they do in order to then actually practice within the field of REI, they have to take a an exam from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, it's actually two, they take a written exam called the qualifying exam. And then they take an oral exam, which is the certifying exam. after they graduate, they collect cases for 12 months, and submit their case list along with their thesis in order to sit for the exam. And then they take the exam, which is a three hour oral exam.  So there is a breath that people are learning in the REI fellowship program. And that takes me back to the question of what else should always be doing and I thought of a different way of asking the question. So if we're doing 250,000, IVF cycles or so we should be with 1200 RBIs. And plus probably some others, because that almost certainly includes OBGYN who are part of that process. But let's just say we've got 1200 RBIs in in the country right now doing 250,000 cycles. If with technology with training other Doc's and other positions, massive operational improvements in the next 10 years, we are doing 2 million IVF cycles from 1200, RBIs, or even fewer. What I'm saying is right now a lot of the argument for increasing the number our very eyes is because we need to to meet the demand, let's just pretend that we can meet the demand with with the improvements that happen over the next 10 years. Do we still need more REIs, then if we're if we're seeing if we can meet the IVF demand? Do we still need more areas? And if so, what for? So I would I would answer with a resounding yes. I think we need more. And I think what I'm when I'm describing about Rei fellowship, and the intensity of fellowship and the value of fellowship, doesn't change the fact that we don't have enough REIs. And we can talk a little bit about some of those impediments. Why we don't have as many Ira fellowships as we do, how do we train more Rei fellows. In the end, in order to practice quality medicine, you need more REIs, even if those Rei are supervising they advanced practice providers or other physicians that may not have Rei specialty training, in order to scale up as significantly as you're describing, you would still need more REIs in those roles, they may not be always providing the direct care, like they may be supervising other providers. And I would say that that's an appropriate role. But if you don't have an REI involved in that supervision, then likely the quality of care will not be what we want it to be. And the innovations won't occur.


Griffin Jones  17:41

Is there anything else beyond supervising IV? Is there more research that needs to be done? Is there more? Are there other areas of medicine that era is should start to be? I guess I don't know what the word would be cross discipline with is beyond supervising to meet that scale? What other responsibilities should the REI take on if AI and all of these other technologies and systems do in fact, and I understand it's a big caveat. But Fiat that may for a moment, and what else should they be doing?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  18:15

So let me put it this way. There's a debate within the world of REI as to how much that II shouldn't be there. Right. Rei is reproductive endocrinology and infertility. How much should the REI focus be on endocrinology. That's historically what the field was, again before IVF existed, you know a large role that that the RBI had was in managing hormones. Now we still do. But that looks different now that we have AR t as a huge component of what we do. So should that E be replaced with for example, a G for genetics, a lot of what we do now is involves very complex genetic information, both from the perspective of the patient and the patient's partner, and from the perspective of the embryo. And the information that we're getting is, is enormous, it's complex, and it's changing. So to be able to adapt to care for patients in this changing environment, that is an area of focus that Rei might consider in the future. The other question is gynecologic surgery. And that historically has been a very important part of what Rei is do and is still a very important need. There are many patients whose fertility needs cannot be solved with AR T alone. They need surgery in order to be able to accomplish a successful pregnancy. And that historically has been the role of Rei. There are now more widely invasive surgeons within the world of GYN who do some of that surgery. That I would say is an open debate. There's many different opinions. I personally work at an institution that is very surgical heavy, and we are able to provide that type of comprehensive care for our patients. So let's say what else could REI be doing? I would say those are two areas that I would say we have to think about how much we want REI involvement. And then I would say what you mentioned about research is extremely important. I use the word innovation before. And I think that, to me, research is a prerequisite for innovation. If you don't have people trained in being able to perform research, and assimilating all of these types of complex data, you will not see innovation in the future, you will not see improvements in pregnancy rates, you will not see improvements in the what we are able to provide, I don't know what IVF is going to look like 40 years from now, I hope it looks very different than what we're doing. Now, I always tell my patients, you know, I have to give them the option of donor egg, for example, now, because they don't have, you know, any egg reserves to be able to get successful autologous IVF, I hope that's different, you know, by the time I retire.


Griffin Jones  20:57

the reason I kept poking at that is because I said, this kind of Nexus where there's a lot of venture capitalists and private equity people, as well as fertility practice owners and doctors. And so and and see them come together, and I see them having conversations, a part of one of the conversations that is coming from the doctor, and is well, what do we do if AI is really able to scale us up to this level? If, if other doctors are able to do these procedures, if we're able to use technology and systems to answer a big chunk of the volume question, then what is it else that we do? And and so where your mind went with that is, is the answer that I've been looking for it to that is because there's going to be something for you all, I try to tell the REIs don't freak out, it's just going to be, it's going to be different, I think you're going to be doing just fine, no matter what happens, but I think it will be very different to 10 or 20 years from now. And I'm neither a clinician nor a futurist. So I have to pull it out of I have to make people like you speculate in order to try to paint a picture, in that you started to talk a little bit about why we don't have enough programs. And I in my view, I'd say we we don't have enough. We recently inside reproductive health wrote an article, the journalist interviewed you. She also pulled up some numbers on the number of programs. And I think the according to the National Resident Matching Program, there were 49 Open fellowship positions in 2022. And I want to say that was like from 41 rei fellowship programs, according to that same that that same national Resident Matching Program, so why isn't enough? Why isn't it enough? Why don't we have more?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  22:42

Excellent question. I don't think I have all the answers. Do you know why? Why don't we have more, but I can begin to explain from our perspective now. Maybe you know what some of those answers are? I would say that the answer your first question is we do not have enough. And I think that is that is a consensus, I would say among most RBIs we need to be training more fellows to be able to provide high quality, fertility services and our guy services in the future. Why don't we have enough? So let's start with a little bit about how Fellowships are structured, who pays for them? And I think that might answer some of the questions. So first of all, infertility Fellowships are under the rubric of what's called the ACGME, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and a bog, which is the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. So with our long names, but essentially ACGME accredits programs, you know, allows them to function and then fellows are certified by a bar. So those are the two organizations that are in charge. In order to be an ACGME approved fellowship. There are a lot of requirements. In fact, there are I just looked at the program requirements before our session today, there is a 56 page document of everything that a program has to do to have a Rei fellowship. That includes being under the rubric of a sponsoring institution that has an OBGYN residency. So you can't have a fellowship without being embedded in an OB GYN residency, which is essentially most likely either an academic institution or a large institution that can sponsor that. And you need to have a program director who has dedicated time program coordinators who have dedicated time you have to have ancillary services in many other specialties. Medical endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, genetics, male infertility, full operating room, full hospital privileges, access to the medical literature, I mean, the list goes on. So you can imagine that this is not an easy thing for lots of institutions to do. And it takes about two years to get a fellowship up and running. And then the second question that I I alluded to was, who pays for this? Because it's expensive to run an REI fellowship fellows typically costs somewhere between 100 and $150,000 a year. Some of that money comes from Medicare, actually, Medicare pays through direct and indirect funding to hospitals. But the number of fellows or residents that can be paid for through Medicare is actually capped. And those numbers are capped based on 1997 Trainee levels. So it's very difficult to get funding from Medicare for a new fellowship. And so often, that funding comes from the sponsoring institution, whether it's the hospital or or practice. And it makes it challenging because fellows actually can't bill for their time. So your training fellow, but that fellow is not going to make you money in the short term, because fellows have to be supervised, and you can only really bill for the time spent by the attending physician. So they're not making you money, you're spending money on them. It's an investment, but it's not an investment that everyone can do. So I'd say the combination of the logistics of running a program and getting it off the ground, the requirements, which are significant in terms of what the ACGME asked for in a program, and then how to pay for fellowships are some of the contributing factors. 


Griffin Jones  26:12

And when you say it's an investment to train fellow fellows when they can't build for time, it's an investment but very often it's an investment for someone else, isn't it? Right? You are you're the one training them but in many cases, they're gonna go work for someone else, you're gonna go move to whatever part of the country they want it to go to, or people do stay where they went to fellowship sometimes and there is perhaps an increase happening. I don't as we see more of the of the private academic partnerships, but of people staying at least within that organization, maybe I suspect that there is is the limitation in not being able to have more private partnerships that the reason I asked is because when you say that they have to, you know, they have to have an OBGYN residency well, almost every teaching hospital does now I am I you know, I think at the University of Buffalo I think of places like Stony Brook Binghamton and University of Arizona, Arizona state. They all have medical schools and and OBGYN residency. So I believe almost every place that that does, that has a teaching hospital has an OBGYN residency program. Right. So it seems like there's still a whole there's still a whole pool in that group that could qualify. Is it that people that don't have that partnership with an academic institution that can't bring on a fellowship program for that reason? Is that the limitation?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  27:42

It's one of them. So yes, there are many OB GYN programs out there that do not have attached ROI scholarships. I mean, right. There's only 49 fellowships, there's a lot more OB GYN residency. But if you are a very high volume, private practice, and you you think, hey, I need more Cielos let me open up my own fellowship so that I can train fellows, have them stay on hopefully, in my practice and build my practice that way, you then have to seek out an institution that has an OBGYN residency to partner with, in order to accomplish that,


Griffin Jones  28:15

how much infrastructure is required for that? Because I can think of smaller practices, maybe two to four RBIs that are in the backyards of a lot of these, these hospital systems or medical school, they do have OBGYN residencies, why can't they it seems to just be right now be the larger institution. Can you talk to us a little bit more about what else would go into the infrastructure that would stop a smaller practice group from linking up with a hospital system?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  28:43

Well, I think that if you have willing partners, you can do it. I don't think that there's a lot of hurdles necessarily to a smaller practice looking at what the bigger hospital system, if there's a willingness on both sides, you know, the hospital then may want their residents to rotate with that practice. And by the way, every OBGYN residency program has to have a relationship with an infertility or Rei division, because it is a requirement of their OB joining residents to rotate on Rei. So I'd say most OBGYN residency programs do have a relationship in some form, with an REI program, you know, either whether it be IVF or an academic Rei division. So I don't know that that's necessarily the hurdle. I think the hurdle is that it takes time to to train fellows, it takes time to set up the fellowship, it takes time to run the fellowship. And there's not a lot of financial incentive for that practice to to pay for that fellowship, unless they know that they are going to be successful in recruiting and retaining their fellows. And in the past, you know, that was actually I would say a negative right people didn't want to retain fellows there was not a not enough spots. They didn't want to train their competition. Now obviously, we're in a slightly different, significantly different situation. So maybe we just need to catch up to that. But I think that the amount of time and the amount of money invested is an impediment to small practices, who may not be able to devote those resources.


Griffin Jones  30:10

Do you think I'm making you think on the spot because I'm just hatching this idea in my brain right now. But the debate that goes back and forth about how much OB GYN should be allowed to do versus how much RBI should be able to do if you were allowed to bill for fellows because OBGYN 's were allowed to do, and there's certain parts of the procedure or they were allowed to bill at the same rate, or I'm, that's beyond my paygrade of the knowledge that I have in that area. But if that were, if it were the case that OB GYN 's were able to build more at what our eyes are able to maybe they are already, but if that were the case, would that then allow for fellowship programs to bill for Rei fellows, has that ever been discussed? And might not thinking of something else? Is there something unethical in there that I'm missing? 


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  31:06

So great question. And no, it is not unreasonable to think about, in fact, one of the challenges that we have now within REI fellowships is we have to think creatively about how to get more fellows thoughts out the most fellowships in the country probably have the capacity to train more fellows, and they're currently training. So I know that's true. In my fellowship, I trained one fellows a year, I could easily train two fellows a year, you know, double the number of fellows that I'm training, I could probably even train more than that, you know, based on the volume that we do in both Rei work IVF work and surgery. The main reason I can't Well, there's two, one, you have to get approval from the ACGME. But assuming that you can do that, it's the it's the funding, how do you pay for those extra fellows? So that's something that we are, everyone I think is thinking about that now I'm thinking about it, there is one slight impediment to what you're discussing, which is the regulations that govern what an ACGME approved fellow can do. So within an OB GYN fellowship, like REI, cellos, can bill independently for four hours a week and their primary specialty. So a fellow could do GYN clinic, pap smears, you know, irregular bleeding, anything that is restricted or not part of REI training, they can do for four hours a week. And so there, I think that is an idea is to have fellows Bill independently during that time, and then not be enough actually to pay at least part of a salary salary for all of our fellow sellers. So I would say that yes, that is a that is a good idea. There are some limitations to it. But if done well, in a way that is respectful of what the fellow is there to do, which is to be trained, that that might be a way to allow more fellowships to have additional fellows or to allow new fellowships to start


Griffin Jones  32:54

that up to four weeks in the specialty that they are already board certified in, that they're allowed to bill for? Is that too much of a distraction to their current fellowship? Would that take them away from what they're supposed to be training for in the first place?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  33:10

Right, so So four hours per week, just to be just to be clear on that. It's what the ACGME specifies. Now, I mean, that's, I guess, a philosophical question. Personally, I think that if, if you're allowing more OB GYN to train as Rei Sallows, I think that half a day a week is reasonable. So I think it probably would not detract significantly from the fellowship, and I think it would allow more fellows to be trained. So I think that's, that is an idea that, you know, I'm thinking about incorporating into my own fellowship.


Griffin Jones  33:40

So it's ACGME that makes the ruling that fellows are not able to bill for the subspecialty that they're training for is that


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  33:50

it's actually it's it's Medicare rules. So because Medicare is paying for, for resident and fellows, we called trainees then they can set guidelines in terms of what fellows can and residents can build.


Griffin Jones  34:04

And this is true for all fellowships as gufram I found this is true for fellowships outside of OBGYN is


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  34:10

correct. This is true for all residents and fellows in the country that are under the auspices of ACGME. Now, what ACGME specifies for Rei specifically, is how many hours an REI fellow can work in OB GYN, what they call their primary specialty.


Griffin Jones  34:26

So I've never actually compared the lack of fellowships and our view to that of other fields is every subspecialty or almost every subspecialty having an issue where they feel that they're not able to produce enough fellowship programs or trained enough fellows per fellowship program or as this how unique is this to REI?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  34:48

I think it is somewhat unique to REI, and there are you know, most other specialties outside of OB GYN have larger fellowships, you know they might train five fellows a year eight bells a year are fellowships were set up in the beginning, almost more like apprenticeships and so having one fallow became the norm. You know, for each program, it was not necessarily the case for other fellowships outside of OB GYN within OB GYN. It is it is more similar in the sense that most OB GYN fellowships don't have more than one or two, maybe three per year at most institutions. But the number of MSN fellowships, GYN oncology fellowships, female pelvic medicine, fellowships, have all increased much more significantly than the number of REI fellowships.


Griffin Jones  35:35

The reason I asked is because perhaps if this was more endemic to all fellowships, then there would be more likelihood of perhaps Medicare adapting rules set, maybe you could bill partially for whatever it might be, but it's less likely to see any type of change from Medicare, if it's just the field of REI, or only a handful of fields that are having this challenge. So can you talk to us a little bit about the specific costs and probably by the time this episode airs, we we will have aired a or we will have ran another article where the same journalist did it follow up follow up to the to the first article talking about setting up Rei fellowship programs. And it was very difficult for the journalists to to button down some costs. And we had some quotes from your colleagues to talk about a little bit of what goes in to the variables of those costs. But try to walk us through that as best you can. Variables be damned.


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  36:33

Right. So I would say first of all fellows, you know, they don't make a huge salary, you know, especially given the level of training, what they could be making, if they were, you know, at working in independent practice after they graduate from an OBGYN residency program. But typical fellows salaries, probably somewhere around $75,000 a year. So that's a direct costs, then you have the cost of benefits, you know, health insurance malpractice, which is paid for by the institution, you have costs associated with the program, for example, you know, paying for the program directors time and the program coordinators time, there are resources that you need in order to have that program such as access to the medical literature. So if you're in a big institution, academic institution, which you know, a lot of programs are, then that's not necessarily a problem. But if you're in a smaller institution, that might be at an additional costs. And then you have the cost of a fellow education. So you, you know, you are paying for fellows to go to conferences, you may be paying for your fellows to get a master's degree in clinical research or translational research or public health that you know, includes tuition. And then you are also paying for additional educational resources for your fellow. So obviously, that's how the costs can add up to, you know, over $100,000.


Griffin Jones  37:50

And so, in, in your view, what do we need to do in order to be it are the things that can be done right now to get more fellowships? Online? Does it all lie with the institution having to figure out a way to pay for it? Are there other things that we can do right now to get more fellowships online?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  38:13

Yeah, great question. So I would say, again, this is my personal opinion, but I think that in order to get more fellows, right, which is different than more fellowships, I think that we need to think creatively about how to pay for fellowship. And I think that one of the, we talked about one of the ideas, you know, having sponsorships by you know, national infertility organizations or private organizations, to fund individual fellows or individual fellowships would also be, you know, a great way to immediately get more fellows how to get more fellowships, is to lower the hurdle for entry. Now, that has to be done in a very conscientious way. Because if you're lowering the hurdle, you know, significantly, everything that we talked about, for why Rei fellows are trained in a way that is unique and important for the field are not going to exist. So you have to lower the hurdle in a way that maintains the quality of the education. And that can be done by you know, for example, saying that we are going to provide resources for program directors to you know, maybe have a way of submitting their application without spending hours of their time reinventing the wheel. It might need, you know, lowering the the administrative burden, which the ACGME is already already working on. It could also mean providing standardized resources from national organizations that can be almost like a toolkit. Here's how you start an REI fellowship. Here's a didactic curriculum. You know, here are some common rotation goals. So that way someone can say, okay, great. I want to start an IRA fellowship. Here's how I do it. I think that that's a big challenge right now. And I think that making a more systematized way that we can provide support for organizations to start a fellowship, in addition to financial resources, I think would be very important. And we could do that soon. We could do that and probably increase the number of fellows immediately fellowship, like I said, takes about two years once you apply in order to actually see that come to life,


Griffin Jones  40:18

when you mention national organizations, are you referring to the ASRM? SREI, Who who are you referring to?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  40:26

I would say those are, those are prime examples of who could provide that oversight. SREI is a national organization that provides oversight for the fellows. So I think SREI is a great organization that can help with some of these proposals that I'm suggesting, which are more, you know, a more standardized approach to starting a fellowship or the resources to run the fellowship.


Griffin Jones  40:47

And so when you say, so if they were to include if they were to help pay for some of these resources and pay for more fellows to come in? Many of those organizations get some of their funding from sponsors. Is there any kind of legal framework that you're aware of that would prohibit let's say, ASRM starting a larger fund for to contribute to more fellowship programs, if it was funded by pharmaceutical companies or genetic testing companies or, or others? Is there anything that prohibits that?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  41:21

Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an expert in that area? So I would probably defer to somebody from a theorem or Sri to answer that question.


Griffin Jones  41:28

I'll save that question for next time. I have Dr. Robbins on the show as the first first question he's getting ambushed with next time. So and when you talk about having more fellows per fellowship program, you said you could easily do two a year perhaps even more than that. You said that ACGME first needs to approve that how how hard is that is the only reason why people aren't doing more of that right now, because of the cost or are there other hurdles that AC ACGME puts forth? Other than cost to say, No, you can only have one fellow per year?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  42:07

Yeah, I would say both, I would say probably the main impediment is, but there are significant challenges to trying to increase the we call the complement of fellows. The ACGME wants you to demonstrate that you have sufficient clinical resources and research infrastructure to train that additional fellow men, sometimes they can be picky. So you may think that you have the capacity to train additional fellows, the ACGME might not agree. So I think that is that is a challenge for some fellowships. You know, that's something that we could advocate for, you know, within the field of REI, but I would say that that that probably the answer is both.


Griffin Jones  42:41

Well, you've walked us through quite a bit about how fellowship program gets off the ground, what we could do to get more Rei fellows and more Rei fellowship programs, viewing them as part of the same problem, but two different questions. How would you like to conclude on this issue?


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  43:00

I would say that you're asking an excellent question at a very relevant, I think we are at a crossroads in the field of our AI, we know that the demand for what we will be doing is going to be increasing exponentially. We know that there are challenges that come with that type of growth. And we know that there are going to be many different changes both in terms of technology and in terms of who provides care. I think at the heart, being an REI physician means that you have significant understanding of the reproductive system, and are able to implement changes in innovation and how they provide infertility services. I don't think the role of the REI is ever going to go away. I think that we just need to work very creatively to expand the number of fellows that we're training without sacrificing that level of training, and incorporate Rei trained physicians into a larger team in order to provide excellent care for our patients and hopefully adapt to the needs of the future.


Griffin Jones  44:02

Dr. Rachel winderman REI Fellowship Program Director at University Hospitals, thank you very much for coming on inside reproductive health.


Dr. Rachel Weinerman  44:09

Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure being here.


Sponsor  44:12

You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to inside reproductive health

183 One Set Of Protocols For 250 Fertility Doctors; Featuring Dr. Kshitiz Murdia, CEO of Indira IVF



Some practices can’t get two fertility doctors to agree on a set of protocols.  How about >250 physicians?

Dr. Kshitiz Murdia, CEO of Indira IVF discusses the enormous growth of the Indira network in India, how their approach to IVF practice management differs from the US’, and how they tackled massive obstacles (such as patient education)  along the way.

Listen to hear:

  • Indira’s massive marketing and awareness programs.

  • How to transition out of your clinical role, to a director role, and finally, CEO.

  • The due diligence regarding private equity groups that took place before the majority stake sale of the company.

  • How Dr. Murdia got out of the ‘conributor seat’ and into the seats of integrator and visionary.

  • About the standard operating procedures Dr. Murdia and his team built, and the training and management system that backs them up.

  • Griffin press if standardization in protocols is antithetical to individualized care.

Indira IVF Hospital Pvt Ltd Website: www.Indiraivf.com

Transcript

Kshitiz Murdia  00:00

it was our responsibility to ensure that we have similar protocols similar outcomes across all the doctors because one patient could be meeting two or three doctors in the clinic and different points of time during the same cycle and the protocols should not differ the language that they speak should not differ.


Griffin Jones  00:24

250 fertility doctors 50 IVF labs 60 to 70 satellite offices 27 to 20,000 employees did I get that right? These are my notes from my conversation with the CEO of Indira IVF, one of the largest fertility clinic networks in India. His name is Dr. Kshitiz Murdia.  He joined Indira IVF as the second physician in 2010 2011. By 2014, they had 50 locations. We talked about that process first starting with a massive marketing machine doing awareness camps across the country to generate awareness for infertility and fertility solutions. And then for their practice, we'll talk about how after three to four years, Dr. Murdia has stepped out of his clinical role and then transition to CEO first as medical director and then when they sold part of their company, or maybe a majority stake of their company, to ta associates becoming CEO, and the due diligence process with private equity groups before that, that gave him that financial and HR and marketing ops background education. I think this is a really good example. For those of you Doc's that I've talked about when I've pointed the accountability chart before and lots of articles that I've written, I talked about the entrepreneur operating system, and how many of you practice owners are in multiple seats. In the visionary seat, you're in the integrator seat, you're in different seats as contributors in physicians, you're in different management seats as medical directors seems to me that Dr. Murdia has done this, as well as anyone has of getting out of those contributor seats and moving into if not the visionary and integrator seat, the visionary seat, I think really behooves you to pay attention to how he did that in terms of building standard operating procedures, his process for building standard operating procedures in different areas and the training management system that backs up those SOPs, we spend a lot of time talking about creating one way of doing things proven way of doing things, having a training system, hiring management, and not just building the airplane as you're flying it and do IVF is apparently done this so much so that with 250, fertility doctors in counting, they have one set of protocols. There's one protocol for each patient type. I tried to play devil's advocate for you because I could see that driving some of you crazy, but I think the variance in protocols is an issue of scalability in fertility clinic operations, I can't vet whether that's necessary or how necessary it is, but Dr. Murdia responds to it. This is a very large operation that in 2019 ended up selling to ta associates the private equity firm that had owned CCRM and they have a massive HR and operational infrastructure behind them. Dr. Maria details that in this episode, so I hope you enjoy it. Dr. Murdia, Kshitiz Welcome to Inside reproductive health.


Kshitiz Murdia  03:19

Thank you Griffin. Thank you for having me on this show.


Griffin Jones  03:22

I promised my audience that I was going to cover more of the IVF market in India this year, we have you know, the third guests that we've had in 2023 to talk about the Indian IVF market because it seems to be expanding like no other market right now. At least I see. It seems everyone that's quote unquote, industry side, if you look in their LinkedIn profile, there's a picture of them visiting India, there's a picture that I'm talking about their company expanding in India, whether it's a genetics company, or a software company, or one of the pharmaceutical companies and, and so there seems to be a lot of activity, and we'd like to talk about that activity. I'd like to talk more about the present in the future. But in order to talk about the present in the future, I'd like to just talk a little bit about your enterprise in dira IVF. And, and how that got started. And can you give us a little brief history and where you are today?


Kshitiz Murdia  04:18

Yeah. So Griffin in Dr. We have started the routes are started in 1970s 1980. When our chairman Dr. Jim odia, he published his first paper on male infertility, which was published in The Lancet incidentally, in the same issue when the first test tube baby was reported by step two and Edwards back in August 1978. Since then, he has been very active, but particularly on the male side of infertility, because that time it was a big social stigma and a taboo, that males also could be responsible for fertility and everybody would put forward the female for checkups for investigation and the other things. So to bring that concept back in nine Getting a deal and especially in a country like India, it was a big, big problem statement, I would say, to talk about male infertility to ask the male partners to come forward for investigation. So he took this great step, I would say back then, and he's been practicing from 1980s. And then he started his own clinic in 1988, primarily focused on male infertility made diagnostics. You established his one of the first sperm banks in the country in India, where Neil's suffering from a zero sperm count could benefit. I am a gynecologist. I joined him in 2010 2011. That's when we revamped the whole setup, started doing IVF for the first time, in one small town in western part of the country, which is the poor, it's a very beautiful city, I would say I mean, a lot of tourists. So we revamped the setup, we started doing fertility surgeries, we started doing IVF for the first time, back in 2010, my brother, he joined me as an embryologist. And then we used to be home combined jointly, all three of us used to practice from 2010 to 2014, we were pretty much limited one center that we started back in the bowl with the western part of the country. And then we soon realized that there is a lot of awareness gap in the country that people are not aware about the scientific practices. So we should go out to people, we should organize these pre patient awareness camps, run a campaign in the country, educate more and more people about what fertility issues are, what is the medical scientific treatment, how much it could cost, how much days of treatment it might take. And we started taking these awareness camps. And then I think I think in the last one decade, we must have taken more than 2500 camps educated more than 70,000 couples about infertility. And that's what set up the route for our brand, I would say because we now proudly say that we are the we are the only b2c brand of IVF in the country, which is directly to consumers. And it's all started because of these awareness camps that we established long back, I think the second biggest challenge in front of us was around affordability. Because all said and done IVF might be cheaper, in some sense in the country in India compared to the Western world. But if you compare the disposable income of of the people here, for for an average middle class income, it could be, you know, a year or two years of their salary that they would have to spend, and it's all out of pocket, nothing is covered by insurance. So I think the second major challenge for us, apart from increasing awareness was around affordability, how can we make the whole treatment very much affordable. And then the third challenge in the country was around accessibility, because majority of these IVF centers were situated in the metro cities or the bigger towns, and then, you know, people would have to travel all the way stay there. It's a longest treatment, two or three visits, spanning over three months. So again, it was a big, big challenge. So we started opening out clinics in other parts of the country. So the idea from our side was you go to the patients and explain them open a good quality clinic with a better outcomes near to their locality. And that's how we started expanding. So 2014 was our first center outside the base location with paper, which was in Pune, which is in Maharashtra. After that from 2014 to 2018. We were at 50 centers 2018 to 22. We were at 100 centers. And we quickly adopted the hub and spoke model where we said we can't go to the smaller towns and villages with the whole stack of the bigger fertility hospital, let us do something which is a smaller capex a smaller model, which we can also go into the smaller towns and villages are lesser investment I would say. But at the same time ensuring that 70 to 80% of the IVF treatment is being carried out at that one sector and that smaller spool and then only for the critical operative procedures for a day or two days or three days maximum. The patient would have to travel all the way to the hub are the main center. So I think accessibility was a key thing that we quickly addressed back in 2015 16. And then we started having these folks also in the smaller cities


Griffin Jones  09:41

was it retrievals and transfers that were done at the hub and everything else was done at the spoke all the testing the monitoring the console that was all done at the the satellite offices,


Kshitiz Murdia  09:55

so we would have a full time gynecologist working at the spokes also and all week. interpretations, the stimulations, the ultrasounds, the monitorings, everything would happen in this book, only the retrieval and transfer was done at the end that reduced the number of visits at the hub for a patient.


Griffin Jones  10:13

And so you've got three days it sounds like awareness, affordability, accessibility, it sounds like awareness came first that you laid the groundwork of doing some marketing of getting people familiar with what the challenges they were facing, and then what you did and sounds like you did that before you built some of your your spokes. Now, what is involved in those patient awareness camps? Is that something that is it is that an event that they attend,


Kshitiz Murdia  10:44

we organized kind of an event where all the patients are called, we do marketing in the newspaper, digital and other ways of marketing that this kind of doctor is coming for a consultation. And any patient who requires this type of fertility consultation can come there. And at Indy cap, it's a free awareness camp, we take a one hour video session through a PowerPoint presentation explaining the normal fertility process, where could be the problems in the male part and the female pot, and how IUI and IVF and exist can overcome these certain problems. Which patient category should go for conservative for medical management for IUI than for IVF. So at least they are aware, and they are on the scientific path of the journey for treating their their fertility problems. Do you still do the awareness camps? Yes, we still continue to do that. How have they changed


Griffin Jones  11:38

over time. So if you started doing them in 2010, or whatever, this is kind of pretty socialist as as people are getting on social media. Now today, they have all kinds of information in social media. So in 2010, I suspect that that information may have been now to them. Contrast that with 2023 where they've got recordings that you have done, they've got recordings that your Doc's have done and and probably they can watch old camps that awareness camps they can watch on. So how is the awareness camps evolved as social media and digital info is increased?


