TRAQ

In the border town of San Diego, California 86% of the population[1] has adequate access to healthcare while it’s less than 80% of the population in its cross-border sister city of Tijuana, Mexico.[2]  However worldwide, the number of those with adequate access to healthcare plummets to less than half.[3]  

Further, 70% of the 9 million children who die every year could be saved with access to simple, early, affordable interventions. Most of these deaths occur in developing countries.[4]  

While geographic and political impediments exist, the primary reason for the disparity is cost.  Medical equipment, personnel, diagnostics testing, and care all have significant cost behind them that leave the best and most comprehensive care only to the wealthiest of nations and geographies.  

The problem is simple - half the world’s population lacks access to a basic human right, healthcare.

---

[1] San Diego County – Public Health Data California Health Interview Survey Estimates: Adults, 7/2017.  https://www.sandiegocounty.gov...

[2] https://knoema.com/MXPVR2021/p...

[3] https://www.who.int/news/item/...

[4] https://www.who.int/news-room/...

Effective, equal, timely access to healthcare, globally via non-invasive, on-demand, cost-effective saliva tests.  

TRAQ’s handheld point-of-care device, called the “Stone,” is a non-invasive (saliva, not blood), on-demand (anytime, private), accurate (better than FDA guidelines), and fast (results in seconds to minutes) portable health & wellness device.  No medical professional is required to operate the device with patients capable of performing the tests themselves.     

Nearly all the same 4,000 biomarkers in blood (i.e. cortisol, cholesterol, insulin, etc.), are also in saliva, albeit at lower concentrations.  Further, the concentration of a salivary biomarker is nearly always directly relatable, in a predictable manner, to the same biomarker in blood.  Lastly, TRAQ can now measure these very low biomarker concentrations in saliva.  

The device uses single use cartridges to test specific biomarker concentration using electrochemistry, whereby the relative concentration of a biomarker can, in essence, be measured through a chemical reaction involving a biomarker that completes an electrical circuit with the circuit characteristics changing in accordance with biomarker concentration.  

Each cartridge can measure up to four different health & wellness biomarkers simultaneously.  For instance, the Hydration cartridge measures sodium, potassium and chloride to give an overall Hydration measure.  Other cartridges can measure generic health and wellness categories (i.e. Energy, Stress) or very specific biomarkers that indicate disease or infection.   

Cartridges can be adapted to focus on regional issues (i.e. epidemics, malaria, tuberculosis), gender-focused concerns (i.e. women’s health) or singular health concerns (i.e. sepsis, cancer, congestive heart issues, diabetes).    

While TRAQ benefits from internet connectivity (for occasional OTA updates, data sharing), the device is self-contained, storing all health & wellness test data until broader connectivity is enabled, whereby updates and data transfer are completed. Users/patients own their own data choosing to share it with family members, friends, coaches or physicians (local or remote), as they see fit.  Anonymized data is uploaded to the cloud (AWS back end) and is capable of being shared with medical professional for research and epidemic tracking.  

Most existing diagnostic scans are binary in nature (giving a “yes” or “no” result) and focus on important, but singular health concerns, such as malaria.  Other options for general health & wellness monitoring are non-existing in these under-served communities or require costly remote collection and panel testing, costing significantly more than the general population can afford.  

Telehealth is an excellent solution for middle- and low-income countries and it is expanding rapidly; however, diagnostic scans are not part the telehealth solution, rather they are limited to Q/A physical exams with some proxy vital sign data occasionally being shared (heart rate, blood pressure).

Given that cost is the driving factor behind the disparity in healthcare access, TRAQ’s solution was designed with that as the foremost issue. 

The Stone retails at under $200, with individual tests costing between $2.50 - $15 USD.  Additional production scale, and an easing of the current semiconductor supply chain woes, should help reduce these prices further.

While members of the G20 can benefit from the TRAQ platform for their most under-served populations (typically urban), non-G20 countries have broader applicability not only with NGOs but also neighborhood health clinics, traveling healthcare providers as well as direct, in-home use for individual families.  

Those currently suffering from healthcare inequities – minority women, poorer communities, and rural communities – can benefit from less expensive, non-invasive, more frequent on-demand testing, for earlier detection of health issues.  Patients no longer need to travel as far, wait as long or pay as much for effective, equal, timely access to healthcare.

Further, given the digital, connected (when available) nature of TRAQ, measuring the impact of testing and follow-on treatment can be more effectively measured in an anonymous manner, maintaining privacy.

While the team is well positioned to deliver on the product, its ability to serve the communities most in need is certainly hampered by funding and its currently limited networks.

