Diagnostics represent the greatest opportunity to improve healthcare, by tailoring healthcare decision making to the patient. Alva10 works with laboratories and manufacturers on all facets of commercial strategy, including clinical validity, clinical utility, economics and pricing strategy, coding, coverage, and payment. Alva10 partners with employers and payors to bring diagnostics to patients to address clinical needs, rising healthcare spend, and other inefficiencies the result from trial-and-error medicine.
Diagnostic Developers & Labs
engagement for product market fit
There is a tendency for diagnostic developers to focus most early resources on the technical aspects of diagnostic development, often to the detriment of the market-facing needs. Through our relationships with employers and payors, we work with diagnostic developers to ensure product market fit across stakeholders- patients, physicians, employers, PBMs, and insurance.
All aspects of coding, strategy and execution.
Claims-based cost impact analysis, with budget impact model.
Pricing strategy and execution.
Complete publication strategy across all stakeholders (payors, physicians, patients).
Multi-year strategic planning to align evidence development, fundraising, and launch.
Clinical utility market confirmation.
Pre-market engagement with payors.
Real world evidence generation.
Engagement and channel with self-insured employers.
Complete diagnostic dossier execution.
Precommercial contracts for coverage.
Investor support.
our go to market services
our go to market services
claims based cost impact analysis
The standard diagnostic development cycle, coined the ‘Vicious Cycle’ of diagnostics, is what makes investors shy away from investing in innovative technologies. Companies tend to develop their test with the input from key opinion leaders, large academic centers, and their own scientists, as well as internally determine what the minimally viable product is, and launch onto the market with the intention of asking payers for pilot studies and joint development agreements in order to generate more data.
This is almost never successful. Why?
The payers (customers) see a product that isn’t fully complete and doesn’t have enough supporting evidence. Frequently, the payer also doesn’t agree with either the clinical utility, value proposition/pricing, or both. The payer deems the test ‘experimental’ and does not cover it, waiting for more data. The diagnostic developer finds themselves in the less than ideal position of needing to go to their investors, or board, and ask for more resources to generate sufficient data. Frequently, that request is turned down, because there is no clear path to market success. This is the valley of death for diagnostics.
real world economic modeling
Let’s look at the above Vicious Cycle compared to the Virtuous Cycle. In the latter cycle you, being the diagnostic developer, engage with the customer ahead of the validation data development. What, you may ask, does that do?
This ensures that there is agreement on:
1. Clinical utility
2. Value proposition (payer economics)
3. Reimbursement (diagnostic company and investor economics)
By coming to agreement upfront, the same resources are used on the payer side, but now the diagnostic developer has a clear path to the market, and a clear return on investment for the investors. It's a WIN-WIN-WIN from the start.
Virtuous Cycle
Vicious vs Virtuous
Let’s look at the above Vicious Cycle compared to the Virtuous Cycle. In the latter cycle you, being the diagnostic developer, engage with the customer ahead of the validation data development. What, you may ask, does that do?
This ensures that there is agreement on:
1. Clinical utility
2. Value proposition (payer
economics)
3. Reimbursement
(diagnostic company and
investor economics)
Virtuous Cycle
The standard diagnostic development cycle, coined the ‘Vicious Cycle’ of diagnostics, is what makes investors shy away from investing in innovative technologies. Companies tend to develop their test with the input from key opinion leaders, large academic centers, and their own scientists, as well as internally determine what the minimally viable product is,
Vicious Cycle
and launch onto the market with the intention of asking payers for pilot studies and joint development agreements in order to generate more data.
This is almost never successful. Why?
The payers (customers) see a product that isn’t fully complete and doesn’t have enough supporting evidence. Frequently, the payer also doesn’t agree with either the clinical utility, value proposition/pricing, or both. The payer deems the test ‘experimental’ and does not cover it, waiting for more data. The diagnostic developer finds themselves in the less than ideal position of needing to go to their investors, or board, and ask for more resources to generate sufficient data. Frequently, that request is turned down, because there is no clear path to market success. This is the valley of death for diagnostics.
By coming to agreement upfront, the same resources are used on the payer side, but now the diagnostic developer has a clear path to the market, and a clear return on investment for the investors. It's a WIN-WIN-WIN from the start.
PAYER
You are a
Employer
You are an
Diagnostic
Developer
Lab
You are a
Investor
You are an
A traditionally recognized Healthcare Payer
Looking to improve company healthcare benefits/spending
Exploring ways to invest in innovative technologies
Innovating technology
or
Select your affiliated group
Not a Diagnostic Developer or Lab?