Kshitiz Murdia  12:15

Pretty good question, Griffin. I think because we've also seen a lot of change in the last 10 years earlier, I think when we used to organize this camp used to have 200 plus couples in all the bigger cities attending the camp because information was not freely available. So those were mega camps, we used to register a lot of people and they used to come forward for treatment. And our our our contribution also from the camps and the print media, which is a newspaper was much much higher, before COVID, I would say, which was around 50% or 50%. Plus, after COVID. What happened in the country, it accelerated the digital adoption of everything, whether it is its digital payments, or consuming the news articles, or seeing all the Facebook's Instagrams and Google and all those things. At present, I think our digital media contributes to almost 56 to 60% of our footfalls that are happening to the center. And now we have slightly changed the format of the camp where we don't go to the places and invite people to marketing. It's very focused with some local doctor there in the community who was famous with the Kinect, and then they would have some patients. So we our doctor would travel to their their center in advance will let them know that we are coming on this date so they can gather all the fertility patients so it's more of a I would say a doctor clinic that way where we would use those camps to be organized. But yes, yeah, I think it's it's dramatically changed from what we used to do. But earlier I think two or three people from from our family were doing these camps and now we have 20 plus doctors and India at one time. So that has added too much of power to the entire organization.


Griffin Jones  13:59

And I want to talk about what went into that growth the operational logistics behind the growth I do have a side question about involving the local doctors because one debate in the US is how much obg lands that are not Rei what certified they're not Rei fellowship trained how much OBGYN is can and should be upskilled or trained to do things up to an including IVF retrievals. And, and so there's there's debate on how much they should be used. But there's definitely a camp of folks that do want to involve OBGYN more and some of them have had challenges I believe with recruiting OBGYN to be part of their network because when you have someone who's businesses also who is also to do obstetrics, do gynecology, then they feel like their patients are being taken away if if if you're using another OB GYN so how did you navigate that when you were when you're leveraging these local doctors So how did you avoid the rivalry that they might have with other doctors in that area?


Kshitiz Murdia  15:08

So first of all, Griffin, I think there's no concept called reproductive endocrinologist in the country. It's OB GYN only, which would be doing obstetrics and also IVF after a certain amount of training that is required by law. Secondly, our volumes of these kinds of b2b interventions, so called I would say b2b Now, because b2c is direct to consumer b2b. So these beta channels is still in the range of 10 to 15%. The good part is we don't do obstetrics. And we don't do deliveries of our own patients also. So you know, when the patient comes to me for IVF, they would go back for the obstetric work or or the routine antenatal follow up to that particular note. So we don't have a rivalry in in that sense it's a symbiotic relationship.


Griffin Jones  15:55

Well now with neither but if you're if you're using these doctors for your awareness camps in your involving the local OBGYN then how would you not tick off the other OBGYN in that area that say well wire? Oh, well, if Indira is using Dr. So and so then I'm not using Indira


Kshitiz Murdia  16:11

No. So we have a list of top 20 or 30 gynecologist in the in the city who are actively involved into fertility work and we keep rotating between all the doctors we have tie up with all the doctors, we do send delivery patients the obstetric work of our own conceived IVF cycles to all these doctors. So there's a symbiotic relationship. And then we are always there as a as a service provider to help them in their procurement to help them their pathology labs or any audits, any trainings, any any software upgrades, anything that we as a platform can add value to their practice, we are more than willing. And I think that brings me to another important point Griffin is is around the doctor recruitment as to how we have done it because ours is a b2c brand and patients are coming to Indore IVF and not to a particular doctor. I mean, patients don't come with a mindset that I have to go and meet such an such doctor or get treated by such and such a doctor. They just see in the eye we they would come to in HR IVF. And then they would get to know who's 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, they impertinence or might be done by a separate doctor. It's as per the these Can you hold the roaster in the clinic. So it was our responsibility to ensure that we have similar protocols similar outcomes across all the doctors because one patient could be meeting two or three doctors in the clinic and 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 in the RAF fertility Academy back in 2016, which is one of the world class adopts in training in fertility. Our training center has been recognized my recently while British fertility society. Our training center is recognized by Merck foundation in Egypt. They regularly send Africa and Indonesia and Malaysia and Vietnam War the Asia Pacific doctors for training we run a fellowship program with them for three months. And 99% of the doctors who are working with us have been trained to our own fertility Academy. And same with the embryologist also. And once we got a hang of it, we understood that you know, IVF is not so difficult. It's not rocket science. You know, every gynecologist and life science postgraduate could be trained into either being a IVF doctor or an embryologist either ways, 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. So that gave us a very good handle on expansion because the 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 100 centers in one year, you have the infrastructure available, you can buy a 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 skilled manpower in whichever field you go. And we decided that we would not struggle with this part. Let us create our own skilled manpower let us not depend on the market to get skilled manpower or to by practicing from doctor that you know, some such dope some work done or having good practices in it. Nigeria, you just go and acquire them? We said, No, let's have a b2c brand being built up, let's fuel the pipeline for recruiting young talent for for training them adequately ensuring that outcomes are as good as senior doctors. And now we regularly plot the outcomes of every doctor who's working with us, whether it is their one year experience, or six months experience versus their 10 years experience. And we see most of our doctors fall within a very narrow range of success or outcomes or embryo transfer outcomes. And that's all because of the structured training process, I would say and the strict SOP that every doctor has to follow with the team. So I think the overall strategy went to well, when we started expanding is one on a b2c brand, recruiting a very young talent pool, adequate training men, ensuring that they follow the SOPs, and then the outcomes are good, and then the word of outspread. And then again, b2c. So the entire circle went well, with the overall strategy that we wanted to explore.


Griffin Jones  21:02

And finally, it's interesting, because I've been thinking about this from my own business recently, that a shortage of skilled manpower, however you want to phrase skilled talent, or, and skill can be a relative term means meaning the talent that you need in order to fulfill your delivery obligations. But I have been thinking about this a lot for my own company recently, and how that's more important than getting the funding at that particular time, or at least in some instances it is. Now tell me a bit about that. Because many people would say, Well, no, we dive in more do we need the venture capital money in order to be able to build the SOPs, in order to be able to hire the manpower, we need this private equity, we need this debt. So tell me about how it can be more important to to fulfill that need of a shortage of talent and have the training processes the SOPs for them, then then the funding itself.


Kshitiz Murdia  22:05

By the way, I think carefully, it is a it is a multi stage process, you can't achieve everything on day one. And then you need to decide as per your business, the the line or the field or the vertical that you're in, what is the most critical thing. So, you know, whatever we are today, we were not even 10%, I would say five years back, or 10 years back. So 10 years back, the most critical part, the most shocking part of the bottleneck for us was training, right? So we focus first on training, we never had Oracle or the best ERP systems or the best tech platforms that we would have today. But I think I think that was the need of the hour. So as as a business as a company, you need to decide there could be 10 things that you want to achieve in life, but then it has to be staged in a five to 10 year horizon, that these are the two critical things or one critical thing that I need to achieve immediately in the first year. And that's what we did. I think the first part was force force training. And obviously, we focused very hard very heavily on training demand. But I stepped back within, I would say, three or four years of my medical practice that having done more than 10,000 cases, I had to step back from the active clinical practice. And I used to only and only do training of the new recruits and focus my 90% of the time, ensuring that they follow the right protocols have been trained, they follow the right clinical procedure, their skills are to that level. And fortunately for us, IVF is not a very skilled procedure, I would say normal delivery is much more technically skilled or riskier than doing an IVF cycle. So I think I stepped back from active clinical work from all that thing. And then ensured that, you know, I would provide training to all my new recruits for joining in my brother step back from the active embryology working but involved in training. So I think I think both of us dedicated too much time into the training part, having those SOPs, our SOPs might not be in the form that are there today, like you have a booklet and SOP written by this person, reviewed by this person at this didn't change and that date, but they were very primitive shape. But that's fine. I mean, you know, you need to have some SOP in place that this is how you would work. Maybe it's not in the best of the forms of formats that you would require. But I think that's that's what we did. And then then started the journey of having quality auditors, you know, somebody external parties could come in validate whatever you're doing whatever work. I think the third important thing that we took up is building a solid management team, which got completed three or four years back at we have senior people of experts working in their domain like finance it HR or medical or tech, having worked for a decade or two in various other multinational companies and get all of these people together and showed that there is a chemistry between the entire senior management team, they understand healthcare, they understand IBM, set up the goals with them as to what we need to achieve in the next two or three years. And then once everything is fine, then you look after, I mean, for us, Tech was important, but we consciously delayed it for some time till we had the proper team in place, because you need good quality people to to develop those IT platforms that you would want. And once we've developed the ID platforms in the last two or three years, two years, mostly, then is the is the hard work of ensuring that everybody does a shift in the practice from the pen and paper system to a fully integrated digital end to end system. So I think I think we, we very consciously understood that these are the challenges, but what is critical for the business has to go first, what is good to have could take, you know, little later timelines and that's how we went up. And I'm starting


Griffin Jones  26:00

to feel validated today as you're validating some of what I'm working on for my own business. Right now I've owned fertility bridge as a client services from doing clinic marketing for many years now. But in the last year or so I've been building inside reproductive health, not even really focusing on building inside reproductive health as a trade media company. So the inside of reproductive health is the Wall Street Journal is the Financial Times that everyone director level and above in the fertility industry worldwide, reads every morning listens to every morning. And so in building that my natural tendency is sell, sell and then deliver. And I've realized at some point that way, okay, I don't need to do crazy selling right now I've got enough money, I can figure out a way to do some of this other stuff. And every time I sell, I'm increasing my delivery obligation, meaning what I Griffin have to do in order to fulfill that order that I just sold. And then my bet is that if I sell to an advertiser that could mean 20 hours of my time for that one advertiser. And am I better off selling right now just to get more money in or whatever? And, and then having to use 20 of my hours to fulfill the order for that client? Or am I better off with those 20 hours working on the operational systems, the training systems, so that we have the people in place to be able to fulfill and the answers, obviously, the ladders, like, Okay, now, I'm really just selling a couple people here and there to continue to validate the concept to make sure that the systems we are building are actually applied to real people that they're not just hypothetical, but there's way more emphasis on operations and delivery. And you're the first person I think that I've heard talked about that on the show, I think most of the time, people are very much building delivery while they're building the operations, because they have, you know, they've sold the private equity, or they have so many financial obligations, and they need to meet them right now. Why do you suppose it is that high growth, companies overlook that, that period of really building the SOPs and the training and the hiring of the people and not trying to build the airplane while they fly it?


Kshitiz Murdia  28:25

I think that's one of the very critical things is building a good foundation. And I mean, good foundation, you might not be able to build right from day one, after you progressed a little while and you got success in some area. And that's where you, you start building the solid foundation for a sustainable growth. And I think for us, that insight came from our private equity investment team associates, Boston based private equity firm invested with us in April 2019. And their their philosophy or, or their way of looking at business is always to have a strong management team have a good corporate governance, you know, in order to have a sustainable growth, I would say. So I think a lot of interventions that we did on building or correcting the foundation, which is which is currently now a very rock solid foundation that you know, business is not dependent on one critical function or one critical person. It's an ecosystem that is running on its own that has a great solid foundation. And even if one vertical or one function or one person is not performing well or certainly go out of business, you know, you certainly don't flatter and then your business continuity there. And obviously ensuring that you you are true to your patients you are not, you know, over promising or doing false promises or doing something short term that would help you. It's all about that mindset of having a long term view, having a sustainable view, having good corporate governance, because it's all about wealth creation. and not earning money every day, which is which is much more important for for private equity or even for the shareholders. Once you get to that mindset, you will start thinking your all your actions would start getting pointed towards wealth creation or value creation rather than earning certain dollars every day or every month are looking at the p&l everyday.


Griffin Jones  30:20

So there's two routes that I want to go with this conversation one has to do with your background and the other has to do with the SOP and and building that structure for SOP. So let's do the second one. First, let's talk about how you built the structure for SOPs. Because as I'm building more standard operating procedures, I'm also realizing Okay, I need an umbrella governance for how SOPs are created. Because if you have sales team creating sales SOPs, and you have operations, folks creating operations, SOPs, and HR people creating EHR SOPs, they could start to look different from each other. And then they have to be Jigsaw together later. And so it's better to have a certain governance where you have a master process for how processes were made. How did you approach that?


Kshitiz Murdia  31:09

So I think my personal view, Griffin is start from the very basic things that you could achieve very quickly, rather than waiting for the entire structure to fall through from the top because you know, that will involve a lot of skilled manpower, we might or many companies are not at that stage, when they start on middle of their journey. I would say even if you're able to achieve 60%, up 70% of what you want to achieve tomorrow, let's do that, rather than waiting for one year to achieve 80 90% 100%. And that's the philosophy that we followed in all the tech developments. Also, you would want a certain page to look like in a particular way you need 10 fields, here are five fields there are the critical are they showstoppers yes or no? If it is, yes, otherwise, even with that 50% of the period, if I'm good to go, whatever I'm doing today, I'm able to do 80% of that on a digital platform or an SOP or any other thing, we would just go ahead do it. Because there are multiple challenges once you put it to the user, there are bound to have all these questions and debates that would come up that they need certain changes that they need this, they need that, you know, and it will be a continuous process of development. So don't wait for the final end stage of how a corporate governance structure should look like and ditching trying to stitch it on the very first day, it is very difficult to achieve to that level. So I mean, all of us are very fragile in the leadership team at Indore IVF that we very quickly adopt the process let us start knowing fully well that we need to reach to this stage 100% But not to be or tomorrow, maybe after three months or six months or depending one year. But this is what we want to start today. And let's go ahead and build it up.


Griffin Jones  32:56

Did you have the embryology team making their own processes? Did you have the nursing team making nursing processes and physicians making the metal starting with the Medical Director presumably making protocols? How did how did individual process areas come to be?


Kshitiz Murdia  33:16

So we had different different verticals, making their different policies and processes and then, you know, problems are bound to happen whenever problems come all of us would assimilate as a group and see what changes we need to make in the various processes, but certain of the medical and the medical excellence so we have one medical department who's responsible for all the clinical and embryology processes, we have a separate medical excellence department who looks after all the medical protocols, whether they are safe for the patient, whether they are done rightly, in our patient identification, facility management, all the we screen our centers across 498 points spread across 12 different chapters of a credentialing program, and then everybody has to match that program and and the medical excellence runs very independently of the medical core function. So they would very closely interact as in when if there are problems, so I left it we have 70% Correct. But you know, all these issues would keep coming up every now and then in you sit together as a group and align the overall strategy. What is the culture? What is the DNA of the organization? How should in the IVF react in a particular situation? Is is what would govern the changes in the SOPs if required?


Griffin Jones  34:32

Did you put this all into one master document or didn't live All in One Drive? Where does that does each SOP area live with its own department?


Kshitiz Murdia  34:46

So it's mostly in the HR we have a learning management system. So all the policies procedures, everything has been feeding into the learning management system, and different people based their job roles and their category or We create, they keep receiving periodic emails of certain courses that they need to complete. And also we have a very active learning environment. So every week or every 10 days, there's a separate team learning team separate over take care of all the new join is the new recruits, take them to the entire mission vision values, to the basic trainings, the clinical aspects and other things. When did vision


Griffin Jones  35:23

mission and values come in as a central part of the training did that come after you had been building some SOPs? And and then you needed to start gluing all of the different areas together? Or did it come from the beginning?


Kshitiz Murdia  35:41

No, you it came in? I think I would say three, three and a half years back and not 10 years back? Yeah. feverishly add some SOP some I will also not say a full fledged SOP document, it's a way of working could be some verbal trainings or other things or some PPTs that we would have. It all eventually came in the last five years, I would say one by one.


Griffin Jones  36:06

And so your training management system? Is that proprietary Training Management System that it for India? IVF? Or do you use something like train you will or loom or any of those softwares?


Kshitiz Murdia  36:19

Yeah, we have a software from adrenaline, which is an HR software, which is our HRMS, which has the learning modules when we have all the videos being uploaded on the learning module, and then it periodically keep sending reminders to all these.


Griffin Jones  36:34

How involved were you in selecting that solution? Did you have your HR folks do it? Or were you personally involved in choosing that solution?


Kshitiz Murdia  36:43

Yeah, I got involved in most of these softwares selection. And obviously, then the implementation and the customization, we involve more the business side rather than the IT side. So all our our, our eh is the EMR the medical function has developed, it has supported our ERP implementation the finance team has done it has supported similar to the HR system. So we had this very different approach that let the business drive the implementation of software's rather than it doing it and then they send it to business and business will have 10 things to circle back to the it. So we thought let's involve the business on the very first day, and it will be like a support function of converting the thoughts into the ID language. That's it.


Griffin Jones  37:31

So that makes sense of why business would be involved in choosing the talent management or the resuming the Training Management System. But why you personally what is it that you were looking for?


Kshitiz Murdia  37:44

So because we, me and my brother, we had seen various systems in the last 10 years, we tried implementing EMRs, we failed on three attempts, I think. And that was to do because one, it was not thoroughly evaluated. Second, when we were growing very rapidly, from five centers to 25, to 50, to 100, your requirements kept changing every six months. So by the time you evaluate the software, you feel happy, they come back, they start implementation customizations, your requirements have gone, then x of what they were six months back. And that's why we were not able to you know, properly implement it. Secondly, we never had a good management team or leadership team. Because you require enough bandwidth to implement all the IT processes. It's not just implementation or customizations, you require good change management that should happen at every level, every person was using the software. So I think I think that because of all those things, we could not implement great it or tech platforms five, six years back when we tried and we failed twice or thrice. But once we have a good leadership team good management below us, we are also grown to 80 or 90 100 centers, pretty much our requirements was fixed, I would still not say we were 100% clear on what we were now also as you go, and then you know, business would require 10 More things. So anyways, if you're 80% there, just go in and implement it. These things would keep coming in people would want the moon and the stars. And then you can keep building on it in the next phase. Yeah, they'll


Griffin Jones  39:19

always want something more. So they always will be in a next phase. How did you go on this journey to CEO? What were the milestones as you look back now because your training is as a physician, right? So you started off seeing patients and you're trained as an OB GYN. And then how did you become a CEO? What do you look back and see as the most significant milestones.


Kshitiz Murdia  39:45

So I think initial three or four years I was practicing as a as a gynecologist as a physician doing active clinical work while all the ultrasound pick up after surgery is everything. After three or four years when we started expanding In, I took a little back seat from the active work started working as the as the trainer, I would say for all the physicians and other things. But once we had five or six or seven centers, I started acting as the medical director, being responsible for all the protocols being responsible for all the trainings, being responsible for what medications they would use, what would be the doors, what would be the prescriptions like and all those things, after being the medical director for maybe two or three years, and then ta invested with us and T was wanting to put a proper governance and a corporate structure that any private equity would want. The idea was to select somebody working with the company for for last few years. Because you know, when T invested, we were already 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 in the overall top line. I think the idea from the side was nobody has done good work in the country in India in the IVF suite apart from Indore IVF, let us have somebody from the group internally and promote them to the to be the CEO. And I think because of some of the diligence is being done on the company before they invested. So there were a couple of private equities, 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. So I think I think it was because everybody, all the shareholders thought that I had a very broad based idea about the business and not just the medical function. And obviously, we are very strong believers that our 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 businesses are built on the ground in the clinics and not sitting in the corporate office in your air conditioned chambers and working on Excel or laptops or you can't build a business, their business is actually being done at the clinic level by the clinicians, by the nurses by the embryologist. So you will need somebody who could have that wavelength of talking to these doctors who the doctors will also respond to and respect. And it's not just about number number number that you need to clock certain revenue, you need to block 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 outcomes, I strongly still feel that a non medical person, no one sounds very commercial to the doctors, 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 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 in DNA. It's not doctors independently practice in in their own world. And they have a different protocol. And they have a different business mindset. All of us all the 250 Plus doctors are run on a single platform, run on a single protocol, everybody is in very close touch, I would say everybody's using the similar protocol.


Griffin Jones  43:30

So you need a doc at the top in order to get that many Doc's to buy into similar protocols. I think I think that's hard enough for you even if you have a doctor at the top. And so that makes sense to have a physician as the CEO, but you said that it was doing some of the due diligence, with the private equity companies that you were talking to prior to ta associates that gave you more education and finance and HR, how much education, finance and HR did you have prior to those due diligence process?


Kshitiz Murdia  44:04

I think nothing I had no background about an ENT and other things. I think those diligence process exposed me to many more technical terms in the finance, what is revenue, what is collection and you know, EBIT da and all those things I started learning, of course, now having being the CEO and interacting with all these lovely professionals that report to me and are experts in their field. I have much more now control and handle and knowledge on the various marketing functions, the HR, the tech, the operations, the finance, the medical excellence, everything is, is pretty much there because they've they've they've taken the company to an extremely high level in terms of governance and compliance beat any field, whether it is HR or medical excellence or idea of finance. So I think I think that initial exposure helped me a lot.


Griffin Jones  44:54

How did you adapt to what it must have been drinking from a firehose with That level of information trying to keep up with those folks, what resources or education? Or how did you lose it just articles on the internet? How did you get up to speed?


Kshitiz Murdia  45:11

I think I was very open to all of them during the journey. If I don't understand anything, even being the CEO, I will be very open and upfront, and I don't understand this, pardon me, I'm a doctor. So I might not understand just explain me. And obviously the the you are running the business from day one. So you have that business sense. And you could catch up things which is in the interest of the business or not in the interests of the business. So they would say that I then simplify those films for me and explain me a you know, if I'm not able to understand, you must have


Griffin Jones  45:45

caught up and in you did so in a way that has really allowed you to scale and pretty darn quickly, it seems from especially starting around 2014. And then seems to have escalated quite a bit. You talked about having a one protocol, one set of protocols for all of the doctors and you said 52 Doctors was


Kshitiz Murdia  46:06

that goal goal? 52 plus 250 plus two. Okay,


Griffin Jones  46:09

so over 250 Doctors Wow. And everyone's using the same set of protocols. In the United States, it seems that people are resistant to do that. And I'm not clinically trained. And I come from a sales and marketing background. And I just kind of observe and it seems to me, like people are very reluctant to have any kind of uniform protocol. That's all we always let the doctor practice how they want to. And I think as a business person, I think what's pretty darn inefficient, it seems fine, but I'm not clinically trained. You you decided that that was the right way to go. What do you what do you what made you decide that? And what do you think the resistance to that idea is


Kshitiz Murdia  46:50

very interesting, when I think when I started practicing I was 29 or 30 years, when I recruited the first doctor, I was 33 or 34. And then purposefully, I would want to recruit a younger doctor who was little junior to me. So they would come and listen to what I'm saying, you know, and eventually it happened that we were recruiting all junior people, you know, 2830 31 and then ensuring that we train them efficiently. But later we realized, if I if I recruit a younger person who just graduated yesterday, from OB GYN, he or she is blank in his mind, or her mind about IVF, they don't know anything about IVF, right? Whatever files, you need to insert in their mind and block it, they will be stuck there. You know, somebody who's practice in IVF, for 1015 years might be a good clinician, but they come with their own baggage that this is what I think is right. You know, this is what I've been doing in my last decade or so. And this is what I swear by. And I will not change whether you tell me that this is good or this is bad, I have not changed my practice. And that's why, you know, if somebody would come for an application, or we can see application comes, somebody says I have 15 years of experience in IVF and wonderful clinician, good business, good outcomes, somebody comes and tells me I have just graduated yesterday with my OBGYN, we'll pick up the later one and not select the first one because you know, we are a rapidly changing organization is what I was doing as a clinician 10 years back, we have changed the complete protocol in today, if I see today, and what I was doing 10 years back is completely different. So one should have that flexibility in their mind to keep adapting to the newer protocols, evidence based medicine that comes in. And I feel this younger Lord, having gone through that process of working with us getting trained with us, following one single protocol. Every time a new protocol comes in, we do a pilot tested at one, report the outcomes to all the people and then say, Okay, let's go and change this protocol from tomorrow morning. You know, because this is better. This is the evidence based reports. This is the pilot that we've done. So the entire culture of the organization has said from day one, that it has to be young people moldable whatever we have taught them, I think I think most of our people would not know the various five or 10 different types of protocols that exist. And if they would just know, one protocol that they've been taught because they had no background about it. I think that's that's the plus point that we gain, recruiting younger people because we were not depending on experienced clinicians for getting patients, patients are being sourced by the marketing function. And we were very confident any clinician, we were trained to get similar outcomes, you know, so I think our work of a trained doctor was being handled by the marketing function and the training function to get more patients and ensure once you get those patients the outcomes have to be good.


Griffin Jones  49:44

There could be a couple of reasons why people don't have one protocol where it's because well, we need older docks in order to have them do their own marketing or we don't have the training infrastructure to bring everyone up to do this one protocol or it could simply be that There are dogs that are set in their ways that and they're not receptive to change. And that could be very difficult and having one universal protocol. What about someone that would say, That's too rigid? Dr. Marty, that's too it's that doesn't allow the clinician to be a clinician at that point. They're just a, they're just a cog in the machine. And it doesn't allow them to provide individualized care to the patient, how would you respond to that?


Kshitiz Murdia  50:31

So Griffin, we we're not saying one protocol, it could be multiple protocols, but one protocol for one type of patient. So we are individualized yet standardized, I would say, you know, for a different type of a patient, young patient, you would use a different protocol for the older patient, you would use a different protocol. But I would not have 10 protocols for my older patients or five protocols. For my younger patients, we do allow some kind of flexibility, but not to a very great extent, I would not say they can choose between three or four protocols, or three different types of medicine, we would maximum have one particular medicine being prescribed for a particular compound. At max very, very rarely, I would say two different types of brands are medicine. So everything is being systematically put in Europe, people, people are okay with it doctors because they are getting outcomes, you know, if something is wrong in my system, in my protocols in my SOP, you will not get outcomes. And then you know, I would also want to change if you're getting good outcomes. If everything is well, why would you want to change a particular protocol. And slowly, we are now getting to a point where we would now be enforcing it to our system to AI EMR, which would be much more intelligent. And we are feeding all our SOPs and protocols into the EMR. So it would keep assisting, keep alerting keep stopping the doctors at any point of time, if they are going in the wrong direction.


Griffin Jones  51:55

And so how would you respond to someone that says that ties my hands too much?


Kshitiz Murdia  51:59

I mean, it's okay. I mean, if there is any protocol that you think is better, let us know we'll do a pilot in your center with few patients and see if the outcomes are good, we are happy to change the entire country on that protocol. We are open to that. But it has to result in better outcomes or reduce the risk of complications to the patient, or reduce the expenses of the patient, then we are open to it.


Griffin Jones  52:22

Let's recap some of this meteoric growth that you've had. So that so you join in 2010. For at the time, there was one center in the western part of India, and from 2010 to 2014, you had that one location, and you're practicing as a as a clinician, there's no second location, second location opens up in 2014. And that's when you start with the awareness camps and starting to grow the marketing. And then by 2018, you had 50 centers, or at least 50 offices. So at this time, is there still one hub? And in the other 49 or so are spokes?


Kshitiz Murdia  53:04

No no majority of them, but hubs


Griffin Jones  53:07

is IVF labs? 


Kshitiz Murdia  53:09

Yes. 


Griffin Jones  53:10

Across the country? 


Kshitiz Murdia  53:11

Across the country. Yes. 


Griffin Jones  53:13

And so what is it today? How many IVF labs does Indira fertility have


Kshitiz Murdia  53:18

this for labs? Well, most 49 or 50, and rest 65 66? Whatever 67 number would be spokes.


Griffin Jones  53:27

Wow. So So somewhere around 50, IVF labs, and then somewhere between 60 and 70 offices in more remote areas where they do everything except retrieval and transfer. 


Kshitiz Murdia  53:40

Yeah. 


Griffin Jones  53:40

And 250 physicians about maybe a little more? 


Kshitiz Murdia  53:46

Yes. 


Griffin Jones  53:47

And how many employees


Kshitiz Murdia  53:49

Roughly 2700 2800 employees? 


Griffin Jones  53:49

Wow, so there was a there was a dramatic growth that that went from 2014 to 2019. It sounds like it was largely fueled by the awareness camps that you were doing that marketing, building the SOP and the training. And then at what point did you decide okay, we need a financier behind this and because it sounds like you were talking to some private equity folks before TA and that it sounds like ta happened in 2019. So, what year was it when you decided okay, we need a financier behind this.


Kshitiz Murdia  54:26

So, Griffin, I think the the requirement was not from the financing point of view because fortunately IVF is a good business to be in the margins are better and then you know, your own internal accruals could fund the the future growth of this interest. The requirement to have a private equity was more from a global exposure point of view, having good governance, good systems, good processes, attracting good talent to your company and then obviously building that solid foundation. You know, as a family as a promoter, we brought the company to one level. Now to go Further, we need some partner who can instill those values, though that culture in the company attract talent, build a solid foundation. And then obviously, we can take it to the next level. So I think that was one of the major requirements. So with the DA investment, nothing came in into the company, it was all secondary money being passed to the shareholders. But if we had a partner who could, you know, structure the whole organization for the future?


Griffin Jones  55:25

Why did you need their help for that? Why? Why couldn't you do that? On your own the culture that normally it seems that's what what comes from the organic side? What do you what do you think you needed their help with?


Kshitiz Murdia  55:37

I think as a as a family, as a promoter, you are not exposed to that global expertise. And, you know, once you have private equity people coming in, they you get to learn a lot on on corporate governance, on structure on sustainability of the business on building a platform, as a family as a promoter, you are very much involved into day to day operations. And I said, the difference between a value creation or a wealth creation versus difference between, you know, looking at your p&l every day, every month, every year on how many profits or much profits you make. So that's a basic mindset difference. And I mean, we've been exposed with deer for the last four years, and now the mindset has changed dramatically. If you were to talk to me five years back, my mindset would have been different. So today's


Griffin Jones  56:23

associate at that time was behind CCRM. Is that right?


Kshitiz Murdia  56:28

They used to want CCRM. till last year, I think last year, they sold it off somebody.


Griffin Jones  56:33

So when they came in, they had a good bit of experience in the fertility space. What things did you say, Okay, we want to do we want to learn from the CCRM way and what other things you say, no, we want to protect this and do this our way?


Kshitiz Murdia  56:49

I think I think there was no technical exchange of information that happened from the CCRM. I think it was the global expertise of tea associates, having worked on multiple businesses across different geographies, and also some experience on fertility business. But I think it's very difficult to replicate practices from one country to another country, and then you know, expect good outcome is the general know how of building a good foundation that helped us to a great extent, I would say if I look back at their partnership, the value and that they have created I think it's it's building out that solid foundation, then building out that leadership team, and developing that culture that DNA, the organization that is very future ready for any kind of growth, it kind of shocks that might come along our way.


Griffin Jones  57:35

There's so much more I could ask you, but we'll save that for a future episode. I'd love to have you back on the show. If you're open to that idea, at some point in the future have any summary of what you're talking about? Or maybe Indira has plans for the future putting thoughts?