The team comprises entrepreneurs, medical professionals, biochemistry scientists and engineers, as well as operations-minded experts to deliver a high-quality, dependable, robust product.  Further, the team is a diverse group, representing several nationalities, including some of those currently under-served from a healthcare perspective.

However, our true reach is currently geographically limited to the southwestern US and northern Mexico.  Clinical trials and focus groups typically involve members of these populations, which do cover some of the under-served population subsets; however, they do not reflect the true applicability of the TRAQ platform for under-served communities beyond the G20 populations.

To date, any information related to serving communities outside the 100-mile radius from our offices have come from NGO communications, such as Opportunity International (microfinance) that services 18.7 million people in over 32 countries, and Edify, a Christian-based non-profit focusing on education in Africa and Latin America, and not directly from the communities themselves. This has served us well to date, on limited funding.

With additional funding, additional outreach to specifically targeted geographic programs are intended to solicit more direct feedback directly from communities beyond our current travel radius.  The expected easing of COVID-related travel restrictions should also ease our ability to conduct these projects, with the goal being to further validate our healthcare assumptions and needs for specific tests.

Financial and market barriers.  Funding for any startup, especially through a pandemic, is required to keep development moving forward with the eventual goals of scale.  This is no different for TRAQ. 

It is also hoped that the Challenge award will help not only raise the profile of TRAQ, but more rapidly assist in opening market/distribution channels to under-served communities beyond the G20.

Vital signs, like heart rate and blood pressure, are easy to capture and able to be measured remotely with relative ease.  However, they are only proxies for true health – what’s happening inside you.

And while blood testing is the gold standard for divining your true health status, it is invasive, costly, difficult to measure remotely, and in some cases dangerous to acquire.

There are better options - with saliva testing – non-invasive, cheaper, safer and still able to help learn what’s happening inside your body.

Much like early telecommunications companies that were trying to be the “last mile” to retail cable subscribers homes decades ago, healthcare providers and vendors have been trying to be that “last mile” for customers/patients/users over the past decade.

To better serve their communities, County and Regional hospitals have branched out into District Hospitals and dedicated Clinics.  Further, both charitable efforts and local governments have piggybacked on the effort with sponsored clinics co-located in some of the neediest communities.  Privately, diagnostic labs (LabCorp, Quest) have pushed to enter communities more directly via pharmacies and grocery stores with their co-located labs (CVS, Rite-Aid, Walmart).  But they haven’t truly penetrated the last mile with solutions, rather they are bringing existing infrastructure closer.

Mail-order lab testing services get even closer to the last mile as they deliver biofluid collecting receptacles directly in the community and provide return mailers to their labs (EverlyWell).  However, this solution still requires invasive collection techniques, are costly and still take days-to-weeks to get results.  Plus, the results are not necessarily capable of being aggregated for broader compliance or impact metrics.

Telehealth has also penetrated the last mile as well, however, limited diagnostic data is available from this effort except for partial physical exams and vitals, occasionally.

Other start-up firms are trying to get into the community and the home with point-of-care (POCT) devices intended to be the “lab in a home.”  However, most still require more invasive biofluids and are costly. 

Wearable technologies are also trying to offer on-demand health monitoring with passive, biometric health evaluation via smartwatches (limited data, focused on vitals or “counting steps”) or using on-patient, battery-powered micro-needle solutions, such as DexCom with their continuous monitoring diabetes system.  While an excellent solution that truly penetrates the last mile, these solutions are costly, invasive, and singularly focused on one medical issue, such as diabetes.

In summary, few solutions actually make it the last mile without compromising one or more of the dimensions that make for a truly reliable, point-of-care delivery system – determining what’s happening INSIDE your body and doing so in a non-invasive, cost-effective, on-demand, rapid and digital fashion and without the need for medical professionals, yet still allow for sharing of test results rapidly for actionable insights and follow-on care.

This is TRAQ’s key innovation.

But TRAQ is not trying to be the entire road in the healthcare system, rather an easier, more affordable and private way to enter the healthcare system - more rapidly and effectively than would otherwise be possible.  The current healthcare infrastructure can, and should, remain in hopefully a more efficient form, however, it can now more easily service the previously unserviceable with it’s at-home or “last mile” screening capabilities.

And lastly, despite DNA testing and the recent growth of mail-in saliva tests, salivary diagnostics (the richest biofluid outside of blood) is still in its relative infancy.  As any healthcare solution gets closer and closer to the last mile and technology continues to evolve, the pains associated with the current healthcare system will be a thing of the past.

Mission:  Improve the general or specific health and wellness either though early detection or more regular monitoring:

• Year 1 = 1,000 individuals/families in southwestern US and northern Mexico
• Year 3 = 2M individuals/families globally
• Year 5 = 30M individuals/families globally

While TRAQ’s original intent was to assist athletes in improving their fitness levels through on-demand saliva testing, we understood early on that many of the same biomarkers for fitness were also very important for health & wellness and as a diagnostic.  

