So when you speak with clinical and operational leaders, where do they see the biggest adoption gap? If we're saying that there is the opportunity to use AI, and I'm sure there is already, as I've experienced, so much technology involved, what is the biggest adoption gap for these health systems? Why is even when there are solutions, it's not easy to adopt or it takes a long time?

Yeah.

I mean, when we talked about the measurable benefits, whether it's the hospitals or payers or clinics and what they can expect from that adoption, I mean, the way that we've trained our commercial team is like we encourage them to make certain that they're explaining to organizations that have an interest in clearly measuring value across three specific areas.

So there's clinical impact, there's workflow efficiency, and then there's ultimately the financial return.

And so taking those in order from From a clinical standpoint, hospitals should measure whether the technology actually improves diagnostic certainty.

Does it change the treatment decision? How does it change the decision? How does it help identify the appropriate patients that need to potentially go to the cath lab versus those that don't? So that's from the clinical standpoint.

From the operational standpoint, the workflow standpoint, they should look at what's the turnaround time in utilizing this technology? How much time does it take from imaging to the treatment decision? Is this testing redundant from something that we're currently utilizing? Or what's the level of physician adoption? What is that patient experience? throughput to get to that cath lab procedural yield or ultimately to that decision.

Can you walk us through what those factors are when you're looking at a tool to see, is this going to be too hard to even get past?

Mm-hmm.

How does it help identify the appropriate patients that need to potentially go to the cath lab versus those that don't? So that, that's from the clinical standpoint.

From, from the operational standpoint, the workflow standpoint, they should look at what's the turnaround time in utilizing this technology? How much time does it take from imaging to the treatment decision? Is this testing redundant from something that we're currently utilizing? Or what's the level of physician adoption? What is that patient throughput to get to that cath lab procedural yield or, or ultimately to that decision? Now, how does the technology make the user's life more efficient when it comes to ultimately treating that patient? And then the, the last piece is the, is the financial value piece, and that's gonna differ by stakeholder within the organization.

So whether it's a payer or a risk-bearing provider or hospital or clinic, it depends on, you know, how they look at their cost structure.

You know, is this a technology that is covered by reimbursement to where there is a financial, uh, reimbursement for utilization of the technology? Or are they utilizing the technology ultimately to, to save money because they're a value-based care organization? So does it help them to actually reduce the number of procedures that they have? So at the end of those three stakeholders or those value props, the, the objective You know, is not simply to perform fewer procedures.

It's to help ensure that the right patient receives the right procedure more than anything else.

And, you know, hospitals ultimately need to establish the baseline in advance of how they're gonna utilize this technology, why they're gonna utilize this technology, what's the clinical benefit, what's the operational throughput, and, and what's the ROI of this, you know? The thing that I will tell you is that the way that I al- always look at it with our technology in particular is like, you know, when we're approaching a new account, you know, clinical evidence is ultimately what gets your technology considered, but it's the workflow and it's the economics that get you adopted.

Can you walk us through what those factors are when you're looking at a tool to see i- is this going to be too hard to even get past?

What do you think the the space that Livongo was operating and taught you that the device world hadn't?

Yeah, for Livongo, I mean, it was it was and it was it was a fantastic organization.

So a couple of things that I come away with at Livongo that I think were interesting.

you know, near and dear to me.

Number one, like aside from Clearly, it was the most mission driven organization that I had ever been a part of.

So with Livongo, we were focusing on helping people with chronic conditions, namely diabetes, which also contributes to heart disease.

But within those 900 employees at Livongo, a third of them were living with diabetes.

So what do you look for specifically when you're speaking with people that want to join the business?