Kshitiz Murdia  57:48

Well, we are open to some acquisitions in some parts of the country as well. We also looking at senses to our businesses, which is getting into genetics getting into pathology, we have Axos lot of pharma products, which are directly being manufactured for us from the cdmos. We are looking at adjacent businesses like mother and child as well. We have already started our expansion medicine countries, which is Nepal and Bangladesh and Southeast Asia being a very attractive market. We are very open to you know, having a partner who could take us or help us in that area. I think this is broadly the plan that we're looking at for the future growth. But


Griffin Jones  58:29

Kshitiz Murdia, thank you so much for coming on inside reproductive health.


Kshitiz Murdia  58:33

Pleasure, Griffin, I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for inviting me.


Sponsor  58:38

You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to inside reproductive health

180 Quality Of Fertility Operations vs. Financial Efficiency: Solving For The Trade-Offs, With CARE Fertility’s CEO, Dave Burford

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.


This week, CARE CEO, David Burford, joins Griffin to discuss what goes into the operational and financial decision-making process behind CARE Fertility’s business model.


Listen to hear:

  • The tension between financial and operational divisions of a fertility center.

  • Examples that look good (or bad) in a financial model, but then have good (or bad) consequences in operations.

  • Certain elements of operations that served the clinic, but not the patient.

  • When staff needs are at odds with patient needs, and the trade-offs that need to be solved for. 

  • CARE’s HR machine and the concept of necessary, if not immediately efficient, redundancy.

  • The mass retirement of physician CEOs, and what that means for the fertility field as they are replaced by business people without medical degrees



Care Fertility Group Limited: https://www.carefertility.com/





Transcript

David Burford  00:00

First and foremost, 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.



Sponsor  00:14

This episode was brought to you by Univfy. Download Univf;y’s free IVF conversion and revenue calculator at univfy.com/IVFpatientretention. 

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 guests' appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.


Griffin Jones  00:54

Redundancy, is it time to start laying off some of your fertility center staff or is it time to hire more because you need duplication in order to positively impact their performance management? This is just one of the topics that I cover with my guest Dave Burford today Dave Burford is the CEO of CARE Fertility. That might sound familiar to you because we recently had their chief scientific officer Allison Campbell on the show to talk about embryologists owning equity and fertility clinics taking equity in startups, you should listen to that episode if either of those two topics interest you. And you may have read an inside reproductive health article a couple of months ago about how care fertility recently made an acquisition in the United States in North Carolina because with their financing from Nordic capital, they're expanding beyond the UK and Ireland into Europe into the United States and possibly other parts of the world. Dave and I talked about the convergence and divergence of the financial and operations divisions of fertility center. I press him for examples of when something can look good or bad in a financial model, but then have good or bad consequences in operations. When Dave took over as CEO of care some years back, he said that there were examples of operations that serve the clinic but not the patients. And I asked him for specific examples in patient intake and in call center reception and scheduling. And then I pressed Dave a bit because there are examples where staff needs are at odds with patient needs. And the trade off has to be solved for I asked Dave to describe CARE Fertility’s Human Resources machine because with 1200 employees, I asked him to talk about the balance between efficiency and profitability and on the other side overlap and duplication so that you can support your team and support performance management support the advancement of employees, I asked because this is something I've really been working on as a business owner very deeply for the last six months. And it's funny to have someone from the United Kingdom on because layoffs in the UK are called redundancy, someone who is laid off is redundant. And I observe this tension where you might want to have efficiency and profitability and only have a certain staffing ratio. But if you lose someone that puts a tremendous stress on the staff, it makes it harder to hold people accountable because they end up having to do other people's work. So it's a lot harder to hold them accountable for their original outcomes, it's harder to advance them, it's easier to burn them out. It's harder to get rid of a cancer when a cancer comes into the organization. And worse the cancer has bone dry tinder to set ablaze because the rest of the workforce is burnt out and not supported and doesn't feel like they have the autonomy and doesn't feel like they're able to grow in their careers. So we spend some time on that topic. And then Dave gives examples where he has to pitch to the board or pitch to investors reasons for making certain investments that will be good in the mid and long term but don't necessarily look great. In the next quarter. I asked him what data he uses to make those arguments. I then asked him to talk about the balance of when you start something new and you test the concept versus how much needs to be invested in and built ahead of time so that the deliverable is positive. I asked Dave, now that we're starting to see the original CEOs of many fertility groups, who in many cases were physicians start to retire and they're being replaced by CEOs who were not the founders of those clinic companies and who very often are not physicians, they come with a business background, how temporary or not should these new CEOs be? Should they be around for a really long time? Should we expect to see a revolving door of them? Are they going to be a symptom of cutting fertility clinics to the bone and selling them at a higher profit and that churn just repeats? Finally, we part with Dave's thoughts on what he perceives to be the cons of a more process driven sale in the United States than in the UK in Europe. I asked him if he feels that it is more process driven in the UK and Europe. Why that is the case in his view, and if it is true, what makes it a bad thing? Please enjoy this episode with Dave Burford. Mr. Burford Dave, welcome Inside reproductive health. Oh, hi,




05:02

thanks for having me.




Griffin Jones  05:03

You're now the second leader of the care fertility leadership team that I've had on the show recently, your colleague, Dr. Campbell had joined me. And that was a very popular episode because we did a little more content for the lab folks than we usually do. And they were very interested in her talking about the career path for embryologist. There's a whole lot of places we could begin our conversation today with you being a CEO of such a large group, but one that I'm thinking of is probably germane to many people that are at a point where the founding physicians, the founding CEOs, or the earlier CEOs are starting to retire, and now CEOs from the next generation that are taking over. And that seems to have been your case, it seems that you worked for care at a higher level for many years, and then became the CEO in 2018. Is that right?




06:04

That's right. Prior to that, I was the CFO. And then I moved into the CEO role. For a short period of time, I did both the operations director role and the finance director role, and then moved into being the CEO in 2018. So I've had a kind of broad view of fertility and wearing a few different hats, but obviously a very different experience than somebody that has been a clinician or an embryologist.




Griffin Jones  06:30

Sure, that broad view I want to talk about if is how much of an advantage that is in taking over an organization at the top being able to see it from different vantage points. But to make sure that I've got my history that was Professor Fishel. That was he the the original CEO.




06:50

That's right. Yeah, he founded the business and was the CEO for all since 1996. right the way up to sort of 2015. And then there was a short period of another chap that was the CEO, and then me from 2018.




Griffin Jones  07:04

Okay, so you're the the third CEO total in the company's history. That's right. And so did you know that you are gone? Was this a track that you are interested in from the beginning looks like you started with the company in 2014. Was that in the finance role?




07:22

That's right. So prior to this role, I was at KPMG. So I'm an accountant by background and was looking to get a real job if you like outside of outside of accounting and moved into care, fertility not knowing a whole lot about IVF. But knowing that care was a respected good business in the Nottingham area, and it was a it was a job that I was very happy to get. And then really progressed through finance into operations, mirroring the challenges of the business, I think so the financial challenges of an IVF clinic, or a small group as it was then, uh, not that big. But the operational challenges were quite significant. And so my role morphed into operations, which then set me up quite nicely for being the CEO when, when that role became available.




Griffin Jones  08:13

Had you thought about that? It from the very beginning, did you know that you wanted to be on a track for CEO leadership, whether it be a carer or some other company?




08:25

I mean, that was ambitious insofar as I wanted to go as far as my career would take me, but I wouldn't say I set out to be the CEO, I set out to really understand business, my passion is really understanding what makes a business tick. How can you improve it? How can you take it forward, and that tends to be operational improvements. And so it became clear that my finance role would only take me so far. And if I really wanted to change the way that the business was performing, I needed to move more into operations. And that naturally led on to being CEO because you get a really good grounding, particularly if the businesses, private equity backed, you get a really good brand grounding in both the finances and in the operations. And really, that's the meeting there have a kind of corporate CEO if you like,



Griffin Jones  09:17

it sounds like it was a smooth transition from finance to operations. But in my view, it seems like more of a jump. So was it what kind of transition was it how did you go from a financial role to an operations role?



09:32

Where the it was really mirroring the challenges that the business was facing at the time we've we've always been a really successful so we've been going for 25 years and we've always been a very successful clinical business. So very strong success rates really good clinical innovation, as I'm sure you heard from Allison when she was with you, but the challenges of the business were that the founders were extremely good doctors and embryologist and good business people. But the challenges of running a multi site operation are, are different to that of running an individual clinic. And we had increased competition in the UK, and some of our operational processes needed improvement. And rather than just being a finance director that was happy to throw a few stone, shall I say, my, my director, colleagues saying, you know, why don't you do this? Why don't you do that I was very happy to roll my sleeves up and, and get involved. And I really enjoyed that side of the road, the ops director that we had at the time was looking to move on. And so it became a natural progression. And I did both roles for a short period of time, the CFO and the CFO role. And then that became unsustainable, and we recruited in replacements for me really to allow me to move on to the CEO role, but it was really reflecting the challenges of the business and my passions really for operational improvement.



Griffin Jones  10:57

Well, your passion maybe came from wanting to throw stones, but them saying back to Yeah, well, if you think it's so easy, buddy, why don't you come over here and try it? And he said, Okay, maybe I will



11:09

use funny you should say that, because we actually had a board meeting where the private equity investor at the time, was not very happy with some of the operational performance in London, and said exactly that way. You've just said to me, Well, if you can do better than Dave, why don't you do that? And so I said, Okay, I'll do a I'll do a month secondment to London to improve London's performance. And that really was the audition for being the ops director or the CIO, as it was at the time. So yeah, that was exactly what happened.



Griffin Jones  11:41

Well, there's a lot to dig into here. Because one of the biggest criticisms about so much external finance entering this field of medicine is 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 is 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 side. So what were a few of the surprises that a way to do.


12:28

I think first and foremost, 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 this back to care's challenges, at the time, it was very much around a business that was geared up to 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, then you've got other people that are doing things in a more dynamic way. And actually, the challenge is bringing in 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 adaptive and fluid in the way that you deal with things. And so the he only really do that by talking to the people on the ground, talking to the staff and understanding what their challenges are, and then adapting the processes to meet the demands of patients and the needs of staff. So it was for me, it was nice to get away from the laptop and then 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 1000 people call in is it that 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 1000? Why have we got 1000 people ringing me when when the lines are closed, and it's just tweaking that some of those operational processes to meet those needs? Generally not that challenging, but involved. You


Griffin Jones  14:25

mentioned that at the time, there were some things that were serving the clinic but not the patients. What were examples of that.


14:34

So you know, people set up processes often to meet the needs of either themselves or at the time the needs of patients or customers but things change and it takes sometimes longer for processes to change. So a good example of that where it's really important for doctors in this field to understand the medical history of patients so that they can give the patient the most informed consultation that they can give them so that the patient is getting best value for money. But there's a line there commercial or operational line, if you like that judgment between getting as much information as you can to make the consultation effective, but not putting patients off from coming to see you because you've made that process so difficult or more challenging. And so we really went through a process of thinking about where's the balance here? How do we get the information that we need to make sure that consultations and appointments are as effective as they should be, but not overwhelming the patient with requests for information that either put them off? Or made them think about going elsewhere? Because if you ring up two clinics, and one Clinic says, Yeah, you can come in tomorrow, don't worry about it, we'll see. And the other Clinic says, Well, can you fill in this 60 page questionnaire before you come in? There's a lot of people that will just choose to go to the clinic, with no information just simply because it's easier and quicker. And particularly when you put that in the context of most IVF patients between the ages of 25 and 45. And so that those people have grown up in a generation of technology and ease of access, not filling in lots of forms and ticking lots of boxes. So it's about mirroring that, that really and changing those in those demands. And that's a practical example of some of the things that we've done as an organization to make that access to patients, informative to our staff so that it's meaningful and productive, but slick and easy from a patient's perspective so that we can attract as many of them as possible.


Sponsor  16:44

Fertility Centers have unique and unmet business needs. Univfy uses AI and machine learning to improve IVF conversion, growth and patients experience. Providers who counseled patients with a support of the Univfy pre IVF report see a two to five times increase in IVF conversion. That means if you make $10 million in IVF revenue today, you can make $3 million more with Univfy. Univfy provides AI white glove platform services to IVF centers, including business analytics IVF, live birth prediction modeling to support provider patient counseling, and using AI and machine learning to support IVF pricing strategies that optimize clinical outcomes and profitability. Fertility Centers can expect to see ROI from using Univfy within one to two months. Univfy’s methods have been published in top peer reviewed medical journals, HIPAA and GDPR. compliant, Univfy is being used by fertility specialists in the US, Canada, EU and the UK. Download Univfy’s free IVF conversion and revenue calculator at univfy.com/IVFpatientretention, that's Univfy.com/ivfpatientretention.



Griffin Jones  18:11

I want to talk about how those two things reconcile staff's needs and patients needs. You also mentioned that you were talking to staff and finding out what their challenges were, what did they tell you? Their challenges were?



18:25

Most of the time its challenges with the systems. And we've we've got our own in house system that we've spent 25 years developing, but in IVF, as I'm sure you know, there is lots and lots of different systems out there. But none of them are amazing,



Griffin Jones  18:39

referring to electronic medical records, correct?



18:43

Correct. Yeah. And so, you know, clinical staff want to do what they love doing, which is treating people clinically and talking to patients, and they don't want to spend hours in front of a computer and ticking boxes and moving pieces of paper around. And so it was really listening to them in terms of how can we make the system as slick and effective as possible, to make their lives easier. So that's how we fulfilled the needs of the staff. And there wasn't really much of a conflict between the needs of the staff and and the demands of the patient. The there was the only thing I would say where there's a small conflict is staff would typically want to have as much information as absolutely possible about the patient in advance. And we wanted, as I said, Put to put a bit of balance to that. But that's nothing more than you know, just communicating with staff, explaining to them the reasons for why we're making some of these changes, and then them seeing the benefits of those changes.



Griffin Jones  19:43

And so what about times where there are there is a bit of a conflict and I couldn't think of an example if the patients who want evening hours for reasons that you mentioned, they're in the demographic that they're in the demographics of their working prime and they would love to, in many cases to have a 7pm consultation. And then you have a call center team that says, yeah, right, Dave, I can barely get enough employees right now to staff, my current team. And they're telling me they want more time off. And they're already asking me for a raise. And I'm at risk of losing these other two. And we've had this opening for eight weeks. And so how do you reconcile those two?



20:25

I mean, one of the advantage of being a large group is that you can have more sophisticated processes in place. And I guess one of the things we're used to in the UK, and it will take us a little bit of time to establish this in the US is, we have centralized teams to do this and virtual teams, so they can work anywhere, and have calls with patients from anywhere. And so you then fishing in a much wider pool of employees to be able to satisfy that need. And actually, for some staff working, what were for some people we considered unsociable hours is perfectly fine. That's what they want to do. They want to work those hours. And so enable it, as long as you've got the right mix of people, you can do that. I mean, to be clear, out of ours, we tend to focus on just making sure that patients can contact us rather than having full blown clinical consultations, because that would be more challenging. But we we provide services to them out of ours, just in terms of contacting and talking to us, which often is enough.



Griffin Jones  21:27

So you need a well oiled Human Resources machine in order to be able to accomplish that though, don't you?



21:33

That's right. Yeah. If you ever



Griffin Jones  21:35

read the book, traction by Gino Wickman, or heard of the Entrepreneurial Operating System, you've probably seen some version of different accountability charts. But their version of the accountability chart is that you have the CEO on top and CEO is what they who they would typically refer to as visionary integrator, and then having three core functions of the business that they would call operations, which in our case, you might have lab operations, clinical operations, you have sales and marketing. And then you have finance. And they often lump legal in with Finance, any thing that has to do with compliance, they put with the finance side of the accountability chart, and they put human resources over there. And I'm not convinced that it goes over there. I don't know if it goes in operations, I don't know if it belongs is it's for thing and its operations, sales and marketing, finance, and then human resources. How do you think that it relates into an operational system,



22:34

specifically for human resources, I would argue that there's a sort of foundational layer that sits across those pieces, because you've you've got to get the culture of the business, right, you've got to get the, the quality of the staff in right in all of those three functional support layers. And so HR needs to sit across that I mean, from a technical reporting point of view, Human Resources report in to me directly. So I work with the group, human resources director to and literally tomorrow, I've got a three hour session with her around succession planning, and the quality of the senior management team making sure that we're developing the senior management team. So I think, you know, people like business such as healthcare, Human Resources can't be a module of finance, if you like, that's down there with reporting, that it needs to be high on the agenda, with, in my opinion, direct access to me as CEO, because we employ 1000 people. And we need and our business is very much around people interactions with patients, whether that be virtual or face to face, it's all about interactions with patients. And so the staff, the quality of our staff is critical. So I would see it as being a foundational layer really sitting across those those functions. I would also argue, by the way that in a business, such as as that sales and marketing, plays second fiddle to customer services, and you've really got to have a really high performing. We bucket that all together sales, marketing, consumer services, all as one big department because there's no good having a really hot marketing department and then having terrible customer service because a lot of our business comes from reputation, word of mouth, repeat business, and that is much more effective than spending millions of dollars on marketing Pay Per Click adverts. It's so having that one view of the consumer journey the consumer lifecycle is really important.



Griffin Jones  24:48

The customer service piece of sales and marketing is that which latches sales and marketing on to operations and makes it fluid and the sales and marketing Beyond that overlap piece should really be the activation of that piece. That is the activation of that experience that they're able to achieve. On the on the HR side, you have to have a system for advancement, you got to have a system for retention, you have to have a system for recruitment. Otherwise, things can buckle, and then you can start to have a lot of challenges delivering to the patients and then you can really start to have conflict between what the patient's seen what the the employees need. Did you find that balance harder? In late let's let's call it mid 2021 or early 2021? Perhaps to let's call it mid to late 2022, than any other time in your career? Or is that just me?



25:54

I think we've posed COVID, we've all had significant challenges, right. And I think we as a business have gone from predominantly work in the clinic, culture, head office function based in one city, everybody turning up to work to other than the clinical staff, obviously, having a lot of people working from home, a lot of people, and we're seeing now, some of that coming back, we literally had a conversation with a staff member this morning about feeling disconnected from the business, and feeling quite upset about that. So we have a big meeting on Monday with the senior team were one of the topic, one of the topics is how do we keep the efficiency of the working from home model because it's undoubtedly more efficient, but made sure we don't lose our identity and people's connection to care. Because we believe ourselves to be, you know, the care family. And it's really difficult to maintain that when people are working from home as much as they are. So I think we staff retention culture, it is more difficult now, undoubtedly, because of some of the dynamics that have been created in the post pandemic employment



Griffin Jones  27:06

market. So you might be the perfect person to ask having an operations background and a finance background. And being from the United Kingdom, where they use the word redundancy in the labor force. Because one thing that I had been considering a lot as, because I really struggled with meeting client needs without driving my team crazy in late 2021 and 2022, when it was so hard to recruit, and I've been completely, I've since completely revamped my human resources system and, and now really have a system and I tell people that I'm, I think that I'm a yellow belt at it right now. And then when I write a black belt, I will write a best when I when I am a black belt at it, I will write it in New York Times bestseller, you'll see it in the Heathrow Airport, you'll pick it up off the news rack and whatever the digital version of that in the meta verse is, and I really believe that I will be able to knock it out of the park. But right now I'm a yellow belt. And one of the the or two of the opposing forces that I'm really trying to master that with efficiency, and that with redundancy. And I'll lay the premise that I believe that recruitment is a retention strategy as well, for two reasons. The first is, it's really hard to hold people accountable to their seat, if you're asking them to do more and more things outside of their seat without that which they need in order to be able to accomplish it, you have to have more people coming in, or at least a replacement level to come in so that you can maintain that level of accountability. And second is that if you get people in that are not fit with the culture, or they are not able to achieve their outcomes, and you're not able to replace them that that can turn into a cancerous environment real fast, and they can barely and why not take a vote of no confidence? Because if the other if the great people are feeling stressed out and and not getting the resources they need, then they then see. Yeah, so that premise is that retention it recruitment is a necessary strategy for retention. And I see redundancy as being somewhat necessary in order to make sure that we constantly have people coming in so that that people can be accountable for their seats, they can be supported, and that we don't have the stress of it being several months of people having to bear a burden that they shouldn't have and then all of the cultural issues that come from that. And then I've been thinking about this also a lot because we say layoffs in the United States but when people are let go in the UK it's often let go to redundancy is that so? You coming from finance Were in a perfect world, we don't want any of that redundancy versus operations were having to you have to consider the needs. What's redundancies place? And all of that?



30:12

I'm picking that question, I would say there's two elements to it. One is performance management. And one is redundancy. And I think the lack of performance management is really corrosive in an organization. And, and, and that's holding people to account for their performance. And if you don't do that, and if you allow poor performance to prevail, then it's really corrosive to good performance. And it's really demotivating to those people that are doing a good job, when they see people doing a bad job, not being held to account. It really is a it's a very corrosive part of the business, and it can be very demotivating. And so I think performance management is critical in any business, and particularly in a in a people led business, such as ourselves and a decentralized business as well. So having having really good performance management systems and processes in place is critical when you're running multiple sites, because you can't manage that from the center, you have to delegate that down to the managers, and you have to provide them with good tools, good systems, and good training to be able to know how to do performance management. So we, we follow the kind of bell curve of performance management and that we would anticipate that in any given clinic, any given department, you should have some people that are poor performance, and people that are exceptional, and the majority of people in the middle, and really try and educate our staff on how to use those tools. So I would say performance management is is a main part of what you're discussing. I think redundancy comes in different layoffs come in different different packages. So we have very rarely resorted to redundancy. And even during COVID, we didn't really do much of it. But it is from time to time, unfortunately necessary. And I would say it's necessary, really in two main ways. One is the roles just change. So you know, the world moves on and you no longer need people in a certain role. And that role becomes redundant. And it needs to progress because you now need people that are doing chatbots, rather than answering phone calls, you know, that kind of evolution of the business. And if you don't evolve with that, then you might be doing somebody a favor in a very short term, but the business will suffer in that in the medium to long term. And so you've got to do what's right by the business, which ultimately is right by the staff, as well. And the only other period of redundancy that should be considered is in a downturn of trading. But you know, Touchwood, IVF is a pretty resilient sector to be in. And there's not that much need for redundancies as a result of downturns and trading, but never say never.



Griffin Jones  33:04

How about redundancy in the form of overlapping roles, or perhaps additional roles that you might not exactly need that person. But I've coming to see that as a necessity for performance management. So one of the ways that we have been onboarding our new folks, and even with the the team that's been here for a little bit, we've created an outcome hub so that each person has their own outcome hub. And so there's outcome hub for your seat. Okay, David, here's the three to seven main things that you're responsible for. And then we have rocks that which are like quarterly priorities or priorities that take several weeks to accomplish. And each of them are associated with one of those seat outcomes. And so when you start, we go over them in detail. I'm as explicit as I can be on what the outcomes are. And, and then I delineate what we have, and what we don't have for you to be able to achieve the outcomes. And we do that from the very beginning. And so it's okay, David, your your job is to grow the LinkedIn audience by 10%. By the end of second quarter. Here's what I have for you. We have these former campaigns, I have this designer on your team. Here's what I don't have for you, I don't have a, b and c. And then we agree. And so what I've found is that I need to have those things in place, which are very often people that can be moved from one scene to another if need be, or if one of those things, if we lose one of those people that we can replace them very quickly, so that I can hold my people accountable. And the further I get into this, the more I see the two as intertwined. So if redundancy is something that often means layoffs, what's the necessity of an overlay? app that might not make financial sense on the immediate line and in the spreadsheet. But that is absolutely necessary for keeping the operational machine going.



35:12

I think overlap in the way that you describe it comes into two ways. To me, I think you've got succession planning. And when you've got some really great people at one level, and you can see a role for them in a higher level, where they can add more impact into the organization, if you, you've got to go with that. And you can't be selfish insofar as or cautious insofar as well, they're doing a great job, let's leave them there and bring somebody in above because it demotivates them, and also the person you bring in above might not be as good as they would have been. And so there's a real need, when you get that situation, when you see these rising stars, when you see these amazed at this amazing talent, that you've really got to let them shine. And the only way you can really do that is to have a bit of overlap and bring in some resource at the lower level, to work alongside them to then enable them to elevate up into the, into the higher position. So I would say there's definitely a need for overlap is I see it in that situation. And, and the prize, then is that you've got talent from within growing up in the organization. And that's one of the things that we've very proud of. And we've done in many, many situations, our current director of integration was our previous IT manager who's been with us for 25 years, and we've moved him into a new role. But to enable that to happen, we we brought two people in to succeed him in his it role, we had a bit of overlap, they hit the bottom of the line for the p&l for a while. But we're now reaping the rewards because our integration director is got such a wide variety of experiences. That one, he helps us with integrations, he can help with all sorts of challenges. And he's a great guy as well. And we've invested in him. And he's he's moving on. So I think you in business generally. But specifically, in your point here, you've got to take a midterm view on these things. And the way to convince investors to take that view is to demonstrate to them that you're making the short term quick wins, you're taking them. And you allow them to use some of those short term quick wins to invest in the medium to long term growth plans, because they want them to but they'd soon lose interest if that's all you were talking to them about. And you'd be ignoring the current p&l, let's worry about tomorrow, they would not like that. But if you can demonstrate to them some good performance, some quick wins, you buy your freedom to invest in the medium to long term, and overlap, as you call it, or succession planning is critical part of that.



Griffin Jones  38:02

Well, that succession plan, as you described, it makes filling senior positions a lot easier for two reasons. One is that if you're continually bringing junior people in, if you're continually bring lower level positions in, some of them are going to grow to be great senior leaders. So you, you have that pool to begin with. But then secondly, if for those times, when you don't have a senior leader to take from that pool right away, you still have that team in place that is much more attractive to recruit a senior leader if you have those folks. So it's it's a lot easier to recruit that talent for two reasons. You talked about that it can hit the p&l for a little bit. And you need to make an argument to the investors that it's beneficial for the midterm. So what are a couple of examples where you've done that, and you'd say, Hey, I've sat on your seat on the finance side. And I know that it's going to be it's not going to look great on the p&l for the next four months. But in two years, it's going to be amazing. And what are a couple of examples of that and what data did you use to make your side of the argument?



39:23

That's good question. The The best example I've gotten to that is when we centralized call handling, and patient inpatient handling. So this is patients that are currently patients of ours, where they would previously ring or contact each individual clinic for updates on test results or whatever it might be that they were, they were ringing for. And we were providing an okay service, but we know it could have been it could be better. And the reason for that is is the clinics. It's the laws of small numbers, right? So each clinic I only have four or five people that are dealing with that kind of request. And small teams have vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities of succession, sickness, you name it poor performance, they are exposed to small fluctuations that lead to a big impact on on on their patient service. So we decided that look, it'd be a lot easier if we centralize this, because then one or two people being off sick, or it can be covered quite easily by a much bigger, broader central team. And we can share best practice better, etc, etc, etc. So we decided to make that change, excuse me, we decided to make that change. But the, the way to do it in the most impactful, least risky patient friendly way was to actually build 80% of that central team, before letting any if the local team go for moving them into position. And that obviously came with quite a significant cost, because you're building up a team before you've replaced the other team. And then you're running them in parallel, and then you make in the final changes. And that was really about articulating the benefits to the board and saying, look, the ultimate benefits here are this. And it's going to cost us this much. And these guys are very smart people. And if you treat it in the language that they understand, which is I need to invest this much. This is my investment. And this is my return, then they can visualize that. And they just want to know, when's it going to happen? How do we measure it? What are the milestones, and that's very, then that's a very easy business decision to make. And I would argue that it's all very patient friendly as well, because not only are you ensuring that the experience whilst you're building, the team is a good one. But ultimately, we did this not to cut not to save money, it was done, really to provide a better quality of service to the patient at the end of the day.



Griffin Jones  42:05

My second New York Times best seller is going to be about pre selling and, and to what scope pre selling should fit into what constraints pre selling should fit into for the reasons that you're talking about. My first business fertility Bridge is a client services firm and was very much we're selling, delivering, selling, delivering, it wasn't it's not like a crazy, huge business. So we're able to do it. But gosh, it you know, it's it's a lot to do to sell, then deliver. And now building inside reproductive health into a trade media company, I can take my time more. And I'm building out a lot more of the delivery capacity ahead of time in ways that I wouldn't have in years prior where I would have tried to had that immediately funded. And for a couple reasons established, I feel that the concept is proven and other ways have built up that cash reserve to do it. So I'm the board that you're talking to. I'm the investors that you're talking to, in this case, because it's self funded, but I am really seeing the value of it, you know, we'll just sell a couple advertisers at a time here, we'll continue to build this system. And it there's no rush to, I shouldn't say there's no rush, we're moving quickly. But it isn't like we're having to fulfill something and we're building really building a delivery capacity is much greater advance than we would have in the past. And that's what you're describing. But it's very antithetical to, if you remember, oh, gosh, what's the Eric Ries the author of The Lean Startup, and that whole school of thought of don't ever create anything until the concept is totally proven? And so do you? At what point do you feel it's sufficient to say, okay, the concept is proven, but I really need to build out the delivery capacity before I start selling it there before I start having paying customers go through it. I think it really depends



44:04

on what it is that we're talking about. In the case of what I'm describing. We were able to trial, the service in one clinic first for a six week period to really hone in on the way it was going to work, what the pain points were, what the SOP should be, and then launch it multiple, multiple clinics wide. So I think have it in having the concept is going to be a combination of data intuition and, and feedback. And then you did try then for me, you run a trial period of whatever that might be low touch trial period. It could be that if it's a clinical service, you've heard Allison talk about care maps AI when she was on. If it's a clinical service that you're launching, there may be you do it for free for the first month just to get feedback and you understand how it's working. And then when it's working And then you start charging for it. It might be in the case of my example, a patient services change, where you do it in a small way to start with just to get that, get that feedback, get the get the process perfected, and maybe also to prove some of the business case, because it might be that the business case says that we're expecting 50% of people to do this. And if it's only 20%, then maybe it doesn't work anymore. And so you get that feedback, you get your prove or disprove some of those myths. And as part of that, and then you go with a bigger rollout. So for me, it's all about limited, limited trial periods to really then perfect what you're doing. And that becomes even more important, the bigger you get. Because the bigger you get, what would be a challenging one clinic becomes critical in multi site operations. And if you if we were to roll out a new system or a new process across 20 clinics, without really understanding the impact of that, we could have a big problem,



Griffin Jones  46:02

I want to let you conclude with the thoughts you'd like to conclude on. But before I do that, I want to tie back into the theme that I opened with of a new generation of CEOs, in many cases taking over for the previous generation who had founded their groups. And it's happening everywhere as that's happening in the UK, it's in India, it's in the United States it probably in most of the countries of the world. And so I was thinking of Gilbert Godfrey, you remember the comedian Gilbert Godfrey with the funny voice from Saturday live, but he was on the second generation of Saturday Night Live. And he said they were the cast right after the original cast of Saturday Night Live and everyone hated them because they weren't used to Saturday Night Live cast changing at that point, it would be like if somebody just replaced the cast of your favorite TV show with a new one that people weren't used to it and, and so they they got fired within like a year or two. And they said nobody liked them. And, and the the, and then the next cast was able to really take off and become the classics of Eddie Murphy. And the that whole cast of the, the early 80s. That's probably more famous than the first one now. And so you're the third CEO. I, you, you the Eddie Murphy and what's what's it what's it like to be the Eddie Murphy after? What's it like to to try to resume a legacy, I guess in leadership?