With this initial focus on athletes, the expectation was that market traction in the fitness realm would translate into the diagnostic or screening world, and while that may be true, our development of the diagnostic advantages of the TRAQ platform have caught up to the production launch of the fitness-focused models (Energy and Hydration in Q4:2022).  And again, the underlying biomarkers in the fitness realm overlap those in the health & wellness and diagnostic worlds.  Same device, save cartridge, different test protocol.  

We plan on achieving these goals by focusing on what we do best – sensing key salivary biomarkers that indicate general health or specific maladies – and piggybacking on:

• Pre-established distribution and support networks that continue to push the referral network and that reap the most financially from our solution:  Insurance companies, public/government insurance (i.e. Medicare), existing healthcare providers and facilities.
• Pre-existing solutions and networks that gain the most as it relates to “impact metrics”:  Charitable endeavors, humanitarian groups, NGOs.
• Existing solutions that have penetrated the last mile, such as telehealth firms;
• Online, direct sales, with a focus on a co-branded launch. We would much rather be the “Intel Inside” available everywhere tomorrow, rather than a pure TRAQ brand that’s not available for another five years.  

We will complement this with:

• Online, direct sales, with a focus on a co-branded launch. We would much rather be the “Intel Inside” available everywhere tomorrow, rather than a pure TRAQ brand that’s not available for another five years.

The raw metric for success is “Tests/Test Panels Conducted.”  As all tests are digital in nature, TRAQ has access to all results in an anonymized fashion.  However, it is not always a 1:1 relationship.  Some diagnostic screens may use a protocol of a minimum of three tests over anywhere from 1-2 hours.  So, this test would be a “3 tests:1 result” ratio.  This is the raw metric.

We also intent to measure “Tests Acted Upon.”  As TRAQ also provides actionable insights and sharing, we will have access to test results being shared with professionals, hence a secondary metric for success is “Tests Acted Upon.”  If test results are shared with a healthcare professional, we can assume the health issue is being addressed.  However, this can be misleading as: 1) results shared may not be acted upon, 2) results may not be shared via the app, and 3) just because a result is not shared does not mean that it did not provide benefit.  Learning you have a clean bill of health would more likely go unreported but has as much validity as a result showing there is an issue that gets reported.TRAQ intends to offer discounts on future services/test/subscriptions for users willing to share both positive and negative results.

In some respects, TRAQ’s theory of change (ToC) heavily mirrors that of other ToC maps for areas with inadequate healthcare and resources.  These ToCs focus on establishing and bolstering existing referral pathways: 

“The establishment of reliable referral pathways from primary care facilities to district hospitals to dedicated cancer centers is the same approach as is required for the management of cervical cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer and prostate cancer. To that end, breast cancer is an “index” disease whereby pathways are created that can be followed for the management of other disease.”.[1]

Using the “last mile” metaphor again, referral pathways should be viewed as the “second to last mile,” given that they are the link between district hospitals to local health centers, whereas the last mile is the path from these health centers all the way to the home.

However, there are two main differences in TRAQ’s ToC as compared to those ToCs for areas with inadequate healthcare:

• Our intended reliance on partners with pre-existing relationships and networks is expected to ease those aspects of our ToC given that there are already pre-existing forces, pushing toward referral pathways. These networks are expected to feed the referral pathways from further upstream with proven solutions that: a) reduce overall system cost by increasing early detection, and b) improve “impact metrics” for those non-profits involved in referral pathways. Therefore, a significant amount of the workload for TRAQ is front-loaded around securing partners buy-in to the solution (insurers - government[2]/private, charitable endeavors, humanitarian groups, NGOs).  TRAQ views this effort as a “push” toward the last mile. 
• Direct delivery. Two-pronged focus:
  • Supplying telehealth providers:  Telehealth has already penetrated the last mile.  If a local population is already accustomed to this form of healthcare, adding more credible health data to these visits will increase the value add of their solution, improving their bottom line. 
  • Given that no medical personnel are required to test, TRAQ will expend efforts toward B2C support, so that customers/patients are equipped directly.  With direct delivery, TRAQ has made it into the home, but now must ensure that test data is received back up the chain, the “last mile” and most importantly, required services are sought or deployed.  TRAQ has viewed this effort as a “pull” of data from the home, up the last mile, to local health centers.

Existing Problem:  Over 50% of the global population lacks easy, affordable access to essential, quality healthcare.[3]  

Desired Single-Dimension ToC State:  Effective, equal, timely access globally to healthcare via non-invasive, on-demand, cost-effective saliva tests for determining general health & wellness as well as screening for serious medical issues.