47:28

Look, I always think of myself as the custodian of the care brand. And I'm temporarily carrying the brand to the next stage. And I'm always incredibly respectful and in awe, really, of the of the bravery and the foresight of, of my founders, you know, they did an amazing job. And I kind of carrying on that legacy. But I think the challenges are different than what there were for them when they founded the clinic. And certainly the challenges of running a private equity group, over three countries were tiny clinics, is very different to found in a one clinic, in a new city. And so I think it's different skills for different challenges, different areas and different periods. And, you know, there's some uncomfortable truths that are, you know, it's really difficult when you've got 1000 people to know everybody's name. When you're, when you're the founding doctor of one or two clinics, you will know everybody's name, you probably even know what their kids names are. And so the the environment is different, and there's no getting away from that. But then it's about changing some of the things for the better as well. So one of the things that we are very focused on you talked about it earlier, is HR and making sure that we share in some of these benefits of being a bigger organization with staff and then I think people do accept the cultural change that's, that's going on. They understand it. And then yeah, and it's about remaining visible, despite the fact that we're 20 clinics, 1000 employees, absolutely trying to remain visible so that you are accepted within the organization is not just somebody that's running the business that no one ever sees, but actually they know me as as Dave, and that's really important



Griffin Jones  49:25

to me. What level of temporary is appropriate, it's a temporary custodian and and someone that is brought on as an executive of whoever the CEO of Mattel is now wasn't the CEO 20 years ago and likely won't be the CEO 20 years from now and that's fine. Then there is a tenure that seems to be just too short to make any kind of meaningful difference. So you see, lots of CEOs I look on LinkedIn is like, Oh, they're the CEO there for 10 months. What are they like a Gen Z intern? How Probably the CEO for 10 months, and then the CEO for 11 months over there, or, you know, two years and, and one of the concerns that people have with private equity with publicly traded companies with venture capital in the field is that there's churn, and there's the stripping of assets and selling it at a higher price. And then and then being gone. And five years, you've been almost five years at care. And that's, that seems like a pretty good tenure, what level of, of temporary is appropriate,



50:29

five years and three private equity firms. So, you know, I've survived survive that long, I think, I think for me that, you know, in any job you go in, and I think most people would feel that within six months of starting a new job, you've got a good idea of where you can add value and what you can do and how you can and how you can do that. And, and I've kind of been through two phases that I would say, you know, I came in as finance director, I had some really good ideas about how I can improve things. And I did that within the first 18 months. And then as CEO, I've kind of been through that period as well, where it was like, right, these are the top five things that I want to achieve as part of being the CEO of for care. And then I'd say, I've been through that. And now my, my period I'm going through with care now is we've we've got a really, really good UK business, and how can I establish that on the international stage? And that is given me growth and drive and enthusiasm to see how can we take what is a one country really successful model, then see how that adapts into other countries and other successes, and then one of my other big passions is building the team around me? And to answer your question directly, I don't think there is a prescribed time. But I, myself would feel that when I've achieved that international growth, and I've really got a strong team around me, then it would be right and proper for somebody else to have a go really, because I think no matter how good you are, there is a period where you've done the things that you wanted to achieve, and you maybe get a bit stale. And and I think I don't know what that lead time is. I hope it's not six years, but three years



Griffin Jones  52:14

after that. And that's when you're gonna retire. We'll see. Dave, our audience is fertility practice owners, physicians and executives increasingly from around the world, how would you like to conclude on the topics that we discussed today?



52:32

Thanks for giving the opportunity and, and hopefully, people have listened this far. So thanks for listening. But the way I'd like to conclude is that the US is very exciting market. And that's why there's a lot of private equity interest in the US. I think there's some really good players out there and some really good firms. But they've all got their differences. And what I would say is, it's really, I've worked on nearly 10 acquisitions of clinics now talking to doctors, spending time at their houses, spending time getting to know them, and really understanding them, every single deal is different. And every needs, people are different. And so it does worry me occasionally in the US about how many sales are being really process driven sales because it for me, I would say that if you're a doctor, you should really think about what it is that you want, or unknown, or I should say, what it is that you want. And if that's the biggest check, that's fine. That's totally acceptable. But in my experience, that's not always the case,



Griffin Jones  53:37

process driven sales not happening to that degree in the UK, in Europe. In your view, though, what do you think are the main differences? The main,



53:47

it depends on the process, first and foremost, but generally, yeah, in a process, you don't get a very tailored deal. It's a very off the shelf deal. And in my experience, you you often have clinics with three or four owners, and each one of those owners might have different desires for the future. Some might want to retire straight away. Some might want to be with a business for 10 years, some people want to do research and development. Some people want to be just business people. And it's really difficult for a buyer to be able to present an offer in a structure that's really tailored to the those individual people's needs and desires when you're kind of held off, but a distance with an advisor in the middle, not necessarily with those same motivations. So it really it's horses for courses, as we would say, in the UK and it you've just got to think through what it is that you want from a sale and and we pride ourselves, really and I personally pride myself so I'm really trying to understand what it is that the sellers want, and then try and come up with a structure and a way of working that that satisfies those needs.



Griffin Jones  55:02

Why do you suspect that that type of process sale is more common in the US than it is in the UK, in Europe,



55:07

I think the pace of change in the US is faster. You know, we've been going through a consolidation process in the UK for over 10 years, I did my first acquisition in the UK back in when I joined 2014. And we're still doing them now. So it's been a much slower process in the UK, whereas the pace of change in the states seems to be a lot faster. And I think maybe clinics are getting not forced, but are feeling the pressure to settle and move on. And that maybe leads them to stay where they are going with these very fast six week advisor led processes, which, like I say, it's horses for courses that might suit some people, but this is advisor



Griffin Jones  55:53

being the person that represents the sell side. Yes. And so normally, that they the Steelmen argument for that would be you need somebody to advocate for you. And, and so what's the drawback? No, no, it's



56:09

not saying that you don't need sell side advice. It's, it's the type of sales. So sales side advice is critical. And these advisors do an amazing job. But it's when it's a very fast six week process and pious beard winds kind of thing 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 very quick. It was a very quick process. And so this is quite often somebody's Lifetime's 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 people. And then, as I say, my passion and, and cares passion. And having done lots and lots of these acquisitions over the years is to really understand what it is that people want, and then to try and tailor that deal to suit them.



Griffin Jones  57:12

Dave river CEO of care fertility, thank you very much for coming on the inside reproductive health podcast.



Sponsor  57:18

This episode was brought to you by Univfy Download Univfy’s free IVF conversion and revenue calculator Univfy.com/IVFpatientretention. 



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 have the advertiser, the advertiser does not have editorial control over the content of this episode. And the guest appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice

179 Chat GPT Has Arrived In REI: Conqueror Or Collaborator? With Dr. Ravi Gada and Manish Chhadua

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.






Please Note: We recorded this episode two months prior to release, and Manish and Ravi have already been pinging me about changes that have happened since. I will do another episode with them because this topic is constantly evolving!


Chat GPT is here to change the future of your job in the fertility industry, or maybe even take it. Is this a stretch? Dr. Ravi Gada and Manish Chhadua discuss how Chat GPT and its predictive technologies has the potential to revolutionize is already revolutionizing the fertility space. And what may come next.


Tune in to hear:

  • Uses for Chat GPT in fertility clinics and the Open AI source behind it.

  • How Chat GPT is being used to share data with patients, aggregate data, how it may be used in the future to generate prompts and consult notes.

  • The elimination of scribes and schedulers.

  • How Chat GPT will be able to interface with patients to provide 27/7 availability and access to care.

  • Griffin push Manish and Dr. Gada about what the second and third order consequences will be from this development, and what significant long-term impact it could have on the future of REIs.



Dr. Ravi Gada:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravi-gada-md-mba-a2307527/

Manish Chhadua:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mchhadua/
Website https://reuniterx.com/




Transcript


Dr. Ravi Gada  00:00

In the fertility space, what we're going to deal with is who owns the data inside the EMR. So, when we talk about regenerative AI and language modeling, we're talking about being able to talk back and forth with a patient, maybe summarize a chart, create a summary of a consultation and put a note in the EMR. But we also talked about in AI, this whole idea of helping predict outcomes for IVF, as well as dosing for medications for a cycle embryo growth and development and who owns that data.




Sponsor  00:31

This episode is brought to you by Univfy, email Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com, or just click on the button in this podcast, email or web page for your free IVF artificial intelligence tips and strategies. 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.


Griffin Jones  01:13

A monkey can do an IVF egg retrieval. That's something that more than one REI has said to me. That's a euphemism. That's not really true. But will we be saying that what Rei is can do today is like the intellectual capacity of monkeys, based on what's coming with artificial intelligence? That's the topic of today's episode, you might listen to today's episode and wonder is Griffin high? No, the topic of today's episode is exactly why I don't get high. I talked to Ravi Gada. Dr. Ravi Gada and Manish Chaddua. Both of Reunite RX niche is the founder. Dr. Gada is their medical director, Dr. Gada also practices at Dallas Fort Worth Fertility Associates, we talk about chat GPT, which many of you have heard of some of you may have not the open AI source behind it, we talk about the applications that it's having. In the greater context right now the applications that it's having in the REI practice, how it's being used to share data with patients, how it's being used to aggregate data, how it will be used in the future for prompts and generating consult notes, how it will replace the work of scribes and schedulers and nurses how it will be able to interface with patients as an avatar of you. Because of technology that already exists. Today, I pushed Dr. Gada and Manish To explain what they think the second and third order consequences will be from this and what the REI will do when half of the communication half of the tasks that they're responsible for today are done by artificial intelligence tomorrow, at least half depending on what length of time we're talking about. And if we're talking about a long enough period of time, does it become everything that an REI could possibly do in a way that they couldn't possibly add any more value over what general artificial intelligence can do? You'll notice throughout this conversation, we really tried to keep the conversation about the applications of what happens in the REI practice, at least for half of the episode. But there's almost no way to contain it to just that open AI is Chat GPT product is just the tip of the iceberg and it has implications for every single aspect of the human experience. I might sound dystopian or pessimistic when I'm trying to get Manish and Ravi to think about this during our conversation. I don't think I am I think I'm pretty neutral. I'm not making a value judgment if it's good, bad or neutral, but follow along as we discuss how this conversion of technology not only replaces workflow that happens in the REI practice, does it replace the concept of human production altogether. Buckle up. Don't even consider consuming anything that has cannabis in it and enjoy this conversation with Manish Chadduaand Dr. Ravi Gada. Dr. Gada, Ravi. Mr. Chaddua, Manish. Welcome to Inside reproductive health.




Dr. Ravi Gada  04:06

Good to be here.




Manish Chaddua  04:07

Nice to meet you.




Griffin Jones  04:09

Manish , do you know how many times Ravi has Monday morning quarterback my show and I get a text or an email something that I should have said or something I should have asked. I've always asked him to come on. He says no, I don't want to rock the boat. I don't want to shake salts. I don't want to stir the pot. And finally I got a text from a couple like a month or two ago saying okay, I got a topic let's talk about yet. GPT. And I said all right, great. This'll freak people out. And he said companies government I said Yeah, so I want to freak people out about chat GPT. But we were speculating before we even started recording how much of our audience knows what chat GPT is how many of them know about open AI the platform that it's built on? So why don't we start Elementary and just give context for what we're even talking about? 




Manish Chaddua  05:00

I think a lot of people have read a handful of articles maybe about chat, GPT. But you know, it's an endeavor that kind of started probably about five years ago. It's often invested heavily into it. And then, you know, really just back in November of this year, last year, they basically launched this first kind of forward-facing view for consumers of what exactly it's capable of. And so the founders behind it are, you know, a handful of guys, Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, I think are some of the original core for it. But since Microsoft has invested upwards of $10 billion into this product,




Dr. Ravi Gada  05:38

well, and Griff just, I don't know if people know what I mean, Sam Altman is the former CEO of Y Combinator, Peter Thiel, former founder of PayPal, Elon Musk, obviously everybody knows. So it's got some pretty big backing behind it.




Griffin Jones  05:54

People know those names but tell us about what Chat GPT is doing.




Dr. Ravi Gada  05:59

Chat GPT is an AI language modeling platform, it's probably considered a SASS platform where users can go onto the web, create a login, it's absolutely free to use, there is a paid version of it that you get a little bit more priority. And you can ask it just about anything. And it has over 100 billion different data points. But you can ask it, you can just talk to it. If you're like, Hey, how are you today and go through a conversation, you can ask it? What's the reason for having an Hmh of less than one, you can ask it to draft legal documents that you can ask it to write a poem. So and really, it puts this together and you can iterate on it back and forth to get to the point where you're happy with the answer, copy paste, but it into your platform and use it a lot of people are saying it will be used to augment the workforce and make our lives easier.




Griffin Jones  06:54

Manish, How does that work? Like how is Chet GPT using open AI to be able to do that?




07:01

So chat, GBT is called the term that's being used for it as generative AI. And so what chat, what they've done is they've basically created, you know, in the term is a caucus of data of about 170 billion data points, which is articles, publications, all sorts of data points across the internet, they stopped collecting that data in about 2021. And really, the way that it works is actually through algorithms and just math, it's predicting the probability of the next word or the next most likely word in how it's generating this text. And so that's kind of the clever thing about it is that it's this large, large data set, it's able to basically look at that data set, and then predict the profitability of the next word. And that's how it turns into the text that gets outputted when you're asking your questions and the context that it actually receives when you follow up with that question, and things like that. So it's a predictive model,




Griffin Jones  08:01

Doctor Gada, give some of the use cases that Chat GPT is being used for what are some of the funky ones that you've seen, one of the funky examples that I've seen was, like, talk about a certain type of story in the tone of comedian Tim Dylan, and it was the comedian, Tim Dylan reading it. And it was pretty close. And even he says, like, wow, this is, this is pretty close. And it clearly wasn't there yet. But it's more than just write a poem or write an article, you can actually say, write an article for this certain type of audience or write it in the spirit of x. And so what are some of the wacky examples that you've seen?




Dr. Ravi Gada  08:43

People are predicting this year, chat GPT, or any other language modeling system is going to write a screenplay for a movie, it's going to give it some input data on what type of movie at once and who the characters are, it's going to write the movie from start to finish finish. And they're going to take that storyline and put it into an animated AI platform dollies for pictures, but there's some animated ones in the background, and it'll create the animated movie and that by the end of this year, we'll have a movie in which the screenplay and the animated movie are all done by AI with minimal human input. Wow. So even




Griffin Jones  09:21

the characters, the action of the animation is going to be created by artificial intelligence.




Dr. Ravi Gada  09:27

Yep, completely based on the language of the screenplay, and it'll make all the action of the characters, the voiceover to voiceover as well. So you can there's voiceover you can do now, so I could probably record all of your podcasts, uploaded it to chat, GBT right what I want Grif to say and replay it, and it's going to sound like I'm doing a podcast with you. And we can call it something else.




09:48

Well, I'm going a step further from that they can actually model based off of a handful of pictures of you an actual animation of your face and have that talking as the actual animation for that. Voiceover so that's so they can mimic like real life people and things like that. And that's not just GBT. But that's other AI solutions that are out there.




Griffin Jones  10:08

Sure. What is that? Is that the deep fake? What is that?




10:12

It's related. I mean, it's in that vein. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.




Dr. Ravi Gada  10:15

Deep fakes, probably the most popular one.




Griffin Jones  10:17

Is that a different type of artificial intelligence? What's behind that?




10:23

Yes, sir. I don't know a whole lot about what's exactly behind that. But it is using AI to basically evaluate facial expressions and things like that, like deep fakes, specifically takes my facial expressions, and it superimposes your face onto it. There's other versions of that that basically will just take text and known kind of vernacular and how mouths moves and things like that, to basically create video or animations of a person actually talking.




Griffin Jones  10:51

Okay, well, I could just totally dive into this part where I'm deeply concerned about someone making a podcast episode.




10:59

That's a really weird edge case, or not weird, but just kind of scary, is that even hackers are using chat GBT to generate clickable content so that way, they can send email blasts out and they'll just ask it things like, hey, create a email that's basically has a link in it, that's the most likely to be clicked by users. And it'll actually generate and so this is another edge use case where it's like, okay, well, you know, the malware the ransomware type of folks out there using it to help move their cars.




Griffin Jones  11:32

Well, I want to come back to this and talk about what we think second and third order consequences might be of all this, but let's talk a bit since this is, after all, a show for Rei is it isn't Rogen were talking to fertility specialists and the people that own fertility practices? What are the applications that open AI can be used in the REI practice at this time?




Dr. Ravi Gada  11:59

So I think at large, right, we've, we've seen in our space companies that come in just using AI for data mining for embryos, look grading eggs, grading embryos, there's companies trying to predict what's the outcome of an IVF cycle. But we haven't really seen too much movement in the linguistics modeling or the language modeling. So in an REI practice, could you create a chatbot that basically communicates back and forth with a patient answering simple questions. So if a patient calls, or has a question about what's my Hmh level? Or what's this thyroid function test, could could a language model reply back and forth with that patient just enough to answer as many of their questions as possible? In healthcare, you want to be very careful in what we call follow up criteria. So if the if the bot doesn't know the answer, then say, Hey, let me get one of the nurses for you or one of the doctors and then someone picks up the conversation from there. But you could think about that in a way where patient has free access or 100% 24/7 access to a chatbot that's been trained by us in the REI community. We've given all the language the data points, the conversational pieces to have. So that's a use case. Interestingly, I did a did a thing the other day I put write a male male couples gestational carrier contract, and it spit out a gestational carrier contract immediately. And then I said, Well, can we add language for what happens in the first trimester if there's abnormal screening, postpartum does the gestational carrier provide lactation and milk for them and and it added all these sections in there along with by the way, an exhibit page to add the financial conditions of all of these things, so I can have it write contracts for third party reproduction pretty easily. I had a patient asked for a work excuse the other day, and I had chat GPT write a work excuse after an abdominal myomectomy for six weeks, and it wrote it for me. It leaves blank so you know template so then you copy paste it and then you add the patient's name, sign your sign it and send it.




Griffin Jones  14:12

Let's talk about the EMH level example for a moment, the thyroid function example for a moment, how would we know if the bot gives the wrong answer?




Dr. Ravi Gada  14:21

So this is the part that gets complicated, right? So what's interesting is there's plenty of companies today that have language modeling, ai, ai ai, so chat. GPT is owned by open AI, open AI is primarily going to become a Microsoft based company. Recently, Facebook launched one called llama and then Google launched one called Bart and so everyone's going to have a version of this. You have to then take their AI language modeling and input your own data set. So perhaps that's recording the next 1000 hours of calls with nurses and physicians with their patient. inputting that data. And then running tests to see is it doing what it's supposed to be doing? And if it is perfect, if it's not, you have to give feedback to the system always. And that's how it's why it's called machine learning or regenerative learning is it has to learn from itself. The patient either has to tell it, it's wrong, the nurse has to tell his strong, but you've got to feed that system enough to be smart enough to give the right answer and smart enough to know when not to give an answer. But that's going to be the biggest challenge in our field is making sure it doesn't overstep its bounds.




Griffin Jones  15:33

And so at what point do we expect it to be able to be a better judge than a human being?




Dr. Ravi Gada  15:41

I think in some cases, we might already be there in certain language modeling. I mean, when we in you open up your Gmail, or Outlook, and it practically finishes your sentence for you when you're typing up an email now, and sometimes I'm like, well, that's better than I would have wrote it. So let's just go with that. But in the healthcare space, I think we're I think we're a bit of ways I think we always are later adopters, for new technologies for that reason. But if I had to guess, I mean, we have to be three to five years from being able to really, I hope within three to five years, where they're where we can leverage this type of technology.




16:14

And the biggest challenge is going to be what Robbie's talking about this Fallout criteria. So when we think about AI, and basically, you know, creating the answers are basically predicting what the answer should be. The probably the, the hardest part is going to be that aspect of just knowing when not to answer and AI is not there yet, or doesn't seem like it's there, which is why a lot of stories are online about how they're tricking chat GPT and providing wrong answers to math questions or, you know, doing a handful of other things like that. So that's probably going to be where, you know, some, the physicians in general, will view this as a tool that helps them get to the answer faster. But it's still, you know, we're far away away from between us getting to the point where we can blindly trust that to do that.




Griffin Jones  17:06

Have you read anything about the regulatory bodies or the agencies thinking about how we're going to regulate this either from ama or from Fe cog or from is anybody talking about this? Rob?




Dr. Ravi Gada  17:19

I don't think anybody's talking about him. I was listening to a couple of podcasts about it. So in healthcare, it's not interestingly Moniece mentioned to me earlier today, chat, GBT did certify that their HIPAA that they have a HIPAA compliant API version to it. I don't think any of the society organizations are talking about it. Even in this sense of copyright. People haven't really quite figured out when chat GPT pulls language from the internet, essentially rewrites that language and spits out an answer. It's not giving attribution for where that came from. And so there's even concern that could chat GPT ultimately get stuck in lawsuits with copyright? And are they just rewriting someone else's language or or verbiage that's out on the internet without site citation of credit? And Google does it right you type a search? It gives you an answer. But there's a link to where it goes from they might summarize a little bit in the in the description part. But ultimately, it gives credit through a link which chat GBD does not. So there's some people looking at this, but I mean, no society organizations from a medical standpoint, no, I don't think anybody is even digested what this technology means




Griffin Jones  18:31

until they hear this podcast. And they're like, Oh, crap, we have to have a board meeting.




18:36

And one of the counter arguments to the copyright thing that Ravi just brought up is that, you know, do humans in general do anything different? Are we just basically absorbing information and data from a variety of sources, and then basically mimicking what we hear with some amount of, you know, how much innovation is actually being produced? Out of what we regurgitate? Right? Some attribution




Griffin Jones  18:59

and some innovation, but very often isn't even possible to totally attribute everything because like the machine, you might be saying, in this case, money's we're aggregating and it's an amalgam of everything that we've consumed. But I was I was going to ask you that question about intellectual property, too. And you brought up the example of Google Ravi. And I wonder if if case law is still been established about that? Because sometimes I think like, is that enough when a creator is putting out information or creating something, and Google just kind of takes it and they put it on a Google search? And yeah, they give it a little bit of credit, but very often, what does the Creator actually get from that credit? If that person gets their answer right there in the search, they don't ever have to go to the creators website. They might see that little URL at the bottom, but they're pretty much just getting their answer from Google. Is there any kind of case law that, you know, Manish that has been established? Or is there are there battles going on about this




20:07

definitely is something that's been brought up even just about how the way Google works. Now Google gets a little bit of away with it, because they are actually providing that attribution. And I think that's where chat GPT will be very different. Because, you know, it's not the Texas generating is somewhat unique, but it's not actually sourcing that direct place of where the data is coming from. Even Ravi and I have had conversations about this as well, just to say, you know, here are the different differences. And then, you know, Google is a little bit different of an animal as well, because it's giving that attribution, it's giving hope to those creators to actually get the clicks or get the referrals. So I think it's a little bit of a different scenario altogether.




Dr. Ravi Gada  20:48

But there, but there is, there is case law for this. So there is something called fair use for copyright. So fair use has been established that our case law underneath that there's four criteria for violating fair use, but one of them is not citing the person, but it has to affect their ability to monetize. So if you have a company that has a bunch of articles about fertility, and you're regurgitating their data and putting it there, and their whole business model is to get links, have people click on that? And then ultimately buy something or lead them down something, then? Yes. And that's where Google pays people for that link. And so there is it's called fair use. I mean, I don't know that it applies to copyrights. Specifically, it's not going to apply to what we're going to deal with in the fertility space. I think in the fertility space, what we're going to deal with is who owns the data inside the EMR. So when we talk about regenerative AI and language modeling, we're talking about being able to talk back and forth with a patient, maybe summarize a chart, create a summary of a consultation, and put a note in the EMR. But we also talked about in AI, this whole idea of helping predict outcomes for IVF, as well as dosing for medications for a cycle, embryo growth and development. And who owns that data? Is that the patient is that the clinic? Is that the EMR? Is that everybody? And I think there will be a little bit of information that comes out from probably not the fertility space, but probably more on a higher level of internal medicine or diabetes of who owns this data.




Griffin Jones  22:27

I wonder if this affects people like me even more so than it might the general public and that those that are in deep niches, and are based around information are in deep niches, part of the reason why anybody picks a niche, whether it's a client services firm, or media company or software company is so that they're delivering specific needs to a small group. And that's where they that's the entire reason why they do it. And if something can just say, hey, take everything that inside reproductive health has gathered and created from original sources, then it could be the small niche companies that are most vulnerable, don't you think?




23:16

Yeah, I mean, content creation is something that's going to transform quite a bit. I mean, even if you look at the way, you know, traffic gets generated, and Google and even beings a algorithms work right. Content Creation is like, been the pinnacle of how they judge what's what's good, what's not what's new and fresh. And so that's definitely a large area of impact. I mean, there's, there's sub companies from chat GPT that have already been created that just create copy, and they create everything from sales, copy, marketing, copy, blog copy. So that's definitely distinct part of I wouldn't call it a threat, but a possible, you know, a rethink of that approach of copy creation or content creation.




Dr. Ravi Gada  23:59

I think the niche markets will get saved in this because when I look at health care, people focus on cancer, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and fertility, and very small sectors get overlooked. And so all of these companies I think, are going to be focusing on the big three, you know, in terms of hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and then add cancer, and infertility kind of gets overlooked. I think that's why actually, as a field, I feel like we're very technology deficient. We don't have enough technology infused into this space, and maybe will be saved. I don't know.




Sponsor  24:35

Artificial Intelligence is revolutionizing the fertility space. Often we hear about imaging and automation AI in the embryology lab, but there's a different kind of application of AI and machine learning that is radically changing fertility patient care. One company uses AI and machine learning to analyze structured data. Structured data means the data sets in a fertility center’s EMR export their billing data and billing records. One company is using that data to get the smartest information to inform clinicians and patients in service of truly personalized fertility care. Univfy builds IVF prediction models for your specific fertility clinic, using your clinic's own data validated by your own outcomes. What are all the things you can do with a center-specific prediction model? How can you use it to increase patient satisfaction and IVF conversion? Dr. Mylene Yao, CEO of Univfy Fertility has tips and strategies for how to use AI and machine learning in your clinical practice. Email Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com, or just click on the button in this podcast, email, or web page for your free IVF artificial intelligence tips and strategies. 



Griffin Jones  25:57

We talkedabout a couple of the applications that you're using right now what applications do you expect that aren't quite there yet, but that open AI chat GPT will be able to do in less than three years.





Dr. Ravi Gada  26:11

Imagine a day that we're I'm sitting in a consultation room with a patient, there's a TV screen behind me here. And I say well, let's take a look at your Hmh level today. And on the screen, it hears me say that and pop to the h a m h up on the screen behind me for the patient to see that. And then I say, you know that's numbers normal, you know, that should mean that you have a good ovarian reserve. We also do a follicle count to look at that. And here's me say follicle count from your ultrasound. And it puts that up on the screen. And I have this now interactive conversation with the patient. They're asking me questions, we're going back and forth through a return visit or new visit. And at the end of that visit, we walked out of the room, I hit done on the recording device. And it generates the entire consultation note immediately on its own because it's regenerative language modeling gives me You know, I can then sit at my desk take 30 seconds to read it finalize it done, by the way, any edits that I make to that note that I didn't like the way it writes, it's recognizing that I edited it and and learning from that. So I think at the highest level, you could look at that you could look at it basically, you know, every six months, every three months, it reads the entire chart for a patient and summarizes it in a note on a three month update or a weekly update depending on what cadence you want to do that in. So there's things like that there's things that I could have it recording all the calls that my nurses do to patients, right, I rely very heavily on my nurses to communicate back and forth with patients. And I can and the language model can tell me if there was inaccuracies being presented or something that is different than what I would have said based on its understanding of the conversation. And then we can we can retrain that nurse, we can improve things, you know, it goes beyond nursing, to imagine the day that all of these things are just used as tools to make us better, more efficient. And ultimately, it will probably take over half of the I wouldn't say conversation but communication that we have back and forth with our patients.





Griffin Jones  28:24

At what point might we expect to see the avatar Doctor Gada, having that follow up. And so if all of those things are just different data points, and it can compare it to all of the data points from every piece of scientific literature, fertility and sterility is ever covered. And everything from all of the medical colleges, if it can just deliver that type of information, and we can use your video we can use your voice at what point are patients just seeing a virtual Doctor gotta





29:00

so I think the humanity and US will fight that pretty pretty well. So I think if you look at telemedicine, a lot of things like that, I still think the preferences is face to face communication, I don't think you can replace that for some people. Right. And I think for places where we're underserved pay at places where we're trying to get into that aren't getting quite the availability of health care. I think those are the areas where you'll see this kind of really explode or really thrive is to care for patients in in those particular areas.





Dr. Ravi Gada  29:32

But I mean, I've talked to Manish about this you know we have a lot of pilot projects in this area of where where will this technology take us and how do we get in a lot of it's in the datasets that are fed into the system but when I do think does the day come that you asked the patient would you like to see the human doctor or would you like to see the avatar Doctor initially or virtual care models are already there today. Many patients are going online and wanting to order their her own tests and get their information at home or through virtual care. So I think there's a version of it today, I think there's going to be a more sophisticated version of it in the future.





Griffin Jones  30:10

I'm a little skeptical on Manisha is hope for the humanity aspect. I think people want the humanity when they feel that the robot is insufficient. So the reason I yell into my phone when I'm talking to the the banking teleprompter is because it doesn't understand that I'm saying, talk to an agent or review account balance. But if I actually could do that as easily as I could correspond with a human being, I think it has more to do with convenience than humanity.





30:42

Yeah, for sure. And grip, I think my my point of view on that is more for general, for healthcare, I do think fertility is a little bit different, because of the age of the patient and kind of, you know, the fact that every fertility patient coming through as either a for the most part is Millennials or younger, right? You definitely could see this avenue of I'd rather text with my doctor than, you know, talk on the phone with them, or, you know, have to go and show up at a clinic and actually have that face to face interaction. So I definitely could see that scenario.





Dr. Ravi Gada  31:13

You think about this, there's a YouTube video out there, if you type robotic reenact the Moses of bow, using artificial intelligence, there is a cadaver. So it's a pig model of a robot, taking bow and sewing it back together without any human doing it and it healed intact. And then obviously, they checked it sacrifice the cadaver and checked it. And so, I mean, if we're getting to the point where cars can drive themselves, robots can do bowel reenact the most surgery on their own, we will get to the point where communication back and forth with the patient or consumer will get there. The question is how far right do you get to the point where you just do the intake form? And asking a few questions for clarification? Or do you deliver lab results deliver? Do you deliver positive and negative pregnancy tests and that way? That's the part is how far will it take it? I think it's going to go. If you fast forward 30 years from now, there's going to be a way different version of doing this. The question is in the next three to five years, or while we're all around, how far are we going to get?





32:17

And that's absolutely right. Like you take any technology, any innovation like this, and it's all a matter of a timeline, you assess some rate of improvement, and every tech pundit will say that is whatever the rate of improvement you select, that means at some point in time, you know, the technology will surpass the reality.





Griffin Jones  32:36

m&e, as you said, this has been in the works for some time now the technology behind chat GPT. But it seems like there has been an inflection point recently though, no, like, just how good chat GPT is itself. And then I practice with it. And a couple other like, think of translate for exam I, I don't remember the last time I used Google Translate for language, but it used to suck and not too long ago. And recently, I when we were covering the KKR story for buying ie vrma. And their only media coverage was in Spanish. And I speak Spanish pretty well. I put it into Google Translate to see and it was good. I like almost as good as as a native speaker who had been natively raised in both languages. So what's the inflection point when he's what happened recently?





33:28

Yeah, so this is common, right? This is common in a lot of technology, whether it's the smartphone or the internet, or, you know, even AI. And really, it's a byproduct of technology from 1015 20, even 30 years ago, becoming more accessible, less expensive to use, and basically more awareness, right? So you take smartphones from, you know, back in the late 90s. And they existed, and they had a lot of functionality. But it wasn't until the advent of the iPhone, where it really was the right time in place. And the cost equation made the most sense to where it can actually rapidly grow inside of that. And by the way, my background is telecom. So that's why the analogies there. But then pass that chat. GBT really is the first very consumer facing version of an AI model that showed the rest of the world everybody, including, you know, guys, like you and me, as well as you know, just college students and everybody else in between, right, what the capabilities of AI is. And I do think that AI has been in place for a long time. I mean, it wasn't, it was a number of years ago when AI beat, you know, IBM Watson mini in a game of chess. And this is just that acceleration. And I do think in AI, right, if we look at any of these revolutions that have happened, or major disruptions in technology, you know, it keeps happening faster and faster. And so So I think chat GBT has really opened everybody's eyes to what's capable? And now, all the thinkers and innovators are out there? Basically saying, Oh, I didn't realize we were this far along. How can we employ this as a part of, you know, a core model? Or how do we adopt this and find out what the right solution is that's really chasing this already, and integrated into our workflow.





Dr. Ravi Gada  35:18

And Griff real quickly to add on that. So the inflection point was I don't know if sometimes we will realize Chat GBT launched in November of 2022. So the inflection point was the first real launch of a major language model. And it obviously caught fire. And that's why we're all talking about it, or a lot of people are talking about it, interestingly, in that, but it was founded, I think, in 2019, four years, something like that about four years ago. And they've been working on it up until now, interestingly, post chat GPT launched, let's call it circa November of last year 2022. That put a lot of pressure on Google and Facebook to launch their versions. And so Google launched Bart, and they did a commercial about this. And in the commercial, Google asked, or someone asked the chat bot, to tell them about the James Webb telescope. And it was listing some bullet points. And the last bullet point said that the James Webb telescope was the first telescope to take a picture outside of our solar system, which was actually false, it was actually not yet planet and people picked onto that. And as soon as it did, Google's actual market cap value dropped by $100 billion that day, attributed to this error, because everybody said, their language model and their regenerative AI is not as good as Microsoft's, and they're not ready yet. And it lost some around seven to 10%. Market cap $100 billion because of that, but I think chat GPT launching in November is why we're at that flexion point today,





Griffin Jones  36:52

to the point that is a can take over half of communication that's currently happening between the REI practice and patients right now, maybe more than half so when that happens, Rafi not if because it will happen. It's only a question of time when that happens, what is the RBIs role going to be?





Dr. Ravi Gada  37:12

And you know, I mean, I think people worry about this a lot, right? People talking about not just the role of the RBI, but the workforce is these are these technologies going to replace the workforce. I mean, whether it was the calculator, whether it was Microsoft Word, whether it was, you know, all these different technologies that keep making us better and better. But we talk about this all the time in our field, that there's a under underserved population, there's, you know, we're at the tip of the iceberg. Maybe we're only meeting five 10% of the populations need. Does this actually make us better? Ultimately, we're still proceduralist we still do a lot of procedures in surgical procedures, egg retrievals, embryo transfers, IUI. Guys, so I hope or I think this is not going to replace the average ra i think it's going to make us more efficient. I think it's going to make our nurses more efficient embryologist more efficient. But you're right. How does it allow for us? And we talked about how many are the amount of retrievals that an REI can do in a year. And beyond that point, there. It's it's not beneficial maybe to the patient or the ER, and it depends how many nurse practitioners do you have underneath you? How many nurses? Well, this is going to be another adjunct to that technology have an honestly a checks and balance. I mean, imagine the day where we have going into an IVF cycle. And I'm going to do for the physicians and nurses that listen to the podcast, a Lupron trigger. Well, there's certain things for Lupron triggers that you want to know you want to know that that patient has regular menstrual cycles and that they have a normal FSH level. And so the second you order a Lupron trigger, that the that the AI actually scours the EMR and actually pings you and says, Hey, I don't see an FSH level on this patient. Are you sure you want to order a Lupron sugar? And I say, Oh, I'm glad it caught that. Let me order a FSH level real quick and make sure. So I think it'll make us more efficient. It's, you know, replacing us I think we're all going to be replaced one day, you know, whatever, whatever, you know, sector you're in, you're gonna get replaced 100 years ago, everybody was a farmer, or at least knew somebody was a farmer. Today, I don't really know that everybody can say I have a first degree relative. That's a farmer. So machines have already replaced, farmers machines have replaced manufacturing jobs. And that's the worry about this type of AI technology. It will replace jobs, but it will also create jobs. I mean, we didn't have the jobs we have today that, you know, that didn't exist 100 years ago. In fact, I don't know what the population of the US was 100 years ago. Let's make it 100 million people. Today were 300 million people, no manufacturing jobs, very few farming jobs, and everybody's still employed. So there will be new jobs created. Maybe we'll figure out newer ways to help people get pregnant, but things that are replaceable at Everybody should be looking at saying, you know, how do we either make ourselves better to stay ahead of it? Or how do we use it to, you know, augment what we do today?





40:09

And there's there's a lot of people out there far smarter than us that have kind of pondered upon this question as well. One of the other things that I think is kind of changed recently, is initially they thought a lot of low skilled labor would get replaced fairly quickly by automation and AI and things like that. I think chat GPT tests that a little bit and saying, Hey, listen, well, you know, if your job is sitting behind a desk at a computer, basically, replying the emails and doing things like that, there's a lot of risks there, probably more so than a surgeon, or, you know, even a mechanic at that point in time. So I think that's what it's changed kind of some of the view of what would get replaced by AI first, but I do think we're still a fairly long ways away from that, like, years, at least,





Griffin Jones  40:56

well, for now, and I do want to talk more about that. And we'll definitely end on a note where we're really freaking people out, but, Robbie, I want you to think a little bit about what it is that the REI will be needing to do in these coming years as Chat GPT gets an AI in general gets more sophisticated, like how I'm envisioning it is there's human Gada overseeing a hunt the capacity that robot Gada can do and robot Gada is helping to treat 100 patients and human Gada just needs to oversee robot Gada or is that not the right way of thinking about it? Because the human will soon not be?





41:38

Grip? I think the jury's still out on whether or not Robbie's a robot or not.





Dr. Ravi Gada  41:43

It could be it could be, do you wanna see dr ga da, or Dr GA D Ay ay ay.





Griffin Jones  41:50

Oh, it's already there. And and so what's the relationship supposed to be? Yeah,





Dr. Ravi Gada  41:56

I mean, I think ultimately, that relationship kind of goes back to, you know, we already use or have our staff help us accomplish what we accomplished in the day, I don't accomplish in a day, you know, very much if I don't have a nurse, an embryologist, a medical assistant, a billing person. And this will do the same. I think that, but I do think you know, we've managed to have talked about there, I'd love to do a commercial where I have four consultation rooms running with a iPad in there that's actually has my own avatar, speaking back and forth with that patient, one patient, it's their new patient console, the second room is their return visit with their lab results. And the third patient is coming back for another FET after a successful delivery. And all the while I'm actually over in the operating room doing the retrievals all day. I mean, so that day is coming. Now the question is, is that coming tomorrow? No. Is that coming in the next three to five years? Probably not? Is that something that we can work towards in the horizon of a 10 year type cycle? I think so. I mean, I know that might not sit well with some people. But I think you have to embrace this technology. We are looking at this very heavily. We're investing a fair amount of resources to figure out how to do that. And I think that the people that do will do well, I think the people that resist it may do well. But I think there's a high chance that they're not going to be able to be as efficient if they don't adapt to technology, which is the story over the last 100 years.





Griffin Jones  43:30

You talked a bit about it's some of this like data entry type of work that is most vulnerable. And I was hearing one expert on this topic talk about that it's actually more white collar work that is vulnerable rather than blue collar work because blue collar work tends to be more manual. But Manish when are we going to see an intersection between robotics and this type of AI because once that happens, then we don't need human God at all, once we have a robot that can do the very sensitive maneuvering in surgery that the best surgeons can do right now. And we have the artificial intelligence of all of the data points gathered from every surgery ever electronically recorded. When can we what progress are we seeing towards robotics and artificial intelligence? converging?





44:31

You know, it's actually something that's, that's familiar, before even AI right, it's the separation between engineering and technology or software. Right. And so this is I think, why we're seeing this is because replacing things that are soft like on a computer or something like that becomes a lot easier once you can get over a kind of the intellect or the brain of it, right? The biggest issue with robotics right now is probably the expense and so when In the cost of robotic arms, robotic equipment and stuff like that, that's reliable and high precision and things like that start coming further and further down. That's when you'll see this kind of cannibalize even those types of industries. And so that's where I feel like, you know, this low skilled or blue collar laborers, you said it, you know, as a little bit more protected, because the cost of those robots has not come down. And the functions that they pervert perform, and the accuracy of what they do, just isn't quite as inexpensive as, you know, your email solution of being able to message back and forth with patience or something to that regard. So it's going to happen, but it's just, you know,





Griffin Jones  45:42

so maybe there's a silver lining to all of this supply chain crap that it's slowing down the inevitable





Dr. Ravi Gada  45:49

grip. I don't know. Are you old enough to remember the Jetsons? I mean, that's where Yeah, remember





Griffin Jones  45:53

the Jetsons Flintstones crossover?





Dr. Ravi Gada  45:56

Yeah. So you know, I mean, imagine I mean, the Jetsons is looking forward to, obviously, if robots robots replace what we do, and we work, everybody's concerned on what would we what maybe we start enjoying life again, you know, we worked so hard, we, you know, is a society. And I'm not talking about just fertility, I mean, globally. And maybe we actually, you know, a 40 hour workweek becomes a 20 hour workweek. And we actually are able to read and spend time with family and travel. And maybe I mean, robots taking over and doing certain things. I'm not saying they're taking over the world. But maybe we get back to the point where society actually has time to do the things we do rather than being in this hamster wheel that we are in today.





Griffin Jones  46:38

Before it does, what other applications do you see elsewhere in the fertility industry and quote, so you talked about the applications that can happen in the practice between fertility providers and patients? But where can what other applications are we seeing right now with open AI, if any, in the fertility industry, and what more should we expect?





Dr. Ravi Gada  47:01

Yes, I don't think we're seeing I mean, I haven't seen it, I tried to keep a pretty good pulse on what's going on. I haven't seen it. There's some chat bots that are out there. But overall, in terms of chat, GPT, I don't think so we've seen it in obviously, in the lab, there's a lot of work being done to robotics and, and automation and AI. But what's interesting is, I don't, I think also no one in the fertility space, or even a lot of other spaces are going to actually be able to build their own technology on this, they're going to have to leverage I mean, think about Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, few other companies, I'm probably leaving out, but they have the best of the best, the brightest or the brightest, and essentially unlimited budgets relative to ours to do this. So a lot of this is going to be creating API Interfaces into their technologies. And using our datasets. I wouldn't be surprised if the EMRs that are out there are looking at this today, right? The electronic medical records, they're fairly technology forward, they are probably looking at their datasets, because they have actionable datasets. You asked me hey, you know, Hey, Ravi How much does DFW fertility associates? What kind of data do you guys have to feed into Chad GPT. And I've looked at you and say, I haven't even I don't have data. Like, I haven't started gathering that. But maybe I should, maybe we should start recording every conversation we have in the office with a patient and with each other, myself and my nurses, myself and the embryologist to feed this dataset, and is one individual, clinic or user or even an MSO going to be able to create enough data, perhaps but but likely not, it's going to require a collective effort amongst the industry. So I don't think we're there in terms of that. I mean, like I said, there's the earlier stuff, I was telling you writing a letter writing a contract for third party reproduction. But in terms of the high level stuff, it's got to be a concerted effort of gathering that data, putting it in, and then really, ultimately, you know, garbage in, garbage out. So if you put garbage data in, you're gonna get garbage data out is what that term is. But you've got to do that, then you've got to test the model over and over and over again, because in healthcare, we demand 99% excellence, right? In other industries, they might say 80% lunch, this, you know, we've all talked to a, a answering machine bot on a customer service line, they'll get to 80% and be satisfied with the quality of that work. We have to exceed that above 99%. So no one's there yet, but the question will be how do we get there? I think that a lot of people like us and others are looking at this. And I think that it's around the corner. If you ask me what does around the corner mean? I can't tell you the answer.





Griffin Jones  49:54

So I was going through Dr. Rudy Giuliani's workflow with her and I How she did 1300 retrievals last year and I was thinking of each of the points, she was talking about listening well, I could impact that I could impact and I told her, I said, You should listen to this episode that I'm going to record with Ravi and Monique, because she was talking about her scribes. And I was just thinking your scribes are gone, man, they're not they're not going to have a job in a couple of years. There's no way in schedulers to right.





Dr. Ravi Gada  50:23

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Or are their job changes, right? You know, they, you know, they either they're either gone, you're correct, or it changes, right. So we still like concierge service, right? So they, the bot kind of does that. I mean, Google right now, I think has a platform that you can order a pizza now through a bot or make reservations at a restaurant. And it'll actually if the restaurant doesn't have something like open table that you can go online and do it will call the restaurant and make the reservations for you and interact with the hostess without, without a person, it's a robot talking to a hostess. So those jobs will be either replaced or used in a different way.





Griffin Jones  51:03

Sometimes those applications come and they circumvent solutions that you would think need to happen, right? So for one of the things that we've been saying for many years is that millennials don't want to talk on the phone. But Gen Z absolutely won't talk on the phone. So you guys have to figure out your scheduling, you got to figure out this digital scheduling as well. Maybe you don't, because this Gen Z person can just input into chat GPT called the fertility clinic and make an appointment for me.





Dr. Ravi Gada  51:34

Yeah, that'd be ironic, as we keep focusing on how can we get the clinic to be the Chatbot. And we find out that the Gen Z is actually or the chat bots, and we're still interacting with them on the human side? Well, unfortunately,





51:45

they're not gonna go to the metaverse to schedule appointment anymore. So





Griffin Jones  51:50

well, it's just kind of one of these principles that you think of that we often it's, we have to build a certain type of infrastructure. And there were many countries, for example, that never really built out a telephonic infrastructure never had landlines at scale. And that was probably in their government central plan that, okay, 10 years from now, we're going to build telephone poles and have the wires out to the rural countryside. And they just never had to do that. And so there can be a number of applications that we're thinking of, for artificial intelligence that just circumvent the need for us to build out some other kind of solution.





Dr. Ravi Gada  52:31

So the other day I took I had an Excel sheet, it was a financial Excel sheet. And I took it and I was just curious, because I had heard people were doing this, I copy and pasted it, I didn't format it. And I thought what happened, so I just copy pasted into chat GPT, it looked awful. And I hit submit. And it summarized the Excel sheet for me without even having cells or columns or anything, it was very oddly formatted. So imagine taking the entire data set that we have for IVF patients and outcomes, and just dumping it into this thing. And just at first go saying, What do you think of this? Or tell us in patients less than with a Hmh? A 42 year old with an AMA H of 1.2? Whose BMI is this? Who has unexplained infertility? What what what what should we do? I don't know if that will be the answer that we're looking for today. But that's what we're probably looking to strive for. And, and that's literally just copy and pasting an Excel sheet. Imagine once you get these API's start working with these companies, and you really integrate with them to provide this type of data. I think it's, I think it's also like people, it freaks people out. But I think that when literally, when the calculator was invented, people thought, no one is going to know how to do math, we're all going to be stupid, nobody is going to use their brain anymore. And they're just going to rely on this device. And here we are today doing way, way more amazing things and advancing technology. And the calculator is a tool that you just use, and honestly half of us have moved away from that to things that are on our computer now.





Griffin Jones  54:15

Okay, so we can spend the next 10 to 15 minutes concluding this topic with going down these rabbit holes, because this is going to be fun, what you just brought up Ravi, the example of the calculator, how it's going to make people dumb, and people aren't going to know how to math do math anymore. Ravi, that did happen for probably 80% of the population. They can't do math anymore. And May and 20% can do math into levels of application that we had never even anticipated before. And probably a square root of that number is, you know, has just magnified the Einsteins of the world. But isn't that number getting smaller and smaller and smaller. smaller and the, the applications are greater and greater and greater. But eventually doesn't that number just become nil, because there's nothing that a human being can do to add value to collective general artificial intelligence,





55:17

definitely the edge of what we're talking about, I think Robbie talks about, like these alternative purposes for humans, and basically, what's going to create our, you know, Will and an ability to keep driving forward and stuff like that. And I do think that that those things will happen. But I do think there's a lot of fear around just that, which is, hey, listen, does the population as a whole get less intelligent? Or does a proportion of the population become less intelligent, and then you have this, you know, small niche of the population that continues down the road of research, and basically innovation and stuff like that. And that, you know, that's entirely the storyline of that time machine movie. So so i think i digress to the point





Dr. Ravi Gada  56:02

where it is, right. I mean, people have, maybe, maybe people have become worse at math worse at spelling, because Microsoft Word and everything auto corrects your spelling. And the older generations, like, gosh, we knew how to do all this, I feel like that sometimes. But the newer generation says, Well, you might know how to do math, and you might know how to spell. But these influencers are able to create a whole new, you know, industry, and they're able to create content, videos, edit it with through a computer that does it all with them. And it would take me eons of time to do that. And they can do that in a matter of an hour. And it would take me days, and I still might not get it right. So I might know what you know, the square root of 256 is and they're like, well, that doesn't matter. I've got a computer to help me do that. But you can't use the computer the way I can. So smartness is dependent on the tools that we have, I think that it, it forces people to be resourceful, and be able to use the tools you have. So just like you use a calculator, just like you use Microsoft Word, you're gonna have to learn how to use AI, and whether it's chatting GPT, or some other platform. And someone else might say, well, I could have written a beaut, I can write a beautiful act or essay on my own. Well, that's great. But if someone else can use a tool to do it 10 times faster and 10 times cheaper, they're probably going to win the race.





57:32

And we've seen this from a software point of view, we've seen this over the last, however, long, 40 years or so, right? Where software is now becoming easier and easier to produce, even what developers can accomplish in just a day versus what we had to do to do you know, back 20 years ago, just to get the same type of thing done has has totally changed. And so there's a rate limiter at some point in time where it's not going to matter that they can do more faster, because there's just not more to do. But we're not there yet, either. So, you know, our developers use chat GBT already today and just in the last few months, right? It helps them solve problems faster, it helps them optimize code that code faster, and a lot of things like that. But we have a long way to go before it replaces any of the developers. So





Dr. Ravi Gada  58:19

by the way, for for like normal people speak that like language model. This thing can code because code is a language so it can actually code software. And people are estimating 10 to 20% of software at at big companies is already being written by platforms like Chen GPT.





Griffin Jones  58:36

I see what you guys are saying human intelligence, resourcefulness, resilience, that's only one category of concern that I have. Let's pause it for a moment that we remain committed to innovation that we use this time, Robbie, like he says the possibility to be free to pursue other creative pursuits to enjoy life. Let's pause it for a moment that we don't actually get worse at anything. There still comes a point right? Where there is nothing that human intelligence and creativity can do to surpass that which a general artificial intelligence can think of let's let's think of ancient hominids, for example. It's some point they were equal at some point, humans parted with chimpanzees, and they parted ways with other previous hominids. But then not we live in a world where there is nothing that a chimpanzee can do to add value in a human being world other than be observed and be a pet. So doesn't that happen at some point? Where Yeah, no,





Dr. Ravi Gada  59:36

I mean, it's a great point. So what's interesting though, remember, AI and regenerative learning is data. Data input. So right now, someone estimated chat, GBT has 190 billion data inputs and it regurgitates it out. But it doesn't know what to put out unless it's been put in. So Chad GPT, for example, is likely or any AI is is likely not to figure out How to create this nuclear fusion between protons to generate energy, human intellect still is able to do that, right? They call it the neural network inside of AI. And what's in there is what's been inputted by humans. So a lot of people are saying that what's inside of the datasets, there'll be able to, you know, AI will be able to find it faster, regurgitate it, remodel it continue to do that. But it's always going to need to use or I say always, I should say, as of today is it needs source data, it needs innovation. So innovation is still going to come from humans. And we're going to do that. And then we submit it into a platform such as AI, and go from there. But as of today, I don't know that anybody has any great use cases of AI solving a problem that humans needed to invent or get to, it's really regurgitating all the things we have. And it's just gathering it faster and spitting it out faster. Maybe one day, we'll be able to have, you know, its own neural network that actually generates new ideas, but new ideas are still created by humans and put into the computer software system.





1:01:12

So I do think that there's some places where we're getting there, right. And that has to do with the sheer sheer compute power, right? This ability for it to go after large, large sets of data, right, and basically go through every permutation, right? So it's a little bit different from what we would think about as like new ideas. It's not necessarily a new idea. It's just a, hey, we've gone through every permutation of possible outcomes. And that's how we get there. And so there's, there's this, you know, looming threat or looming kind of, you know, fear of the fact that hey, listen, there's not anything more that we can do that hasn't been done by AI. But I do think that's right now, it's science fiction, at some point in time, it probably will become reality. But hopefully, it will be past my time.





Griffin Jones  1:02:02

The operative phrase that Dr. Gaga was using was as of today, and I think it's okay, as of today. But even Manish can think of a couple of applications where it's starting. And so what about what how long is as of today lasts for? Is it 10 years? Maybe? Is it 100 years? Probably not? Is it 1000 years? Almost certainly not? Almost? Certainly not?





1:02:26

Yeah, in grip. The interesting thing about that is that it's not a conversation about RBIs at all right? No, it's, you know, it's a





Griffin Jones  1:02:33

human race. Yeah. But it's the relevance of the human race.





1:02:37

Yeah. But even before that just passed, are you guys it's, you know, a cure for fertility, right. It's basically, you know, what's the pursuit? What's the purpose for, you know, humans and its happiness, and, you know, procreation and all these other kinds of facets. And so yeah, we'll get to a cure to fertility probably sooner than unnecessary need for humans.





Griffin Jones  1:03:02

I actually think it's going to be the thing that puts us all out of business, because I think it could even it could happen before a cure for fertility. I've said this for years that my long ball sci fi outcome is that,





1:03:16

but it'll be sustaining, right? It's putting us all out of jobs in order to sustain us otherwise, even the AI has no purpose without humans, but





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:03:25

it puts us out of business for what like we all are doing things so that we can be productive and earn money and then use that and enjoy life and have a purpose. But purpose will be redefined as it just as it was 100 years ago, where it is today. And it will be redefined again and another 100 years.





Griffin Jones  1:03:44

So I actually think it puts us out of the business of production. I mean, the the intersection of artificial intelligence and of virtual reality, I think that's what ultimately puts us out of, of the business of human production. Because when we can live in a world where we can augment our intelligence with artificial intelligence, so human beings are already cyborgs. This these devices that we carry around on us help to us to augment our intelligence and our communication abilities and all of our memory and then once that becomes further integrated with our brains with our nervous systems, and there's a virtual world in which we're able to participate, then eventually, what do you even need to reproduce physically in this physical world for you can have your augmented intelligence baby in your augmented reality world that never has to worry about dying that never has to worry about sickness that doesn't have to worry about human suffering. And I'm not saying this to you guys are smiling. Most people are going to be listening to this episode and not watching it so they can't see you smiling right now. I'm not saying this to be dystopian. I think this is just what's actually going to happen.





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:05:00

about maybe it puts us out of the business of being productive production, but it actually puts us back into the business of relationships and, and, and leisure and lifestyle.





1:05:10

And, and just to just to touch a little bit on the philosophical side of this, right, is just keep in mind the lifespan of a human is part of evolution. So,





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:05:24

that was pretty deep. I don't even know what that means.





Griffin Jones  1:05:26

Yeah, explain that many.





1:05:29

Yeah, so just kind of getting to the point that like, humans live the span of life that they live as a part of how we've evolved to become where we are right now, there's plenty of animals that live many, many years longer than humans and plenty of animals that live much shorter years than humans. And so, you know, that's, that's part of the equation as well. And, and the second thing that's kind of goes into that is it like, listen, we might have purpose with AI, but AI has no purpose without humans, either. Because what does a bunch of bots running around, servicing themselves and doing things for themselves me, either, that's a, that's a purposeless kind of function in that vein as well,





Griffin Jones  1:06:13

maybe, but I'm not convinced of that, they may find a purpose because the purpose of any living organism is just to continue existing. And human beings might be the first one to evolve itself out of existence. You talked about our relationship to other species in terms of how long we've been aren't, we haven't been around very long. It's been 200,000 years, I think, since humans separated from the last hominids. And when you look at our, our growth, it's been it's, it's a hockey stick, compared to the first years of leaving the canopy. And now civilization just in the past couple 1000 years, industrialization 200 years ago. And so I don't think this stuff is too far away. And I'm not trying to be dystopian, I just, I just don't think that I don't think there's any way for us to be able to contain it and control it. And so far you guys ever given otherwise?





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:07:09

You know, I think that people thought that when assembly lines came about, I think that they thought that when tractors came along, I think that is always been a worry. And it will always continue to be a worry. But ultimately, in a philosophical sense, humans are resilient. And like I said, we seem to stay ahead of the technology that we create ourselves. You know, at what point do we are we not able to stay ahead of it? Well, up until today, we still have I mean, people thought the world was over when assembly lines came in, and manufacturing jobs just got crushed, and what are we going to do and farming got replaced by equipment. And here we are today, three times the population with you know, 2% 3% unemployment, I mean, people are still employed doing something?





Griffin Jones  1:07:56

Well, if they said that, in the 1860s, as folks, were moving from steam to coal, you know, the late 1860s, or somewhere before the early 1880s. Whenever that happened, if they said, This is the end of humanity in the in the next five years, yeah, they would have been wrong. I think it's the amount of time where people get things wrong. I don't know if this is going to happen in a century or in a, or in an eon or a millennia. But I think it's inevitable that it will,





1:08:31

from that point of view, right? There's a this is not a country point, right? This is, you know, a we're never going to know, or we're not going to know, anytime soon. But in addition to that, yeah, I mean, it's definitely a possibility. And we'll have to figure out something else to do or something else to be or some other purpose to have, at that point in time. But, you know, it's, it's a tricky question, and probably well beyond our scope. So





Griffin Jones  1:08:59

it makes the premise of matrix a lot more interesting, doesn't it? You will never know except, and then and then what will happen? Well, if if you could, if you could evolve yourself out of existence, and then the only thing you had left to do was to recreate a previous existence? What period would you go back to accept the end of the 20th century? And it makes the promise even better,





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:09:22

right, right. Now, I've thought about the matrix A lot, you know, in looking and hearing about AI and its evolution, and it really makes that movie a lot more relevant.





1:09:31

Yeah. My only claim is I don't think they'll need us for batteries. So.





Griffin Jones  1:09:35

So you guys are optimistic. And I know that I might sound pessimistic, I don't think I'm being passed out. And I'm not making a value judgment. If all of this thing is is good, bad or neutral, but I want you guys to think a little bit about second and third order consequences. So Did either of you watch any of the interviews that Brett Weinstein has done about chat? GPT I bet but most of my audience doesn't know who Brett Weinstein is though. Those of you that do, I bet it's half and half about half the like, really critical thinkers really like him. And then other people might not like him because he's like the guy in the movie that is worried about everything. And he's always trying to warn about the media coming. And he's, he's, you know, he's worried about civil war. He's, he's very worried about the entire scientific and medical apparatus and feels that vaccines were rushed in that, you know, that that system was compromised, even if the vaccines themselves are safe, he feels that the the system was co opted. And one of the things that he's worried about is chat GPT given our fragile social relations right now and human beings, general incompetence to assess expertise already, you know, your peers, Ravi are very What are your peers often complained about is Dr. Google? And so if Dr. Google is them, though, and it's a avatar of them pulling from collective data points and, and its expertise that may or may not be scientifically grounded, then what are some second and third world? I'm sorry, second, or third order consequences that you might be concerned about?





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:11:15

Here? I mean, Brett Weinstein, he goes into things like it's able to pass exams, it's able to actually change GBT our licensing exam, as physicians is called the USMLE. It has passed both of those exams. And so if it's able to pass those exams, and people can access it on the internet very quickly, how do we discern who really knows? And who's just using chat GPT to present the answer? And I mean, there's two facets, I think, to that. dilemma. One is, you know, we all have been in oral exams, we've all taken exams in classrooms. I mean, the tool is only as good as you can access a computer and internet and be able to ask it those questions. But there's still a way to assess in education, because his big issue is education, and how people are using it to write essays and pass tests and do these things. Well, we've moved to a virtual education model post COVID. And maybe this brings us back into the universities, doing oral exams. I mean, you know, we've all been there. And and, and you can assess that in real time, you can assess an essay when you have Chad GPT able to write an essay for you, and how do you discern who's a good student and who's not. But again, in person education, we'll do some of that. The second part is, we already have things like chat GPT. Today, as physicians, we have up to date that we use as a resource. I have my partners, I have my colleagues, if I have a case that I'm not sure about, I pick up the phone, I talked to somebody, I get some information. I mean, it's a resource to augment and help our ability, but I think he does a lot of fear mongering, I think he likes to just the world is ending and everything. And that's okay, itself. But ultimately, there are ways in the education system to figure out who knows the right answer, and who doesn't, without having them taste, take tests at home. In the real world. You know, he gave an example, I think, at one point, have an auto mechanic and you just go in the auto mechanic asked Chad GPT. And he just sounds really smart. But how do you really know he knows, versus an auto mechanic who's been around for 20 years? And at





1:13:26

what point in time? Does that matter? Right? If I can get to the right answer, either way, right? It doesn't matter if the auto mechanic use chat UVT or not.





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:13:34

I mean, sometimes when I see someone come to the house for work, or you know, we're interviewing someone, one person might be really old school and has 20 years of historical knowledge. And the other one's a whippersnapper who uses all the resources around them to get to the answer. Which one do you want? I don't know. But that, you know, that depends on you know, what you're looking for?





Griffin Jones  1:13:53

Well, you talked about the assembly line, the farmers, you know, how those jobs have gone away, and how a lot of wealth was created by better jobs. And it really depended you. You all live in Texas, where you have a low regulation, low tech state that saw a lot of growth, but I live in a part of the country where many cities were decimated because they didn't adapt. And so you see different types of trajectories, I guess we would have to have a whole other conversation beyond our pay grade of what is the equitable distribution of, of benefits after chat GPT How do you even materially divide the spoils? And is that something that's possible to so that everybody can enjoy life as opposed to some of the people being able to enjoy life more from chat? GPT Are either of you guys? truckies





1:14:47

when I was a kid, I watched the soundtrack all the time. Yeah, the original





Griffin Jones  1:14:50

are next generation, next generation eyes. So next generation all the way what I'm hoping for is the holodeck. If we can all get the holodeck out of this you Then I think that's where the where the trade off. This has been the closest to any kind of Rogan episode I've ever done with you this is we're recording at almost 1130 at night on the East Coast. And I really could talk to you guys for three and a half hours about this. But we'll save that for another time because people are gonna listen to this, they're gonna Monday morning quarterback me just like Dr. Gowda doesn't say you should have asked them this you should have. And so I'll compile that I'll and I'll happily have you guys back on for a second time because this has been a blast. We've talked about the applications for the REI practice and for fertility patients. But we've also talked about the potential implications for the human race because you can't possibly contain this topic to just the REI practice, even when you're focusing on the applications for our field. It just goes so far beyond that. So how would you both like to conclude?





Dr. Ravi Gada  1:15:57

No, I mean, thanks for having us. Griff. You know, I know we've talked about coming on this before. But this was finally a topic that I feel very passionate about. I think that healthcare in general should embrace this. And I think that health care at a high level, will we as people in the side, the fertility industry have to figure out how do we take the data that we have, and not just data inside of the EMR, but all kinds of data to make sure we keep up and so we are working on this, you know, continuously, I think that others will join in and it will make us better, it will make our patients better, it will make outcomes better. So I'm not worried about the technology of the consequences of what does it do to jobs or do to us, but more how much it's going to improve our efficiencies and our outcomes. So those are the things that I think that technology helps. And technology is deflationary by nature. And maybe this also helps bring down the cost of IVF, which could help us be able to access more of the patients that are out there seeking care. So that's how I would, I would leave it.





1:17:04

And just that on the roof. Absolutely. This is a fun topic. You know, it's one of the ones that I think, you know, I can talk about tech all day long. This is one that, you know, definitely over the last few months has definitely been top of mine. Something that's just interesting has so many implications in fertility as well as far beyond, you know, any of your users that listen to this, if they haven't had a chance to even just log in, and just play around with. I mean, it's a different feeling right? To read an article about it versus actually start asking your questions and see what you'll understand a little bit why we're so excited about it. But appreciate you bringing us on the show. This is a lot of fun,





Griffin Jones  1:17:45

Manish Chaddua,  Dr. Ravi, Gada thank you both so much for coming on the inside reproductive health podcast. I look forward to having you back already.





Sponsor  1:17:54

This episode is brought to you by Univfy, email Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com or just click on the button in this podcast, email, or web page for your free IVF artificial intelligence tips and strategies.  

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.

You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertility bridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to inside reproductive health

178 The Information Fertility Payors Need For Reimbursement Increases Preview:Featuring David Stern

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 should you take into consideration when tackling the insurance companies for fertility service reimbursement? This week, Griffin hosts Boston IVF’s CEO, David Stern, to discuss the ins and outs of maximizing insurance reimbursements, and the barriers you may not have considered. Tune in to the latest episode of Inside Reproductive Health to hear more.

Listen to hear:

  • How to position both insurance companies and employer carve out companies to get better pay out rates

  • What data you need to share to get the best reimbursement rate.

  • About the differences in negotiating when it is a global fee vs. different CPT codes and what state mandates do to codes.

  • David give examples of some mistakes that can happen, ie: money loss, when billing uses incorrect CPT codes.

  • How Boston IVF negotiated a 67% increase in reimbursements.

  • About the principle of disruptive innovation, why traditional fertility companies were late to the fertility game, and how others cashed in.


David Stern’s Info: 

Website: https://www.bostonivf.com/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-stern-mba/

Transcript

David Stern  00:00

In an insurance situation, you almost have to be an accrual because what you're doing is you're performing services, but you're not getting paid maybe until the end. And so, if you think about it from a calendar standpoint, somebody gets there. Day one, they have their period, they start drugs in the middle of the month, you start them as an IVF case in February, but they're not going to complete the process until March. Or if it's a freezer, it might be April or May. And so if it's cash, you they're not paying you cash when they start in February, they're getting approved, so their prior auth approval, you know, you're going to get some payment from them, but you also have cancellations. So if a patient gets cancelled, you don't get the full amount for IVF because they haven't gone through the full cycle.

Sponsor  00:48

This episode is brought to you by Univfy. Email Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com. Or just click on the button in this podcast, email or webpage for your free employer benefits, tips and strategies. 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 guests appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.

Griffin Jones  01:30

Lucky you, look at you, lucky, you get to listen to this episode about insurance reimbursement today. I know try to calm yourself. My guest for today is David Stern. You might know David Stern, he was at EMD Serono for a number of years as Senior VP executive VP in different areas there worked at high levels of leadership and other parts of the industry. But most of you know him now going on his fourth year as CEO of Boston IVF. I tried to get as much concrete advice from David as I can about how you position two different payers, both insurance companies and employer carve out companies for getting higher reimbursement rates. We talk about the data that you need to share with them to get the best reimbursement rate we talk about the difference in how you negotiate when it's a global fee versus different CPT codes. We talk about what state mandates do to that dynamic global fee versus individual CPT codes with particular emphasis on New Hampshire and New York being among the most recent David gives examples of some of the mistakes that practices make when they're billing to the wrong CPT code and losing a lot of money. Because of it. He talks about a particular example where Boston IVF was getting probably under 50%, of what the cash pay rate would have been from reimbursements from different insurance companies and what Boston IVF did to negotiate 67% increase in reimbursement. We talk about the leverage that you have as a clinic, whether you're in a large market with a number of physicians, or if you're in a smaller market with fewer providers. I asked David, if it's really the case that fertility networks can help clinics negotiate with insurance companies, if they don't have a lot of providers in that specific geographic area? Is it irrelevant how many providers you have across the nation? If you only have a small percentage of the market in a particular geographic area, David respectfully disagrees with the position that I presented given from a fertility practice owner and he says why we talk about the principle of disruptive innovation, why traditional insurance companies were late to the fertility game while companies like progeny kind body and carrot were able to grow massively. We talked about the differences between negotiating with traditional insurance companies versus employer benefit companies. And then I asked what do you do when you have an employer benefits company or anyone for that matter that comes in hot the first year, but then the next year slashes reimbursements in year two, finally, David talks about the game of chicken that happens in negotiation, how you learn your own costs, how you learn what you're being currently reimbursed, and how you think about that, as you discern your leverage versus what's worth it to your practice, what's worth it to your patients, and what might be worth it in the future. I hope you enjoy this episode with David Stern. Mr. Stern. David, welcome back on to the inside reproductive health podcast.



David Stern  04:23

Thanks, Griffin. Glad to be back on. Thanks for having me. Again. 



Griffin Jones  04:26

I want to ask you a lot of questions about insurance today, because it's not my sphere, I get questions frequently. And it might be yours being the CEO of a very large fertility clinic group. So I want to start off with some context and hopefully not be too general. It might seem obvious, there's more insurance coverage than there had been there's more employer benefits and more employer benefits companies, but it's specifically as you can be what's happened with insurance coverage in the fertility field in the middle last five years.



David Stern  05:01

The insurance coverage has expanded, which is very good for patients. It's increasing access for patients, which is fantastic. And there are a couple reasons for that. As you mentioned, it's become more popular to offer fertility benefits through an employer through an employer carve out companies, some of the traditional national insurers like United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna are also trying to make their own kind of carve outs for fertility and offer it in a little bit of a different way than they historically had. And then there are also state mandates. And I think that's something we should talk about, because in general state mandates, most people feel are very good. And I think they are because they offer access. But when a state passes a mandate, there is a slow period of time where people think, okay, the mandate passes, for example, New Hampshire in New York passed a mandate went into effect in 2020. But it took the insurance companies time to catch up, and in some cases, they still haven't caught up. And so there's this perception, I think that we have from whether it's resolved as a lot of lobbying and does a fantastic job, but patients underestimate the amount of time that it takes once the mandate is in place to actually mean that you're going to get coverage. It's not like it starts in January. And right away, you can start doing IVF January seconds.



Griffin Jones  06:35

Tell us what you mean by the insurance companies not having caught up what does that look like? 



David Stern  06:41

I think it has to do with the process by which prior authorizations take place. First mins take place insurance companies have NVF centers or fertility practices in their network. All of that takes time, especially if you're going from a state that didn't have a mandate to now having having a mandate, it's almost going from zero to 60, if you're in like New York had a fertility mandate, but didn't include IVF. And their update to the insurance mandate was to include IVF coverage. So that's a little bit different, because the Fertility Centers were maybe the maybe already involved or taking insurance. And the only difference was they could now start billing for IVF procedures were before they wouldn't be approved, or they wouldn't be paid for is part



Griffin Jones  07:30

of the reason why it takes so long to catch up because of variance in the way the legislation is written. So why can't a Blue Cross a really large company that does have experience with mandates in Illinois and Massachusetts, once it hits in New York or New Hampshire? Why can't they just replicate that process at scale? What what are the variables that's causing them to be slow?



David Stern  07:55

I'm not an expert in Blue Cross. But I think it's an excellent example. Blue Cross operates very locally. And Blue Cross of Massachusetts is different than Blue Cross of Illinois. In fact, I think they have different ownership structures. And so just because you have Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, where they're all blue crosses, like New Jersey, Blue crosses Horizon, it's Brandon horizon. And I don't know if it's a different ownership structure. But it's not as simple as just saying, hey, let's roll this out, because we have it in Illinois. So let's just do it in Massachusetts, the national companies like a Cigna or United, it's much easier for them because it's national. And so they're following the different regulations. But an important consideration is that each state has a different mandate. And this is where it's also very confusing for a lot of people is just because you think it's covered. It could be based on the number of insurance or a number of employees. So for example, one state I think Massachusetts has, if you have more than 100 employees, you have to have coverage. In another state, it's 50 employees. But if you think about it, if you're in a state like New Hampshire, a lot of employers, local employers in New Hampshire may be law firms or small companies that don't have 50 employees. And so they fall outside of the mandate. Whereas in a bigger state, like a, you know, New York, maybe if it's 50 employees or 100 employees, it's easier because there are a lot more bigger size companies.



Griffin Jones  09:36

And it seems that even that legislation could be written differently. It could be maybe in one state, if they're headquartered in that state versus if they have an office that has 50 employees based in that state. Is there variance there as well.



David Stern  09:51

Typically, if you're headquartered in that state, and you offer that insurance, then you're covered by that state, it becomes more complicated again, if you're offering a lot Local plan in a different state outside of the mandate, and it might be up to the different state regulations.



Griffin Jones  10:07

A Boston IVF has offices in how many states now



David Stern  10:09

we have eight states, offices in eight states. 



Griffin Jones  10:13

How many of those are non mandated states? 



David Stern  10:17

Four of them are non mandated. So Ohio, Utah, Indiana, and North Carolina.



Griffin Jones  10:24

Okay, so we can kind of explore mandated versus non non mandated and we can even explore a little bit within mandated states. What because Boston IVF has offices in New Hampshire and New York, which as you said more recently released their mandate in 2020. What was the biggest changes that you all had to adapt to? In those two states,



David Stern  10:52

when you have a state mandate that takes effect the insurance companies and this is one of the things that I mentioned about catching up, oftentimes, insurance companies will get reimbursed that you build based on a CPT code. So each procedure has a CPT code, a blood draw, an ultrasound, an egg aspiration for a retrieval, those all have CPT codes. In the more advanced states where the mandates have been around for a long time, there's something that's called a global fee. It's an S code. So the S code for IVF is s 4015. And that includes all the ultrasounds all the physician visits, all the blood draws, the egg retrieval, and oftentimes, the fertilization, all the things that happen in the lab, and then the transfer. And that's global, in that one CPT code. And what that does is it actually places the IVF Center at risk, because you're paid one fee for that IVF cycle, as opposed to in states where oftentimes when you have a new mandate, you're still submitting CPT code. So if you do seven ultrasounds, you submit the CPT code for an ultrasound for seven times for a patient and the insurance will pay seven ultrasound visits or blood draws or whatever that is. So there's a difference between CPT code billing and global billing. And it puts more onus on the IVF center and more risk when you're doing a global bill because they're giving you one fee. And then you have to figure out how do you manage the patient, the proper clinical way, but also maybe you don't need to bring them in everyday for an ultrasound and a blood draw. And I think in some of the practices that have been in mandated states for a long time, you see a little bit of a different type of scenario than you do in cash state where they're bringing patients in all the time for bloodwork and ultrasounds,



Griffin Jones  12:50

does that apply to the employer benefits company as well, if they're covering people in mandated states do they also need to go by the global fee structure,



David Stern  13:03

I would say the way that they operate can be different, but the Centers of Excellence the progeny is the wind fertility, the I would say kind body all have a global fee. And so you're getting reimbursed based on that global fee for an IVF case?



Griffin Jones  13:22

How does the process change the workflow process change, whether it be investigating coverage or doing claims when you're moving away from CPT codes and towards a global fee.



David Stern  13:37

One thing that I change is who is doing ultrasounds is a perfect example. In a smaller clinics, in clinics where yourself pay, a lot of times the doctor will do the ultrasound, it's an opportunity for the doctor to interact with the patient. When they're coming in, they can say oh, your follicles are growing nicely, or, you know the follicles aren't growing as quickly as I'd like I'm going to increase your dose, it's an opportunity to have that face to face interaction, even if it's for five or 10 minutes when they're doing the ultrasound scan. In mandated states, you want the doctor seeing patients bringing more patients in into either new patient consults or follow ups. And so you oftentimes will hire somebody to do the ultrasounds for you like an ultrasonographer. So you have multiple patients coming through and that's one of the benefits of the mandates is you have an increased volume. And to do that you need to have different people performing those types of procedures because a doctor doesn't need to do an ultrasound and I think many doctors would actually say there's probably an ultrasonographer that might do a better job of doing ultrasounds and then a physician who is doing it as a way to interact with the patient but not the expert and ultrasonography.



Griffin Jones  14:53

How about on the claim side what information is important to insurance companies?



David Stern  14:59

First and for For most, you have a prior authorization process. And this takes time. And in fact, one of the things that we've seen during the pandemic is, it's taking longer to get patients approved for prior authorization. The good news is that once a patient is prior authorized, then you know that the cycle is going to be paid for. But up until that point, you have to submit testing, you have to submit diagnoses you may have to do, you might have to do evaluation of the uterine cavity, there are different tests that you have to do diagnostic tests in order to show that the patient is infertile. And essentially, you know, has infertility as a disease and is treated and falls under the state requirements for infertility. And it could be due to staffing issues that insurance companies have, but it's definitely taking longer to get prior authorization. And so one of the frustrations patients have as well as IVF centers is when a patient you submit the all the information. And the patient says, Hey, I'm getting my period, I want to start, if you haven't gotten the prior authorization, yet, you can't start because you can't start the process until the insurance company has said, yes, they meet the criteria, we're going to approve that. Sometimes patients will get denied in the prior authorization process. And you have to do a peer to peer one of our physicians has to talk to a physician on the insurance. Oftentimes, it could be based on maybe a BMI parameter. It could be based on age, some insurance companies have cut offs. So if someone's BMI is too high, they'll say no, we want to prove that because the higher the BMI, the less likely the success of an IVF cycle. Same thing with age, we actually had one of our payers who routinely was denying anybody over 40. And so we had a meeting with this payer. And we said, You're denying everybody over 40, we have to take time to have our physician call your physician do a whole appeal process. Why are you doing that? And they said, well, because people over 40 have a less under 5% chance of getting pregnant. So we pulled out our statistics for Sart. And our 42 year old and over had a 15% live birth rate. And we said to the insurance plan, maybe 15 years ago, that was the case. But today, the average in the United States is 10%. So to say that just because someone is 40, that they should be denied, is using old criteria to basically prevent patients from getting coverage for treatment they need. And there's a lot of that happening, where insurance companies typically deny things and then some people will say, Oh, well, it's denied, I'm not going to fight them, I'm maybe cynical in thinking that insurance companies deny things where maybe they shouldn't be in and then they'll approve them on an appeal. So patients and physicians, it takes a lot of the physicians time to do this. But in the end, the patient can get approved and go through treatment. And



Griffin Jones  18:04

who is doing this with the insurance company because you have to deal with each individual insurance company. Right. And so I'm guessing it's not the Claims Representative necessarily working on that one claim, although they have a criteria from the group. But when it comes to something like pointing out the live birth rate of your over 40 demographic, I'm assuming that that's something done on a more global level than just the claims representative on this particular claim. Is it? Is it someone that's director level at your company? Do you have to come in and negotiate with somebody high up on the insurance company side? How does that work?



David Stern  18:44

A lot of times, we have financial counselors, and their job is to work with the insurance company to put the claim in in order to get the prior authorization when it gets denied usually has an escalation process. So we do have a director of financial counselors, a lot of times we have one or two physicians that are specifically the ones who interact with a specific insurance company. So you know, one doctor might be for Blue Cross and other doctor might be for Harvard tufts. And that escalation process will happen at that level. When we have a bigger situation than oftentimes I may get involved and talk to somebody high up at the at the insurance company. We've had a couple of different insurance companies where we'll have our medical director Michael Alper myself, our CFO, and we'll sit down with high level people at an insurance company and that example that I gave you was, are specifically saying can we not have a specific approval for because our success rates are good? Why do you keep denying this? And the response we got from the insurance company was, well, if we give it to you that everybody will will take advantage of it. And we said, why don't you put into fac AI Center of Excellence and specific Basically say here are senators that have a higher success with these patients. So we will, you know, prior author, we won't have to go through an escalation process. And they said, No, we don't think that that's necessary, we'll do that. We want you to continue to have to escalate it through the appeal process. Unfortunately, it's can be very frustrating at times. So



Griffin Jones  20:20

for that particular company, it never was resolved at the global level it oh,



David Stern  20:25

it for that particular company. And what's even worse, is we said, okay, for your people that are going through the prior authorization, who reviewing these, do you have a group that only does fertility patients, and they said, No, we have priority, you know, whoever whenever it comes in, it gets done either alphabetically or by number or whatever. There isn't any specialization. So that's even more frustrating because you have somebody that's approving a orthopedic claim who then gets an infertility claim, and it's just reading off of a list that they have. And so if it says over 40, deny, that's exactly what they do.



21:04 

Sponsor 21:04

The fertility field now has really amazing benefits companies like Progeny, Carrot, Maven, and KindBody, and employers really want to know the value of the fertility benefits they offer, and they want to maximize that value for their employees. Still, most employers don't offer unlimited fertility care. There's a financial limit to most employees fertility benefits, employees often exhausts $10, $20 and $30,000 in fertility coverage, because they need multiple IVF cycles and weren't enrolled in fertility coverage. The traditional way of maximizing benefits dollars has been to reimburse providers less, but paying doctors less doesn't add value. Univfy thinks there's a better model to offer the best support to employees, employers and providers. Univfy offers a way to cut costs without penalizing providers. Based on firsthand conversations with benefits decision makers of mid to large sized employers, what employers really want to see is how their employees are supported in the best possible utilization of their fertility benefits. Dr. Mylene Yao,, CEO of Univfy Fertility, has tips and strategies for how to best position to employer benefits companies, and how to best position your employer benefits company to employers email Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com or just click on the button in this podcast, email our web page for your free employer benefits, tips and strategies.



Griffin Jones  22:41

I want to ask the follow up question to this in a way that isn't so elementary for the audience, it's necessary for me but help us understand the jigsaw of the process of the that the clinic has in order to be reimbursed where the insurance company's processes on the other side of the puzzle to pay and I'm thinking of it, kind of similarly to AR and AP, we as a company have an AR process multiple and other companies have AP processes. And so we Jigsaw them together? How does that work with in surance companies and with clinics? And well first, give us a little context of that. And then I've got a couple follow ups.





David Stern  23:28

I think it's interesting. And as I've come into this field from the industry side, it was an eye opening and learning experience for me because initially I thought okay, you know, what you're talking about is when do you bill? And when do you receive the cash. And so a lot of centers that are smaller are on a cash based accounting system, right, you basically Bill somebody, you get the cash, you acknowledge that you get the cash. In an insurance situation, you almost have to be an accrual because what you're doing is you're performing services, but you're not getting paid maybe until the end. And so if you think about it from a calendar standpoint, somebody gets there. Day one, they have their period, they start drugs in the middle of the month, you start them as an IVF case in February, but they're not going to complete the process until March. Or if it's a freeze all it might be April or May. And so if it's cash, you they're not paying you cash when they start in February, they're getting approved. So their prior auth approval, you know, you're going to get some payment from them, but you also have cancellations. So if a patient gets cancelled, you don't get the full amount for IVF because they haven't gone through the full cycle. So it becomes very interesting in terms of when do you recognize the Cycle Start? When do you actually get paid for it? And so our accounting group or a finance group is doing that on a daily basis, putting in a claim and we know that At, we actually recognize revenue based on different milestones. So when someone goes to retrieval in our system, we say, okay, they've gotten to that, that point in time that you know, benchmark, which is retrieval, we can, we can recognize a certain amount of that revenue for the IVF cycle at that point, oftentimes, insurance companies, at least some of the ones that we deal with, don't pay you in full until a transfer occurs. So that could either be a fresh transfer or frozen transfer. So if you're doing a Pg t case, and you're freezing all the embryos, you might have started your cycle in February, but you're not getting the PG ta results until April, and you're doing a frozen embryo transfer in April or May. So you don't actually get that revenue. Until the full revenue, you don't get it until the transfer occurs, you may have recognized that it steps along the way. But you haven't actually received the the income





Griffin Jones  25:54

to delay on payment for PGT is one example. You also see a lot of fertility clinics. If you've acquired a few in the last couple years, you're probably going to acquire more in the next couple of years. And so you're looking at these things as you are getting into the due diligence with clinics, what are you seeing that clinics are missing from their processes to protect themselves? What are two or three of the most common examples.





David Stern  26:20

When you're dealing with insurance companies, I think the biggest the biggest opportunity is understanding what you're getting reimbursed for. And you might be billing something, but you're not getting reimbursed at 100%. And so when you're dealing with insurance, if you charge $200 for an ultrasound, and you submit your CPT code for an ultrasound to United Healthcare, Cigna or whoever it is Aetna, you might actually be getting 50% of that they might be paying you $100 Because their usual uncustomary is based on some other, you know, national charge. In fact, this happens a lot. You see ultrasound charges that may be billed and an OB GYN, abdominal scan, and you're doing a transvaginal scan, and you're measuring the size of follicles. And that takes a lot more time than a traditional abdominal ultrasound to just see is there a fetal heartbeat. But they're, they're billing or they're reimbursing you at national CPT code for whatever an ultrasound is. And that's one of the biggest challenges that IVF centers have is their billing, but they're not receiving the payment. So you have to really do a deep dive into what are you getting reimbursed for when you're dealing with insurance companies?





Griffin Jones  27:38

How do you do that deep dive? What does that audit look like?





David Stern  27:41

What we do is we actually looked by each payer, what we've submitted, and what we get billed on a patient level. So we do this, and there's even more challenging. So here's the crazy thing about insurance companies. And again, this this was a major learning for me. You think, Okay, someone has UnitedHealthcare? Everybody's got united, they're going to pay the same? Well, they don't, because the employer may have one of 10 different United plans. And the reimbursement is going to be different based on what that employer has bought from United. So yes, it's United Healthcare. But it could be their premium package, it could be their gold package, it could be their silver package, for lack of, you know, I don't know whether they actually offer that. But you're getting reimbursed at a different percent, based on that gold, silver and platinum. So just because they have united doesn't mean that you're getting paid the same for every United patient. And that was one of the the deep dives that we've done here. Looking at different insurances to understand what are we asking for? What are we submitting a claim for? And then what are we going to reimburse that. And part of the process that we've done is looking at there are certain insurance companies where we were losing money, we were getting reimbursed at a significantly lower rate than what our self, you know, self pay rate was to the point that it might have been under 50% reimbursement. And so we've met with the insurance companies. And it is something I think we should get into Griffin because it's really about understanding how do you position yourself to an insurance company. So we met with them, we said, you're giving us this this reimbursement. We're losing money on every patient. We can't afford to be in your network. We can't afford to treat your patients because you're substantially under we had a plan that was 50% or a little bit more than 50% lower than our average insurance reimbursement, not even self pay, but average insurance reimbursement. So he went to a couple of these insurance companies and present it to their medical director and to their senior level people. And one of the frustrating things was oftentimes it's bad Originally in smaller regional insurance plans, their medical director was a primary care doctor or an ER doctor who doesn't know anything about infertility. You explain to them the process of IVF and embryos and the ability to do pre Implantation Genetic testing. And they say, Oh, well, we thought you just put a bunch of embryos back and see what sticks. And we thought the success rates is like 20%. Again, when they were in medical school, 20 or 30 years ago, yeah, maybe it was when IVF first started. But now with all the improvements we've made in the lab, and growing embryos out to blastocyst and single embryo transfer, we actually put together a whole presentation to educate them on one of the big risks that insurance companies have is multiple births. So they're gonna pay up front and reimburse you for an IVF procedure. But the back end risk to them is if you have a twin or a triplet, they're paying $150,000 in NICU costs for a twin 500,000 or more for a triplet. And that's really where the risk is to them. So what we've tried to do is position ourselves by saying, We offer more than 90% 95%, I think of our patients get a single embryo transfer. I actually calculated our twin rate and our triplet rate based on our start. So it's published information on SART and showed the insurance companies why we actually were a better investment for them than some of our competing IVF centers because we represented a much lower risk. One practice actually had a $3 million multiple birth, Nicu cost risk based on their published SAR data. And we add 750,000 per 100 patients. So I said to the insurance company, look, we should be getting higher reimbursement. Because we're our our success rates are good, maybe better and but to you are Singleton's that's what's important to an insurance coming to you whenever healthy single baby twins and triplets is actually it's not a good outcome for patients. Some patients think it is. But it's definitely not a good outcome for an insurance company.





Griffin Jones  32:17

I'm kind of mixing topics here. But in a article that one of our journalists wrote a few weeks ago is about the genetics testing labs, and some of those companies closing their Rei divisions. And one of the reasons had to do with a lack of insurance reimbursement. And I remember reading it one of the sources said that insurance companies aren't motivated to reimburse necessarily because they aren't the same insurance company that is covering the obstetrics. And they're so if there is a multiple birth, that well, it's not. It's not the same plan. It's not even the same company. So but it sounds like what you're saying is it is enough to motivate people. Where how often is it the same insurance company versus how often do they see it as somebody else's problem?





David Stern  33:07

PGT A, is not generally covered by insurance companies. And I think they still believe and I guess you could argue and that's probably a topic for another podcast, you could argue whether PG ta makes a difference for patients or not in outcomes. I think some people argue for older patients, it definitely makes a difference. For younger patients, it's probably questionable. But insurance companies typically don't pay for that the employer benefit carve outs usually do. But it's a really interesting dynamic to and I answer your question first, and then I'll tell you the kind of the interesting dynamic for doing IVF because the patient is doing IVF and then having the baby nine months later, after they start IVF maybe a year later, there's not as much switching thing the switching occurs if someone's freezing, usually in two years, if they have frozen embryos coming back, then maybe they had started with a different insurance company. People change insurances, you know, every year or two employers will change insurance companies. But I think in the course of an IVF and delivery, it's pretty close enough that for the majority of the insurance companies, if they're paying for an IVF, they're most likely going to be paying for that upset. Typical outcome. The P egta. Though what's really interesting and again, really illogical, is Massachusetts typically does not cover for pgti. If you're a Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard tufts united. So a patient has depending on their insurance plan, maybe three cycles of IVF covered or six cycles IVF covered, but not pgti. And that's an out of pocket expense. So an insurance company, you do IVF they will not pay for your embryos to be tested. That's an out of pocket expense for a patient which could be three or $4,000 of additional cost, but they will pay for those subsequent frozen embryo transfer. Have untested embryos and subsequent IVF cycles. So we have patients that say, I have a small copay for IVF. For my frozen embryo transfers, I have to pay $3,000. For pcta. When IVF is covered, I don't want to pay for the testing, I'll just go through another cycle if I have to, because that'll be paid for. So it's almost this strange when I say illogical, because the insurance company would rather pay for a whole nother IVF cycle with all the frozen embryo transfer cycles associated with it. Then to pay a contracted rate, they wouldn't give us three or $4,000. If that's our self pay rate, they would pay a contracted rate for PG TA and the insurance companies don't do that. So there





Griffin Jones  35:45

are times where they're outdated information or their lack of completeness and what they're reimbursing for hurts them to.





David Stern  35:54

I think you could make the argument that economically it hurts them. They make the argument that in insurance, it's very slow. For example, egg freezing, some states have egg freezing as part of the fertility mandate. Massachusetts does not there's actually a bill before the Massachusetts legislature to include egg freezing cryopreservation for cancer patients. But today that's not covered. That's not a pocket expense. And I think the reason is that insurance companies still see even though ASRM lifted the experimental nomenclature probably 10 years ago at this point, they still see it as experimental. And they see PGA is experimental. I want





Griffin Jones  36:33

to talk more about positioning to insurance companies. But back to the audit. There's something that's still stuck in my mind, which is how does a fertility clinic even know what they could bill for? Does a an insurance company have to give them all of the possible codes that they could look into? Like I'm thinking of if you had an inexperienced billing team, they might not even know that there's a transvaginal scan that they could be billing for that, which is why they're only submitting for the abdominal scan? How do they know what's out there?





David Stern  37:06

I think from a billing standpoint, CPT codes are pretty much is so CP na CPT 10 codes are? They're published and the CPT reimbursement is generally based on Medicare, Medicaid. So the Centers for Medicare Medicaid, CMS, RCM is published publishes here are the different CPT codes. And here's the standard billing. But the fact is we don't see Medicare or Medicaid patients. So oftentimes what they try to do is they say, Okay, well, this is the closest CPT code to what we're doing. And so we're, that's what they're billing for. There is actually egg aspiration as a CPT code, embryo transfer as a CPT code. So there are fertility specific CPT codes.





Griffin Jones  37:50

You talked a bit too about how the customer service has suffered since COVID. And that was actually a question someone asked me to ask you. So I'm gonna get better at getting questions ahead of time from the audience, because I get all kinds of Monday morning, quarterbacks, David, and I love my Monday morning, quarterbacks I love when they email me and say you should have asked this, you should have asked that. It's like, Well, okay, I've got that for next time. I think we will have something where I get questions ahead of time. But there was someone that I knew that was struggling a couple of people that were struggling with their insurance companies. And so I said, Well, I'm going to be talking to David Stern about this, what do you want me to ask him and they one of those people wanted to know, if you had any advice for how you get a dedicated rep, if you're a smaller practice, because this person said the same thing that especially since COVID, they they can almost never get the same person on the phone or a person on the phone at all. Do you have any advice for how practices get a dedicated rep?





David Stern  38:49

Unfortunately, I don't. And we don't have dedicated reps, we're dealing with 1000s, like literally 1000s of patients with our local insurance companies. And we don't and in fact, we've asked for that as well from our insurance company. And that one example I gave you, and I think insurance companies look at this, you know, their businesses. Infertility is a very, very small segment. Even in a state like Massachusetts or Illinois, we're still a drop in the bucket for an insurance company that has millions of lives, and their prior authorizations. You have to get prior authorized for any elective surgery, any procedure. And there's so many things that insurance companies now put the onus on patients to get approved before they pay for it, that you can probably imagine the amount of approval and paperwork that's has just been elevated so much that they can't have one person that just deals with fertility. I'd be nice. We've asked them for that. But unfortunately, that's not reality at this point,





Griffin Jones  39:48

even in Massachusetts, even with a group the size of Boston IVF.





David Stern  39:51

Even in Massachusetts, I don't think the size of the of the center matters because in the Boston area, we have five or six IVF centers is all working with Blue Cross patients and Tufts patients and Cigna, you know, united? I mean, and between all of the IVF centers in Massachusetts, I'm sure we're talking about 2520 to 25,000 cycles a year. But there aren't any dedicated. Not that I'm aware of,





Griffin Jones  40:22

how much does the tactics of making the case for reimbursement change depending on what your market share is, and depending on how big your group is, so you talked about when you made the case, for when you were only getting reimbursed, maybe 50 50%, of what a cash pay patient would have been able to pay. And you were almost at a point where you were at a point where you couldn't afford to be in that market. It sounds like you made that case for reimbursement increase successfully. But how much does it vary. When you're in a place like Boston or New England where you might have more than half of the market share, you've got you've got so many Doc's that if they didn't do that, they would be really in a bind with it, the employers that they're contracted with, because now all of a sudden, my employees can't go to the majority of the docks in this area versus when you're in a market where you only have a couple docks, and there's several docks in the area. It's a game of chicken.





David Stern  41:20

And we it's we actually weren't successful, we went to three insurance companies in upstate New York, we were successful with one, the other two we were not successful with. And we said, Okay, we will not participate in your network anymore. And unfortunately, and this is one of the things that I think is frustrating. And you have a state mandate, but you're in a geographic area. So you're in Buffalo, there's a handful of IVF went through IVF centers in Buffalo. So we we're in, we're not in Buffalo, but we're in Syracuse, and we're on Albany, and the closest in network for one of these insurance companies is Westchester, or Rochester, which is a two and a half to three hour drive for patients. To me, this is a major area of concern for access for the state, the state has said we think patients should have infertility coverage. But yet the insurance company is not going to be paying the senator, what we feel is a reasonable rate. And it's not just us saying it's not reasonable, we're comparing it to other payers. And so in two situations, we said, we're not going to continue with your network, the third one agreed to increase and gave us a 67% increase in our reimbursement rate. And I said to them, Hey, we're also negotiating, and we're walking away from these other insured regional insurance plans, you should go after their employers, you should go to their employers and say, we have a network Boston IVF. And this other company that you may be insured with just dropped them. So it's a way to position maybe one insurance company against another one. But there's also another dynamic and one of the dynamics that you see where you have academic institutions, is they have a much bigger base for insurance. And they have much more leverage than an independent IVF center, Boston IVF. We've got an affiliation with Beth Israel, but we are an independent IVF center. So we probably don't get the best reimbursement that a Brigham and Women's or MassGeneral, which have their own hospital based IVF centers get. So even though we have a higher market share, yes, we could say to one of our large payers, if you don't give us this increase, we're going to go out of network with you. And it's a question of, hey, if they're a very large payer, do you really want to do that? Because you're now risking these large volume of patients, as long as you're making some profit, and you have to decide individually, what's the right amount of profit? I think it's a balancing act. So we been able to go to our reimburse to our payers and say, we put a whole presentation together we said, here's the inflation. If inflation right now is six or 7%. And you have a 2% escalator in your contract. That doesn't make sense, right? So we've gone back to insurance companies and said, You have to give us a higher escalator because the market dynamics have changed the environment has changed our costs to hire nurses, embryologist physicians has gone up significantly. And we presented that data to them and we said since the pandemic, our our internal cost to run, the practice has increased almost 20% A 2% escalator just one cutter for us, and so we're able to negotiate with them to get a higher reimbursement rate.





Griffin Jones  44:58

So in the cases where where it is, it isn't even chicken in that, like you can't sort of way because the only place you can go into is a wall like in the case of upstate New York, when you're talking about the two groups that you walked away from, listen, we can't be in network with you. And you talked about a strategy for the third that did give you that 67% increases, hey, listen, you are the ones providing access these folks aren't and consider going after their employers. You're kind of passing that along to them. But I wonder if it does it make sense for some groups to build a relationship with the sales teams of the insurance companies, because that seems like it both in this particular instance, and perhaps some others that could give you some leverage?





David Stern  45:44

I think with a lot of the typical commercial realist regional plans, not as much, but absolutely for the employer carve outs, where you have an A, we do a lot of joint partnerships with, for example, a progeny where we'll have one of our physicians go into a progeny employer and do a fertility 101. For other employees, they'll video they'll do a webcast, they'll record it and make it available to their employees. And we think that's a great win win opportunity, because we've partnered with them as a carve out, and they want to let employees know that fertility is covered. And oftentimes, the employer that is hiring a progeny or a win is doing so to retain their employees, because they think that fertility is a good benefit to offer.





Griffin Jones  46:36

Were you talking about the example of Boston IVF, and maybe having to decide of, well, they could go to bring women's they could or they could go to another hospital system and, and kind of deciding based on the market share. And other factors, I had one person talk to me about what MSOs often say fertility networks often say, which is we can help negotiate better rates because we have more volume. And there's a for utility, Dr. Practice owner that I know very well in a major market that has a good sized group that everybody would love to buy. And so far this person hasn't sold. And I talked to this person about this particular issue. And this person said, Well, the way I see it is that it doesn't matter what scale they have nationally, it only matters the scale that they have in my marketplace, that if there's 40 docks here, and they they can have 50 docks nationwide. But if they only have three here out of the 40, here, they don't have any leverage with the insurance company in terms of being able to position for reimbursement increases. But if there's 40, Doc's here, and we have 16, in the entire metro, we have 20 in the entire metro, then we really have that that power. And so can you speak to that dynamic?





David Stern  48:01

I would disagree with that. And the reason I disagree with that is there have actually been situations for practices that we've acquired, that were not on insurance, and we've been able to get them on a national insurance in the center of excellence, or get better rates for them. Because it's like, you know, very myopic, you know, what you know, but you don't know what you don't know. And so from a rate standpoint, if we're getting a certain rate of reimbursement outside of their market, they don't know what it is. And I think this is one of the benefits that national plans can offer is if we're in different states, Ohio doesn't have a mandate, Utah doesn't have a mandate. But with we're on a UnitedHealthcare, or a progeny are one of these employers, that is not an insurance group that's national, we can maybe get them a better rate, because we know what we're getting paid. In the insurance mandated states. We know what's happening in that market. And we've got relationships with them. So I do think that there is an advantage there. I think the other thing, Griffin is, like I just talked about, I shared my insurance presentation with one of our network IVF centers. And so I've done all the work, I've done all the analyses, I've put this into a presentation. And all they have to do is at a local level put in their pricing. And all of it's already been done for them. So it's a value added service that I think we provide to our network partners, because we've done the work because we're living Boston IVF the mandate in Massachusetts been around since like 1988 or 1990. So we've lived in this world for a long time and know how to be more efficient. Maybe we know how to operate with the insurance companies and how to talk to them and speak their language and I think that is something that we probably have to offer that. That's why I would respectfully disagree with the opinion of that individual practice owner. saying, Well, what can these other networks provide me?





Griffin Jones  50:03

You talked about ownership of the same brand of insurance company being different in different states. They're almost completely different companies in some cases. But is there any kind of, and we're not talking about legality, but the equivalent of case law or precedent that if you've negotiated something with Blue Cross of Illinois, that when you're then talking to Blue Cross of New York, that you could say, Listen, this is what we went through with Blue Cross of Illinois. And this is what they did. And so do you do reference any kind of precedent? And how helpful is that? Each negotiation





David Stern  50:37

is a separate negotiation, and they have different models. One of the things that they often look at is, what is their regional differences? So the cost of living is something that obviously, you know, differs, if you're in upstate New York, or if you're in Boston, the cost of living is very different, will have we have different pricing as well, we don't have one network price across all of our locations. It's very much market dependent. So I think in that sense, you're going to negotiate based on your local market environment. But there are absolutely national ways of looking, I mean, single embryo transfer, PTA use cost of multiples, all of that doesn't matter where you live. So yeah, you could argue that while our NICU costs are a little bit cheaper, yeah, they're a little bit cheaper, it's still 20 times what it costs to deliver a single healthy baby, you can argue with that. So in that sense, there are definitely learnings that you can take from one market to another market. But it might be you know, different. I think a center of excellence model is probably more of a trend where again, this is something insurance companies haven't caught up with. When you look at a group like progeny, they have a center of excellence model, because what they do is they set standards, and when they're selling into an employer, they're basically selling standards if they don't control themselves, because they're going in and part of the big message that a progeny is saying to their employers is your self insured, we can help you protect the risk on the back end. So for them, they don't want to be going into a practice that's got a 35% Multiple birth rate, you know, or someone that's doing 15% single embryo transfers with a majority of the transfer has been double embryo transfers, because that's going to hurt progeny on the back end. And I don't know, you could ask someone from progeny, but maybe there's some kind of either incentive for them to have a high single birth rate or a disincentive for them on multiples, I wouldn't be surprised if that's an employer, kind of employee player benefit manager contract,





Griffin Jones  52:47

who sets the terms for the Center of Excellence designation, because I have heard a practice owner, not be happy about not being part of a center of excellence. And from that person's perspective, their group was left out that it was negotiated with the other group, and that it was deliberate, and there isn't really a clear path for them to be able to become a center of excellence.





David Stern  53:14

I think that's a big frustration for for centers. And again, being part of a national group allows you to go with more leverage to one of these car ballots and say, hey, they're part of our group. Can you put them in, but it's like anything else if you're in a in a crowded market, and there are six or seven IVF centers? It's, it's almost like a game of an employer, Carvel could come and say, here's a rate war, if you take a 20% discount in reimbursement, maybe you'll come into our network. And we'll work on you to improve the rates or work with you to improve the rates. I think typically speaking, each each carve out will set its own standards of what they would like. And we get report cards. I actually like that we get report cards every quarter to see where do we rank? What are our statistics, and then at a national within their network? How do we rank against the whole network? And I think it's a great benchmark for us to look and see where we're doing better, where we're doing worse. And, you know, we can we can look at that as a group and say, oh, you know what, most of them again, because we're in a managed environment, we're probably doing better than than most average.





Griffin Jones  54:33

I want to ask you about the employer carve outs and what that's like in negotiating with insurance companies versus companies who that's their main purpose. You mentioned something earlier when you said companies like Cigna are starting to do more of those carve outs and that made me think, why didn't they do that? More recently, I think about this often David, like how was progeny allowed by the Highmark Blue Cross is the Cigna as the Aetna as the United How was progeny allowed to even become a big publicly traded company? But like, it doesn't seem like they're I know, it's a small piece of all of the things that they do, but they're also not in the business of leaving money on the table, I don't think and it seems like they did. And that's how progeny and carrot and that part of kind body came to be. Why has it taken them so long?





David Stern  55:27

I think it's specialization. Infertility is very, it's a very specialized niche field, right. And so when you understand the field, and you see a basic need, and this is where, you know, progeny, carrot, you have innovation happening, and there was a need for it. And it was created. I was just at Reproductive Health Innovation Summit two weeks ago, and I was on a panel with David Sable. And David made a comment and said, oftentimes, innovation doesn't come from the large companies, because there's no incentive for them to innovate. It comes from disruptors. And this is a perfect example of a big insurance company saying why do I need to provide that? Like, yeah, if you want insurance coverage for infertility, I'll give you a plan that covers it. But there isn't that innovation, it's like, yeah, sure, we'll just pass on some of the costs. And here you go. And what progeny has done, what Karen has done with Maven, kind body, all of these have done is they've said, Well, there's a need for this. One of the things that they do well is they counsel the patient, when you have a patient that has just in a state mandate, right, one of our big local insurance United or Blue Cross the patient's drone into us 10 foot deep swimming pool, and they're thrown in and they're saying, hey, go swim. When they're with an employee benefit management group, they have a care coordinator. They're given counseling, they're helped walking through the process in a white glove type of manner. And the employer pays for it. But it's a much better patient experience than just like any insurance, you go to the doctor, the doctor says you need to have this done. And you're thrown in the same pool of anybody with infertility coverage, you got to figure it out, you got to call the specialist area network, RJ network, what's covered what's not covered, all of that, that's our insurance system. So the carve outs have done a really nice job. For those companies that say this is important. We're going to provide this white glove concierge service. And we're going to help you navigate those fertility waters in a much better way than a commercial insurance like a united does, or Blue Cross,





Griffin Jones  57:49

who you and Dr. Sabel are talking about here is the principle or the theory of disruptive innovation. It's the blockbuster Netflix dynamic. And I know that because I've referenced this book a couple of times I couldn't remember the author or the book, Dr. Eduardo Harrington sent it to me it's called How will you measure your life the author is Clayton M. Christensen, he's a Harvard MBA was a Harvard MBA that wrote the theory about disruptive innovation, what David and David sable are talking about, and I've left the book in my office now as opposed to down on my home bookshelf so that I can remember it. So I guess that satisfies me a little bit of how they you know, of how those big insurance companies have allowed that piece of their market to go. And I guess now that now they're responding that the disruption seems to have been begun up. So what's it like? What's the difference in negotiating between those, what we'll call carve out companies will compare benefits companies progeny carrot kind body versus negotiating with traditional insurance companies





David Stern  58:50

with the biggest advantage is that you're negotiating with someone that has knowledge about the field, and they can appreciate, you know, what benefit PGA may bring to some patients. Whereas when you're negotiating with one of the locals, they often are they're not an expert. The people you're negotiating with are business people. You're lucky if you have a medical director that's involved in the medical director oftentimes has no inclination of what infertility is today. They know it from when they were trained in medical school, many times they're not even OB GYN is one of the things you just said though, Griffin kind of reminds me of the Shark Tank, which I know you love watching. I love watching as well. But they're always you know, Mr. Waterfall always says, Oh, they're gonna squash you like a bug. But that's the whole point is these companies. There's a need in the market for it. And yes, there are large companies that could squash them as a bug and if they get big enough, maybe they will. But it's, they're like little nuts flying around for these big insurance companies. Infertility. If you think about if every patient in the United States there's 12% for infertility, the amount of we have 300,000 As an IVF cycle is happening, I'm sure the 2021 sar data will be higher than that, let's say it's 500,000 500,000 IVF cycles is still a pittance compared to what these insurance companies are dealing with on a day to day basis. So I think that's why we see until something works. And they're like, Oh, so this one large employer, Google, or Apple just carved out fertility benefits, and maybe that's something I could have, and maybe I could get more revenue from them by offering the benefit. It takes a while for them to figure that out.





Griffin Jones  1:00:34

Sometimes it has to be a big enough bug worth squashing, am I right? I think about Kevin O'Leary's analogy, sometimes I think of the old imperial model versus rebellions. Like if you think of the empires of the Mongol Empire, you have rebellions going on in every little town in every little kingdom, fiefdom, or at least the opportunity to and you can squash up Genghis Khan can go with his whole army, and obliterate that rebellion. And very often he did, but he can't dedicate to every single one. In fact, when rebellions were successful, it was usually because he was off squashing some other rebellion. And same can be true for these companies, too, is that there's probably infinite opportunity costs that they could be pursuing. And so they're, it's about prioritization.





David Stern  1:01:25

And what you see in the insurance field today, which I think is very interesting is they're going on buying primary care offices, and they're buying specialty practices, and they're combining them. Because I think what they feel is that's more of a priority for them to save money is to control the costs on that end, in primary care, or cardiovascular, these very large areas of risk for them. And infertility is still a very, very small area of risk for them.





Griffin Jones  1:01:50

Another practice owner wanted to know, what do you do when the employer benefits companies come in strong, especially if they're new, they might come in a bit stronger, they've just raised a lot of capital, they're not so worried about particular profitability, or they think that they'll scale but then they slash reimbursements in year two,





David Stern  1:02:10

I think it's like any insurance company as well, you always have to do a business analysis, and you have to say, is the benefit worth the downside? And so if they're coming in, they're slashing I think, in this market, honestly, where everybody's costs have gone up, where inflation is, you know, PERS, what, five 6%, higher than we're normally used to. I don't see how insurance companies, whether it's a carve out or anybody else can come and start slashing. I think that's the wrong model. Everybody's a business. You know, you mentioned progeny, there. They've been very successful. They're growing their revenues, they're reporting it. So you can see that if they've grown by a million additional employees in their group, and they're growing their revenue, how can they come and say, we're going to cut our reimbursement to you, when your costs have gone up. And they know nursing costs, embryology costs, physician costs, all of that has gone up, not to mention supplies. So I would, I would say, no matter what your market share is, I think you got to push back and you have to say, okay, maybe it's not worth it to be in that network. If you can't make what margin you want to make. You have to do analysis and analysis to say, is that business worth it to me, and if it's not worth it, then you walk, and you use your feet and say, I don't accept those terms. And you walk away and you make it up somewhere else, and you have a better margin, and you'll be better off from a business standpoint.





Griffin Jones  1:03:40

That's the advice that I've given people. But I want to know, if you think that it's bad advice, at least to the extent that I'm that I've given it and when I give it, David, it's with an asterix. This is not my core competency. And I'm kind of guessing. So I let people know that, but I've just give them something to think about, which is if you have an employer benefits company in your area, and only a handful of your patient base works for companies that they're contracted with, and you've got a big waitlist, and you're seeing lots of people, and they really are nickel and diming on certain procedures. And I have had clients and other people show in reimbursement comparisons. And again, not my field of expertise, but it's like wow, that is low. That's that's pennies on the dollar. And so I say if you're in that situation, and you've got the waitlist, you've got the market share, and there's such a small percentage of it, do what you say and be willing to walk away. Is it bad advice, though, if then that company does go on to sign 12 more employers in that area and three years down the line? We're talking they've got 40% of the market. My viewpoint has always been what well, then you just negotiate in the terms that you're in And then I don't think you're gonna get any, like loyalty points for having taken a really crappy deal now, but is there something that I'm being short sighted about what that advice?





David Stern  1:05:10

I would say that's probably good advice. One of the things that you mentioned which, you know, every every practice has a different dynamic, but if you have a waitlist, and you know that you've got patient a man, you don't know what that's gonna look like in a year two, three from now, who knows? Right? But none of us do. We don't have a crystal ball. But if you have those patients, I would say, it's better to take those patients and give them the best patient experience and hire an additional nurse, or, you know, hire an additional person to answer phone calls or answer questions and forego that contract. If you can't get the reimbursement you need. Take care of the customers you have, or the potential customers when you have a waitlist. I mean, that's a great situation to be in. So to say, we're going to now add additional patients into the waitlist and have less, less margin to do it. So we're going to skip because we can't hire the people we need to hire, then it's not a good situation for anybody in your actual I don't know that your results will suffer. Maybe if you can't hire an extra embryologist it will, but the patient experience is going to suffer. And in the long run that might harm you more than not taking that contract. We have covered





Griffin Jones  1:06:19

a lot of ground today. How would you like to conclude about what clinics need to know or what they need to make payers know in the in clinics relationship with payers.





David Stern  1:06:30

Griffin, I appreciate you having me back on. It's always a pleasure to talk to you and the time flies by I think first and foremost a physician who is running or owns an IVF practice and to think about it. You are a physician you're giving care. You want to help people have children and build families. But you also have to understand it's a business. And you have to understand and identify where are your margins in the business. And we've seen practices across the country. Some of them have fantastic margins, some of them have not good margins. You got to understand what are your expenses? Where's your money coming in? Where is it going out? At at the end of the day? What helped us was one of the first things I did when I came in as CEO is I'm out I met with our CFO and I said I want to know all of our reimbursements by insurance contract, because I want to understand who's paying us well who's not paying us well. What is it cost for us to deliver care to one patient and that was the first thing I said, very high level a patient comes in. Here's how much nursing time physician time embryology time, here's our costs to deliver care for an IVF cycle and IUI cycle Clomiphene timing intercourse, I want to know what my cost is. And then we can evaluate where we're getting reimbursed. So it's no different than any other business. If you don't know what it costs you to deliver care. That's where you can really get in trouble. And if you wait until your accountant provides the numbers of the end of the year, you could either be really happy or really set.





Griffin Jones  1:08:09

The Time does fly by David. But don't worry, the Monday morning quarterbacks will give me plenty more topics for us to have an excuse to bring you on a third time and I look forward to when we do David Stern CEO of Boston IVF. Thank you very much for coming back on the inside reproductive health podcast. Thanks, Griffin.





Sponsor  1:08:26

This episode is brought to you by Univfy. E mail Dr. Yao at mylene.yao@univfy.com. Or just click on the button in this podcast, email or web page for your free employer benefits tips and strategies. 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 appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser. 


You've been listening to the Inside Reproductive Health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you are ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society. Visit fertilitybridge.com To begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to Inside Reproductive Health.







176 Nurse To CEO/Investor: A Career Map For Fertility Nurses, Featuring Lisa Van Dolah

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 a new grad pediatric nurse climb to the ranks of fertility company CEO and investor throughout the course of her career, while building a family of her own? Tune in to the to find out if you could benefit from a similar path, as Griffin sits down with the CEO of Ivy Fertility on the latest episode of Inside Reproductive Health.

Listen to hear:

  • Steps and career changes Lisa made to end up where she is now, and which aspects she found most critical.

  • Different roles shaped Lisa’s perspective of her field as a whole, and how it benefited patient outcomes, employee satisfaction, and operational success.

  • It takes to marry clinical outcomes with organizational outcomes, and how that in itself can advance your career.

  • Lisa has to say about the 80% rule, and how it can help empower your team.

  • Characteristics she believes makes up a person with C-suite potential.


Lisa Van Dolah’s Info: 

Website: ivyfertility.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisa-souza-van-dolah-68b51a15/

Transcript

Sponsor  00:16

This episode was brought to you by Univfy. Download Univfy’s free IVF Conversion and Revenue calculator.




Speaker 4  00:31

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 appearance is not an endorsement of the advertiser.




Griffin Jones  00:56

Are you a natural when it comes to business? Many nurses are not, I am not in many areas of business. And that's how you know, the business books that I write at the end of my career are going to be really good ones because I sucked at so many of the principles that I'm trying to master. And I'll be able to deliver really good insights with Nuance having struggled with many of them for so many years, be able to give real-life examples, and really determine the nuance of this lesson versus that lesson, and be able to explain the principle, as though someone was a third grader, I have a feeling that a lot of these business principles that we talked about today come naturally to our guests. That's just the impression I get from the way that she thinks about her answers. She's Lisa Van Dolah. She's the CEO of Ivy Fertility an MSO that has many clinics on the West Coast, most recently an acquisition in Memphis, and presumably soon to be other parts of the country. She was the CEO of San Diego Fertility Center for 20 years. And she has a nursing background, she started off as a nurse, she got her MBA, and we walk through that career path. So for the nurses listening today, we talk about what it's like to go from nurse to a CEO, investor of a private equity-owned network company that owns multiple fertility clinics, starting off as a nurse going into research but with an administrative role that gives you some experience with project management. So project manager, then getting an MBA, then going into a management analyst role, helping to staff senior management teams, getting that exposure to the role of the people at the top the roles of the people at the top working on process improvement, leading to a vice president role, leading them to a CEO role, then to a CEO role in a much bigger company. And as a capitalist, as an investor. We go through each of these points today. And we talk about things like what education is necessary at different points, what skills are necessary, how they relate to nursing, and I press more on how they might not relate to nursing. We talk about negotiation, and hopefully, we light a map for the nurses and nursing managers that listen to this show that are thinking about what the next step of their career is, and how it might look for the rest of the career. Hopefully, it illuminates some possibilities. And if you are thinking about taking action, maybe it gives you the impetus to do so hope you enjoy this episode with Lisa Van Dolah, CEO of Ivy Fertility. Ms. Van Dolah. Lisa, welcome to Inside reproductive health. 




Lisa Van Dolah

Thank you, Griffin, really glad to be here today. 




Griffin Jones

I was interested in having you on because of a career path that I'd like to paint for the nurses and nursing managers that listen to the show for everyone. But I don't think it's terribly common to even find nurses that become sales directors, maybe it's more common than it used to be. But CEO is a different story altogether. And so I'd like to go back into your career and then use that as an opportunity to paint a potential map for those that are listening. And I've got in my notes that you were the CEO of San Diego Fertility Center for 20 years, is that right? 




Lisa Van Dolah

That's correct. Yeah. 




Griffin Jones

And that was prior to your current role as CEO of Ivy Fertility was so when's the last time you functioned as a nurse? 




Lisa Van Dolah  05:00

Well, I maintained my licensure and certainly during my career at San Diego Fertility Center over 20 years, I stepped into the nursing role periodically, mostly out of the opportunity to connect with our patients, but you know, provided bedside care and the pacu and other various functions in infertility. So it's probably aWe've been about five years since I, I think I've actually functioned as a nurse in one capacity or another 




Griffin Jones 

Was CEO your title that whole time since 2003, or whenever your 2000 whatever it was, or was it practice manager at first executive director, President, like Did, Did that change or was it CEO.




Lisa Van Dolah

The whole time it was CEO the whole time it was an evolution of what that role meant. But certainly, I stepped out of hospital administration into practice administration at Seneca Fertility Center with the title of CEO. 




Griffin Jones

Tell me more about the interim intermediary roles between no starting out and CEO. So what was your first job after nursing school? 




Lisa Van Dolah

Yes, I started my nursing career at Children's Hospital-San Diego, now called Rady Children's but started that as a new graduate out of college, the primary role and responsibilities I took on as a new graduate was hematology oncology nursing, so we did pediatric oncology treatment. And that was my first career as a nurse and I did that for about three years at Rady Children's




Griffin Jones

And then you went into women's health or you first became a manager in PCMark. What happened?




Lisa Van Dolah

Yeah, yeah. So the journey is fun. My, I received rewards and knowledge and skills, I think at each turn, so I took a job after being a pediatric nurse in oncology at Rady I moved into infectious disease research, I looked at as an opportunity to learn some more administrative obligations, regulatory requirements, the research and looked at it as a whole nother way to apply my nursing degree. I did that for the Infectious Disease Program at Rady Children's in San Diego for oh shoot probably three or four years and then expanded into actually homecare nursing at Radies. That took on a role primarily interested in doing outpatient care for children, but also afforded me some flexibility in my career while I was having children, and needed a little bit more flexibility in my schedule, which is great nursing offers that many times to us. And so that role in in-home care nursing provided me the opportunity to work with a little more flexibility while I was raising my kids. And so are you a manager at this time or your nose during nursing care at this point, in nursing care, my infectious disease physician was more in an administrative role organizing, coordinating and managing those programs. And then about the time that I was, I was ready to step back into my career full time I went back to school and completed my MBA while I was working as a nurse at Rady Children's. So that was a the time in my career where I was looking at opportunity and picking up more administrative skills, business skills, you know, knowledge of accounting principles and other things that I learned during my MBA program. 




Griffin Jones

Why did you get an MBA instead of an MHA?




Lisa Van Dolah

Good question. I started my nursing master's in nursing and felt like that was a great opportunity for me but wanted to broaden my skill set and knowledge into ideas around brand, Being marketing, business development, plain old accounting planning, and I felt like the curriculum to the MBA program would give me a little bit broader, broader knowledge base. 




Griffin Jones

So you had gone back to school, you were in the master's program for nursing. And while you were there decided to switch to MBA. 




Lisa Van Dolah

That's correct. 




And up to this point, you hadn't really had management experience yet. 




Lisa Van Dolah

Right. 




Griffin Jones

Am I understanding that correctly, you had administrative experience with in infectious disease research, but was that more like project management?




Lisa Van Dolah

Correct, right. To have wide authority management or any other you know, I hadn't stepped into an opportunity for maybe a team lead role or other kinds of leadership roles in nursing. At the time, I decided to go to school to get my MBA.





Griffin Jones

Tell me more about the decision then because it seems like it was a radical departure if we're just looking at it linearly. But what else was it that had been in the back of your mind or this was not in the back of your mind, but rather forward thinking that you want to do achieve? 




Lisa Van Dolah

I don't know if I really felt at the time I was I was making any dramatic shift in my in my career path. I think as I approached any of my nursing, if you will, roles, I looked at those roles to be broad in nature, certainly contributing to the team that I participated in both from a you know patient care perspective but also as an as an employee and part of a team and looking at the services we were delivering. So for me I think it was, it was just a natural evolution and seeking more of knowledge in regard to that. 




Griffin Jones  10:06

Did you see yourself as running an organization?




Lisa Van Dolah  10:09

No, I saw myself as participating in, in an organization, I certainly, simultaneous to starting my MBA program, I started applying for jobs that may utilize more of those skills. So I started to apply for roles, like analyst roles, maybe many middle early, early functions were things that would support the nursing departments and in analyst type behavior, more of the research bases. And then as I completed my MBA, I was then applying in the same hospital for a management analyst role, which provided me opportunities to take on understanding the departments of hospitals that maybe nurses with, but not necessarily have any exposure to like biomedical department or person management. And in that situation, actually stepped into an acting Materials Manager role. And then in the biggest compliments I got were from the nursing units that said that, you know, I had to help them restructure access to supplies, that made their jobs easier that I understood that nurses don't have time to seek and find, you know, supplies and so as I looked at my role as the manager for materials management, which was obviously, initially way outside my skill set, I think I was able to apply a lot of my bedside nursing and nursing science to, to provide, you know, access to supplies, in this case, for the nursing units to make their lives easier.




Griffin Jones  11:46

You had that operational empathy because you weren't just looking at it from the 10,000-foot view, you had been one of the nurses that had to get supplies at some point, did you that management analyst role was that something that you sought before you went and got your MBA, or that was a result of having gotten your MBA that that opportunity opened up to you,




Lisa Van Dolah  12:09

I think it was both I actually applied for the job before I completed my MBA, and I was afforded that opportunity, you know, coming with my bachelor's degree in nursing and, and in my MBA in progress, but so that was a that was something that, you know, I have supported the senior management team at the hospital, in this analyst role, it was a wonderful opportunity to do that. Simultaneously, we're getting my, my degree,




Griffin Jones  12:31

I'm trying to tease out if it's a good idea for nurses, for anyone, but in this case, nurses to go get a degree like an MBA, if they're not, if it's for the means of tasting and exploring rather than the means to an end. And I think a lot of society would say that higher education is a great place to taste. I'm a big believer that that's the reason for the multi-trillion dollar debt crisis that we have in this country, that people very often on the undergrad level, but increasingly at the graduate level, are going to taste and they're tasting something that one isn't the most efficient means of tasting to certainly is nowhere near the most cost-efficient means it's extremely expensive, and then might not be what they want to do at all, I'm more of the Cal Newport ilk of you only pursue any given degree from any given institution, when you can map your desired outcome. Like I want this particular job, I want this post, and I know that this degree from this institution is far more likely to land me that role than not. And that's when you get a degree. I think that should be true of undergrad too. It seems though like you did get some of the eye-opening tasting from that. And then that led you into the next step of your career path. So what do you think? Is it a good idea for a nurse to pursue an MBA if it's in the interest of exploration, but




Lisa Van Dolah  14:07

it's a large commitment time? Right. And it's, it's, like you mentioned likely quite expensive, so I would not use that as the opportunity to evaluate whether or not an interest in in management is, is a value to a person. I think that nurses, you know, when the skill sets that they develop and the opportunity in their roles to step into team lead roles and other areas of responsibility. I think that's where you learn whether or not this is of interest to you not certainly through an education program. You know, certainly I support higher education. And I think that the value of that, for me was tremendous, but a lot of that was through my colleagues that I was in my coursework with, and learning from professionals that had experience that they were sharing. You don't need to get that through a program. You certainly can do do that, you know, with your colleagues at work or volunteering to take on more responsibility or seeking that opportunities through a current employer, even if it's just a project at a time. So, you know, nurses, nurses, nursing education is already fairly broad and, and affords you the opportunity to look at roles, I think without having to pursue education, necessarily, or a degree, I guess.




Griffin Jones  15:24

And then you could always then pursue the degree if you developed enough of an interest and realize that that is the intermediary between the next desired role. I want to talk about the management analyst role some more, but Well, at this point, the management analyst role, are you starting to manage people there




Lisa Van Dolah  15:44

I am, and that the fun thing about this role, which, you know, I think I love to create them in the environments I'm in because it does provide people interested in stepping out of what might be their traditional, if you will, roll channel, mind nursing or clinical, if you will, into something that can support a management team in a variety of ways. And so, the management analyst, analyst role was really to staff the senior management team with a resource that they could deploy in a variety of different ways. And it gave me a huge opportunity to explore anywhere from you know, direct line responsibility, or analytics on whether or not a business plan makes sense, or, you know, stepping into an interim management position, while we were filling that role, or even, you know, process improvement type of project. So, it gave me a broad scope. And I like to see that for people in organizations that you may be stepping into something without really any previous experience but willing to learn and, you know, support a management team. So, for me, it was a wonderful opportunity to explore all of those different variations of skills and responsibilities and, and then gave me and pointed me in the direction that I wanted to step into more of a direct line management role, which is the next job I took in the hospital. So, you know, it afforded me you know, a learning opportunity, you know, outside of education.




Sponsor  17:18

Fertility Centers have unique and unmet business needs. Univfy uses AI and machine learning to improve IVF conversion growth and patient experience. Providers who counseled patients with the support of the Univfy pre-IVF report, see a two to 5x increase in IVF conversion. That means if you make $10 million in IVF revenue today, you can make $3 million more with Univfy. Univfy provides AI white glove platform services to IVF centers including business analytics IVF, live birth prediction modeling to support provider-patient counseling, and using AI and machine learning to support IVF pricing strategies that optimize clinical outcomes and profitability. Fertility Centers can expect to see ROI from using Univfy within one to two months. Univfy’s methods have been published in top peer-reviewed medical journals, HIPAA and GDPR. compliant, Univfy is being used by fertility specialists in the US, Canada, EU and the UK. Download Univfy’s free IVF conversion and revenue calculator.





Griffin Jones  18:44

Do you think that your administrative experience in research was necessary for you to be able to step into that management role? No, not necessarily.





Lisa Van Dolah  18:55

I think it provided, I think was everything, I think there's a big learning that can occur for individuals is an example of nursing is to step kind of outside what you've learned to be your role and look at the organization from a broader perspective. And so for me, research offered me the opportunity to understand regulatory require, you know, patient protections around informed consent, and those kinds of things that, you know, as you're, as you're in your, your nursing role, you may not look at it from that perspective. So I think, you know, in any role whether it's nursing or embryology, lab or administrative, you know, if you if you have the opportunity to step in and look at it from an organizational perspective. And you know, what you're trying to achieve together I think it gives you the opportunity to to bring more value to what you do. So for me, the research component of that just helped me step outside of what was kind of considered to be treasured traditional have clinical work and look at it in a broader scope. So think





Griffin Jones  20:03

project management is good training wheels for management. In many cases, I've had good project managers. And as I'm trying to counsel them on the next step of their career, it's like, this is where you start to practice your management muscles. Because the project manager isn't really a manager, they're not directly responsible for people there was, they're responsible for timelines, and that involves people. And so in fact, if you can be a good project manager, you're probably going to be a good manager. And if you can be good at the people part of project management, that is, because you can't really fire him. In a lot of instances, you don't have a lot of the stick that is part of you know, the carrot stick incentives, inspiration, etc, that whole mix that characterizes management and leadership, you don't have many of the tools as a project manager. And if you can be successful in getting people to achieve a cohesive outcome. Without many of those tools, it's likely that you're going to be successful when you do have more of those tools at your disposal. But you saw more of the value in terms of being able to see the bigger picture, which is what I like about how you described that role of staffing the senior management team, because then you're really getting a lot of exposure to different areas. And at a high level, at a at a phase of your career, which I don't think is terribly common for that, that maybe intermediary phase to have that much exposure to the, to the senior team and, and that many of them either. So what came after that role.





Lisa Van Dolah  21:47

So after that role, I stepped into a it was a vice president role at that point of clinical programs at Rady Children's read children's hospital back then in those days. So I had direct responsibility of a couple of departments that were not necessarily clinical departments, like I said, some of the back of the house departments, which was great, because it gives you the opportunity of how to run an organization that's not just always clinical in nature, I think. So that would that was my next role. And I wanted to go back to a point. And I think it's really important, and I think nursing brings this skill set just as a result of some of their training experience. And, and that's the ability to influence people without the authority to do so. And you mentioned that with the project management role. And I think, you know, nurses many times are in a position with our patients to influence them and help them move them to a place that hopefully is better for them without having really necessarily authority over them. Right. And so you learn that skill set. And I think that that's one, like you said that a good project manager can learn how to influence drive towards results, moving people and influencing people towards a common goal without being their boss telling, they have to do it. And I think if you can learn that skill set and apply that you become a very good leader, you know, because you, you are able to motivate aligned towards a common goal without necessarily having the authority to do that.





Griffin Jones  23:20

You also when you do have more authority, you have more of those tools, you also have more responsibility. And it isn't just getting a couple things done here or there. It's critical to the outcomes that the organization is pursuing. And so what's that, like? Where, where's the departure from what many people might be used to in nursing from when it starts to become Okay, now, I really have to be a manager and a director. So we talked about the similarities, where's the departure?





Lisa Van Dolah  23:52

That's a good question. You know, I don't know, I think you can apply your skill set as a nurse to your role as a manager, I think the area that may differ is just being able to approach the question from a broader perspective than just a clinical in nature response. Right. So, you know, understanding the needs from a clinical perspective, whether that be, you know, quality of care and in service delivery and training, but also then understanding the context of what you're trying to achieve as an organization. And I think, you know, that's that next level that that we as nurses need to challenge ourselves to do, because as you do that, you can then advance your own specific, you know, if you will objectives but in the context of what the organization is trying to achieve at the same time.





Griffin Jones  24:46

And this is happening while your vice president at the head of one of the clinical teams, and then when does fertility come in?





Lisa Van Dolah  24:55

I got a great call and I had two physicians in San Diego that were interest Started in starting their own fertility practice and asked me to help them and advise them on setting up a laboratory, building out a surgery center, understanding what the regulations look like the regulatory requirements, you know, the facility components of that, and then building out that team. So it was two physicians that had two clinical office staff. They were leaving the hospital that had the lab and surgery center, and they asked me to join them.





Griffin Jones  25:26

Did you know The two doctors or were you headhunted by a recruiter?





Lisa Van Dolah  25:30

No, I knew them through connection. So because I was a pediatric hospital, we did a lot with Women's Health, Labor and Delivery. So I knew them through that relationship. And you know, that was back in the era when most of these physicians were leaving larger institutions. And, and honestly, I thought at that time, in fact, I think that was part of my first hire objective that it was a temporary part time consulting job. I thought I would consult with them on how to do this. And I would gravitate back to pediatrics and famous last words, we know what happened.





Griffin Jones  26:03

So you go off with these two RBIs. At that time, it was two dogs. And how many people did you hire originally,





Lisa Van Dolah  26:12

so they both had each had individual practices with about maybe five employees each. So 10 employees or so together came together, and then we staff the surgery center in the lab, we fortunately are able to recruit one of the embryologist that was with them in their former labs. So he joined as well, in fact, he's still working in the same location. But after that, then it was building out kind of the team as we grew that center.





Griffin Jones  26:40

So when it was 2021, or whenever you went up from San Diego Fertility Center to AV when you had two physicians and 10 employees to start, how many physicians how many employees when you made that transition at the end,





Lisa Van Dolah  26:59

five physicians and 120 employees.





Griffin Jones  27:03

So a 10 employee organization is almost doesn't look anything like 120, employee organization, and we





Lisa Van Dolah  27:13

entered into other locations and also expanded kind of geographically,





Griffin Jones  27:19

your, your title this whole the whole time as CEO, but it's clearly a very different job from when you have 10 120. And you have one office or two offices versus covering multiple geographies? What were the biggest changes in that time period? They, of course, he could say a lot of different things. But think of it in milestones. What do you what do you view as the biggest milestones over those 20 years in terms of the changing in the development of your role?





Lisa Van Dolah  27:48

I think it's, you know, well, all, it's always learning, right? I don't know that the role changed, the scope of responsibility obviously did but you know, with the 10 employees, my job was to bring two centers together and to align them with a common vision. And to help them understand change associated with taking on a surgery center in a lab, and then take on change on how they work together versus two centers. My role really changed like much, you know, 20 years later, was very similar, it was just moving more people and, and many times more, more movement in a faster period of time. Right? And, and how to communicate that and how to how to align my teams around what we're trying to do much easier when you have 10 people you can gather together versus geographically disparate groups and in a much larger dynamic. So you know, certainly hiring and recruiting physicians, you know, got added to the mix as, as the two physicians and I decided that that was how they wanted to grow their business, certainly working with international bass programs, you know, learning regulations, learning how to find paths to grow our center, you know, improve outcomes for our patients. So, you know, a lot of that just evolved, but I think that you're applying the same skill set, whether it's 10 people or 1000. People, you know, it's just how you do that.





Griffin Jones  29:16

I noticed you didn't say anything about middle management, how much hierarchy is there when you have 10 people?





Lisa Van Dolah  29:22

There's none. I mean, we have team leaders, Surgery Center, Team Leader and lab director, we didn't end up with a lot of hierarchy when we had 100 People either really, it's, you know, a team based structures. So, you know, people have the opportunity to step into leadership roles relative to, you know, staffing an area, maintaining regulatory requirements, but, you know, even in 100 person environment, there's not a lot of layers,





Griffin Jones  29:47

there isn't a lot of lead that surprises me because as you start to delegate decision making authority that in and of itself, build somewhat of a hierarchy that person that you know, might be I'm seeing patients isn't making the same decisions as who to hire in for the nursing team, or what the standard operating procedures should be, etc. And so what was that delegation of decision-making authority, like, then I kind





Lisa Van Dolah  30:19

of look at it as kind of an empowerment model, which I think comes back from nursing ranks, you know, this is about identifying, you know, by teams, what, what the team wants to how the team wants to manage themselves, and sometimes that they empower themselves to be self led, and sometimes they prefer to have some authority structure. So, you know, we, we evolved our teams around kind of what, what interests we have, by our employees to step into areas of accountability, and, you know, kind of meet the demands of what was what was being asked of, of them at that time. So I, you know, it's, it's hard for me to say, I think, you know, when you live it, it's kind of hard to go back and analyze it, but I think, you know, the evolution of our field and fertility has been exciting and, you know, certainly has taken on tremendous opportunity for for our employees and team members nursing embryologist physicians to really, you know, step outside of that role and, and learn how to evolve their business. And so, you know, we didn't necessarily do that with a, with a real structured process,





Griffin Jones  31:36

I'm having a hard time analyzing it now, eight. What does it do to continuity, though, like, I see a lot of Fertility Centers having a challenge where people are practicing very differently from one another in the same practice. And people are using different standard operating procedures, and I am not a clinician, I'm not qualified to speak on it, I just see a lot of operational disparity. And it seems to be like, it's one of the things stopping the field from scaling, because I see all of these solutions that are coming into the place in order to be able to scale different people's workflow to be able to automate to be able to use artificial intelligence. And I see a very slow adoption, because people are doing a lot of different things. And it would be difficult to make things uniform in such a way that they can adopt those solutions at scale. And as a result, we've got bottleneck problems all over the field, that's what I can see is, is not having a hierarchy is not having like very specific, you know, rigid structure. I don't want to say rigid, it should be flexible, but certainly delineated is, is that a challenge for being able to scale of fertility center?





Lisa Van Dolah  33:05

I don't know, I mean, I'd like to kind of hear more about your observations, and maybe using a specific example to help, you know, I, I haven't seen, my feeling is that maybe all the things you just described are true, I don't know that. A rigid structure is necessarily going to achieve, you know, be the tool that you necessarily need, because they want to understand more about the question.





Griffin Jones  33:33

I don't mean to say rigid, but I do mean to say, delineating. So rigid, would mean inflexible, and it should be flexible, but it should also be eye, identifiable. And one of the things that I see it's very different, you can go into a clinic and this doc is doing the workups after the first visit, this doc is doing workups before the first visit, this doc is having an ultrasound tech to the ultrasounds and this doc is doing it themselves. And I can't speak to what's the right answer. But it seems to me like when you have such disparity, and as you add provider after provider, and then all of the teams that come with each provider, that it makes it really hard to adopt solutions that you might use to take what might be 500 cycles a year to 5000 because everybody's doing things a different way.





Lisa Van Dolah  34:34

That makes sense. And I think you're you're correct. We have always tried, you know, a model it that is agreement on some standardization, right, you're gonna have your 80% rule 80 Plus, right, so 80% of the time it should kind of follow a similar process. And I think what happens there's always exceptions and patients are not unique individuals, I mean are not identified, you know, identical individuals and they need unique applications. So, you know, truce 100% standardization, I think it is not appropriate. But, you know, as you think about processes, right, and, and empowering our teams to be independent actors on a daily basis, they need a structure that they understand and that they're supported if they follow. So, you know, what we always looked at was less work with the physician, clinical team, if it was clinical in nature from a process perspective, and let's get alignment, let's get agreement on what is the 80% rule? Right. And, and there's always gonna be exceptions. And then how do we communicate those exceptions so that the people that are expected to follow the process, understand when those can be deviated from and it empowers your team. So if you think about the nursing coordinators, if they have kind of standard operating protocols that the physicians traditionally follow with within certain parameters, it makes their job easier and clearer. And they have the authority to act within their scope of practice. That doesn't mean you can deviate, but then how do they know you're going to deviate? Right? And so I think a lot of it is around just clarity on what is expected and what is supported. And then you need your team to support those, right? You can't have the undermining going on where everybody agreed to a process. And so and so voice goes around the process, right. And you know, that's a hard, that's a much harder thing to do than it sounds right. But getting those in this case may be physicians aligned around how are we going to try to standardize things within some parameters. Knowing that as an individual practitioner, we can always vary that with some exception, but if we want to make our organization as efficient as possible, and supporting us in the most efficient manner, and give some independent Accountability and authority to our employees, then let's provide the structure that they function within.





Griffin Jones  37:07

That might be what we're talking about. And I hope I'm not straying from the career path for nurses too much that they're listening and starting to get bored, I hope that it's still germane to the conversation, because if you want to be a leader, this is the type of thing that you're going to have to struggle with, you're going to have to think about these kinds of things, because I'm going to write a few different business books. Later on in my career, at least one of which is going to be a coffee table book of all of the pieces of business advice that contradict each other, all of these axioms that you see on LinkedIn, there is another axiom to contradict it, and you could take either to an extreme and becoming a really good leader is understanding all of the Asterix is that qualify each of those axioms, I really believe that it's gonna be a great coffee table book. But





Lisa Van Dolah  38:01

tell you that back to nursing, I think as nurses mature in their own role and field, again, we're applying the same principles, you, as a nurse have a foundation and a framework to approach every patient situation, you're always gonna have variation. And in understanding when you can vary from that versus what is and why. But, you know, the nursing the nursing profession is exciting, because I think you have a tremendous platform for you know, different channels, depending on your interest and, you know, pharmaceutical lines education and development, areas management, you know, there's a variety of different ways you can take the science of nursing and apply it to other professional tracks.





Griffin Jones  38:52

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 100%? Do not say all of them, I don't want I want any kind of fluffy millennial feel good answer. A ton of people ballpark what are the percentage that you feel like really have it within them that they could be not manager, not director, but Taapsee, sweet.





Lisa Van Dolah  39:25

Anything buddy that sets their mind out to do it can do it, but you have to be willing to learn and step out of kind of a comfort of a clinical based mindset. And I think many nurses don't want to have anything to do with that. They went into the profession to be a clinical focused expert, and they should that's amazing and they should continue to explore that how they can continue to contribute there. You know, there's only so many individuals that went into nursing originally that then look at organizational you know, goals and organizational You know, success as being something that they're even interested in, in being responsible for. So, you know, we all can contribute at every level of nursing to that organization's success. Whether or not you want to be the one that's, that's thinking about that 100% of the time, is, you know, it's only interested certain, certain individuals. And you know, but I don't think any nurses limit themselves to that possibility, if that's something they're interested in doing.





Griffin Jones  40:27

We've talked about how many similarities there are between what a nurse has to do in his or her day to day responsibilities and what's necessary for business leadership. I also think that there are some places where there is more of a departure in terms of the averages. And I talk sometimes on the show about the Big Five personality traits, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. And people that are in positions of leadership are usually not the most disagreeable because they have to, they have to advance other people's interests. But they're, they're seldom highly agreeable people, they're usually kind of in the middle. And I think that there's literature, I can't, I couldn't possibly reference it to you. But I think there is literature showing how much more nurses are agreeable on average, than the average person. And so I think that's an area where you might see a difference of, well, in one scenario, your role is to totally care for someone, and you're really, you're really having that interest at heart, and you need that quality and leadership, you have to have that otherwise, you're a tyrant. But you also need to make really hard decisions and not be popular in many cases, and feel like, gosh, you know, I disappointed this person sometimes, because it's the cost of, of making the right decision for the future of the organization, did you feel like you had to make an adjustment? Or is your personality already kind of, you know, in the middle of the road anyway,





Lisa Van Dolah  42:26

I must be in the middle of the road, I didn't feel like I was making that adjustment. But you know, I also felt like, even in my nursing role, you know, there were times where you were doing things that weren't making your patient, happy, they didn't fact like you, because you were doing what was best for them. Certainly, as a pediatric nurse, I found that out, but you knew that you were making the right choice, given, you know, the circumstances you were in, and in that case, on your patient's behalf. So I don't know that, you know, I necessarily felt like I had to be a certain personality in order to tolerate some of those difficult times when you are making maybe unpopular decisions, I think my role is to be able to support those and, and communicate those. And that's how I felt as a pediatric nurse that maybe I wasn't, you know, providing chemotherapy to a child that really made them happy. But I felt good about what what we needed to do. And I could explain it to the best of my ability of why we need to do it. What separates





Griffin Jones  43:26

a manager or director, someone at that level from top exec in your view,





Lisa Van Dolah  43:33

Governor responsibility? Really, it? I don't know that necessarily. It's a different skill set.





Griffin Jones  43:38

If it weren't a different skill set? Or if it weren't a particular development of some of the specific skills, then wouldn't we expect everybody to have a the same career path? So we have very few people at the tippy top, and they have something that got them there that others didn't? You can't think of what that might be.





Lisa Van Dolah  44:05

I feel like anybody that wants to achieve it can so I guess it's just maybe a personal choice. This wasn't the next, you know, next, if they felt that they had to achieve the next level, if you will, versus contributing significantly at the place that they are, whether that be a team leader, Director, you know, I don't see it necessarily as being something that everybody really necessarily wants to take on his level of responsibility. But that doesn't mean that they're not any less capable.





Griffin Jones  44:36

Why wouldn't someone want to take it on if SEO is the most glamorous thing that somebody could be in an Instagram world where being a CEO being an entrepreneur, being at the top is, is the most glorious thing why wouldn't someone want that?





Lisa Van Dolah  44:53

I don't know that. I'll speak for myself. I just I didn't aspire to be a CEO to be to have a big glamorous, certainly doesn't feel like it all the time. So it's, you know, for me, it's a choice to lead an organization towards the goals that I feel are important. And it's not about glamour, it. That's not why you take this job. Because if you do that, and you're taking it for the wrong reason, well,





Griffin Jones  45:20

and the answer might be because it sucks sometimes. If you're what you're looking for is glamour, it's you're not going to see that very often. Maybe you perceive that it doesn't suck very often, because you're just wired to do you're just wired to do it. And that's how you found yourself in this role. Does that ever suck? Sometimes?





Lisa Van Dolah  45:41

No, really, me.





Griffin Jones  45:45

We went from nurse to not project manager, but research analyst with an administrator was working in research with the administrative function, you went back into home care, then you went and got your MBA, then you started working in a management analyst role. And then you started working in staffing, senior management teams. And that led you into process improvement. And that led you into a vice president role eventually that you came over to fertility and CEO. And then you took another leap recently, where you went from the CEO of a group that was owned by a few physicians, and maybe a lab director to a company that has more people as financiers, and presumably more sophisticated financiers, did you own equity in Fertility Center of San Diego at the time of sale? No. Do you Do you own equity now as CEO? Part of Ev?





Lisa Van Dolah  46:49

I personally invested in it. Yes.





Griffin Jones  46:52

So then you've you've gone from contributor, project manager, manager, Vice President, CEO, and now you're also capitalist. So what have the differences been? What have you had to learn? When now we're working with private equity folks who have limited partners? What were some of the things that you had to learn that you even if you were familiar with them, you really had to dig deeper into?





Lisa Van Dolah  47:19

Well, I go back, first of all, tell the people they're adding up all those years of work, and not as old as actually I am as old as it sounds. So it's





Griffin Jones  47:30

a smell that we never specified most of the years. So





Lisa Van Dolah  47:34

paper parcel years, right? Job hop very quick. It's, it's like anything, it's learning relationships, and, you know, moving from a hospital system, where the relationships had to do with boards, board members and, and nonprofit organizations and physician relations and moving into private practice, it was different, you know, we had less, you know, less equity, you know, equity participants, I had to start but, you know, it's with everything. It's it's learning those relationships and, and aligning goals. But it again, you're just applying the same skill set that you did back when I ran a materials management. Yeah, but





Griffin Jones  48:21

what specific skills? Did you have to bone up on like shareholder rules or types of, you know, like, what did you have to learn more of?





Lisa Van Dolah  48:31

I don't know that I have, you know, I understand obviously, the legal structure, you have to read the papers and understand the documents and know what what you're building and what the structure is from when you're talking to, you know, employees or physicians or others about how the structure works. But it that's not really a skill set. It's just understanding it, so you can explain it.





Griffin Jones  48:54

I want to let you conclude with how you'd like to conclude for nurses that might be listening and thinking about their career path. But before we do that, what do nurses need to know about negotiation?





Lisa Van Dolah  49:11

negotiation? I think you just know to believe in yourself and be clear on what you are representing and what you need by what you're asking for, and how that adds value to whether it's your patient or your carer or your role or your organization. And the negotiation after that is should be easy.





Griffin Jones  49:34

Are they used to it? I am asking this because my maternal grandmother was a nurse. My paternal grandmother was a nurse. My mother was a nurse, my sister was a nurse. All labor and delivery, by the way, are awesome. And these are people that are reluctant to ask for like a refill for their water at a restaurant. So it All right, are there things that you did to practice negotiation outside of just doing it? Were there particular pieces, lessons that you needed to get better at? And if so, what were they? or were there other things that you studied that were helpful?





Lisa Van Dolah  50:17

Not really. I'm probably just like your mom, I probably don't. If my meal comes out, I don't like it. I don't return it.





Griffin Jones  50:24

I never do either by though I seldom do No, I





Lisa Van Dolah  50:27

again, I think it's, it's, I always say get clear on the why, why are you asking for this? And be able to articulate why whatever it is, and if it is meaningful, and and right, in your own mind, you have the white clear, then it's not really feeling like you're negotiating. It's just that you're articulating what's needed. So I'm not sure





Griffin Jones  50:46

what is the right is entirely in my self interest and not in the other person's,





Lisa Van Dolah  50:51

then. And you're probably going to learn how to negotiate skills that I bring to the table,





Griffin Jones  51:01

then learn the hard way could I do I do see that. And I am also a little bit more on the agreeable end of the spectrum. I'm not far on agreeableness, I'm still probably on the bell curve. But I'm on the agreeable side, I think it's actually a good place to be in business, because I am agreeable enough to I really want to advance other people's interests. And if I'm ever at a place where there's a client feeling like they didn't get enough value, I can't sleep at night, not even if if, you know, I've never had things that are real bad. But if they're even just like, yeah, that was okay. It's like, oh, I can't stand and I want to advance other people's interests. But I'm also not so agreeable, that I'm going to work for little money or take on really bad terms that aren't in my interest. And when I started negotiating, I very often would get trapped in the desert of rent. Well, I desert I did this, therefore. And I see people, especially those that are more agreeable, when they're learning to negotiate, they're starting to do it, they tend to get in deserved mode. And I realized it's least in my view, is very useful to just eliminate deserve from the entire lexicon has nothing to do with me deserving things. I think having clients as opposed to having one employer over the years has been helpful for that. There's no me saying, I just deserve that if I can't prove a value to the client, they just let us go. And so it's always he, this is how this advances your interest. And sounds to me, like, you probably maybe already knew that instinctively. And so that's why you're not even thinking of like, like, when you say clarifying the why. Maybe you just had that to begin with. Yep. How would you like to conclude for the nursing manager, let's say the young nursing manager listening right now that thinking, maybe I want to take the next step in my career, what advice would you give to that person and, or any other thought you'd like to conclude the show with? Well, I'm





Lisa Van Dolah  53:10

speaking to one I just hired in Memphis, she's coming out of a hospital or surgery center experience, and she's stepping into the practice administrator role. And, you know, first her and anybody else, 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 and ask for those around you to support you in learning things that maybe you don't have any experience in yet. And I think nursing has tremendous foundation to offer you the skill set in a variety of roles, whether it's administrative management leadership, or you know, like you said, project management, sales, marketing, business development, all of those things are are ways training, teaching for nurses, to advance their career. So it's not just one path, but I think they're seeing has a tremendous foundational value that you can build on if you're interested in.





Griffin Jones  54:15

So for those of you that are on the fence, maybe you take a shot because we could probably use a couple more nurses at the top. Lisa Van Dolah. Thank you very much for coming on inside reproductive health. Thank you.





Lisa Van Dolah  54:28

Thank you very much for the opportunity. 





Sponsor  54:29

This episode was brought to you by Univfy. Download Univfy’s free IVF Conversion and Revenue calculator.






You've been listening to the inside reproductive health podcast with Griffin Jones. If you're ready to take action to make sure that your practice thrives beyond the revolutionary changes that are happening in our field and in society, visit fertility bridge dot com to begin the first piece of the fertility marketing system, the goal and competitive diagnostic. Thank you for listening to inside reproductive health