The hope though is that not only is the theory put into practice and successful, but also repeatable for other maladies and high-impact health concerns, thus a “waterfall” ToC for broader healthcare coverage.

Desired “Waterfall” ToC State:  Effective, equal, timely access to healthcare, globally via non-invasive, on-demand, cost-effective saliva tests. 

[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/...

[2] https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/C...

[3] https://www.who.int/news/item/...

Our primary technology is in the field of electrochemical/amperometry (Patent #: US Patent #WO2015/112638 A1) in the development of a very robust electrochemical biosensor that is commercially viable, accurate and cost-effective.

More specifically, certain aspects of the technological advancements beyond the University-based research involved the conversion of lab-grade chemistry to a more robust, repeatable, cost-effective, sensitive and commercial-ready chemistry.  For example, early trials required compounds be stored at 4°C, reactions take place within 10 minutes of removal and lasting upwards of 1 hour with a biosensor cost of roughly $23 each. 

To date, our electrochemical biosensor has a shelf-life of over 12 months, withstands temperatures of -10°C to 45°C, has an IP55 rating, and can be produced for 1/100th the cost of the university-developed sensor (under $0.15).  This biosensor resides at the core of each cartridge.

Additionally, basic AI tools are currently being employed to discern trends or patterns for both individuals and broader populations.

Pre-existing community healthcare providers, insurers (both public and private), medical humanitarian groups and the patients themselves can collect test data.

Patients and their families have the most incentive as it affects them most acutely with the direct ability to seek remedy for any condition(s).  They have the most at risk and early detection and subsequent action is key.

Medically focused humanitarian groups would have the next most incentive as it is a part of their service mission to have a measurable impact. 

Pre-existing healthcare providers and insurers may applaud the offloading of services to patients but may push back against the increased coverage they may now need to provide to a broader base.

Therefore, it is essential to demonstrate the cost-benefit analysis to both insurance providers as well as large healthcare providers.  Using breast cancer and specific biomarker testing as a case study:

Case Study Summary:  Breast Cancer

Prevalence:  The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 12.9% for women.[1],[2]  In 2022, it is estimated that over 3.8M women in the US alone will be living with breast cancer, with nearly 290,000 new cases being detected this year and roughly 43,250 deaths being expected in 2022.   

The WHO estimates that breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer worldwide, with 2.3 million women diagnosed with it in 2020 and roughly 685,000 deaths annually.[3]

Mortality:  Survival rates range from over 90% in high-income countries to below 40% in poorer countries.  Per the WHO, early detection has proven successful in high-income countries and should be replicated in countries with limited resources.  They further estimate that if annual mortality can be reduced by 2.5% per year worldwide, 2.5 million lives could be saved between 2020 and 2040.

Current Detection Process:[4]

• 5 steps to detection and diagnosis:
  • Monthly self-exam
  • Healthcare professional exam
  • Mammogram (annual, or every two years)
  • Biopsy
  • Biomarker test
• When women perform self-exams (only 40% find tumors using this method):
  • The average size of a tumor is 1 cm when found during regular breast self-exams
  • The average size of a tumor is 2.62 cm when found by women who do not do self-exams
• Results of exams by healthcare professionals:
  • Breast lumps that are 0.5 to 1.0 cm can sometimes be felt by an experienced provider
  • Lumps that are 1.0 to 1.5 cm are found about 60% of the time
  • Lumps that are 2.0 cm or greater are found 96% of the time
• Mammograms:
  • The average size of a tumor found by mammogram is 1.1 cm.
  • The earliest a tumor may be found on a mammogram is when it is between 0.2 cm and 0.3 cm in diameter.

Roughly, only 40% of cancers are found at Stage 0/1, leaving 60% to be discovered at later stages.  Both common wisdom and research demonstrate that detecting cancer early is best - best for the expected patient outcome and best for the healthcare system with reduced overall cost with earlier detection.  Recent studies bear this out:[5]

• For women diagnosed with Stage 0 breast cancer (small, localized tumors), the medical system costs totaled $48,477, on average, 6 months after diagnosis.
• For stages I and II (tumors had not grown deeply into nearby tissues), the range was $61,621-$97,066
• For stage III (larger tumors that spread to nearby areas), $84,481-$159,442
• For stage IV (affecting other parts of the body), $89,463-$182,655

If early detection is defined as Stage 0/1, then system costs can be seen to increase along with the cancer’s progression.  The average difference in system costs:

• Stage 1/2 vs. Stage 0:  $13,444 - $48,589 additional cost over Stage 0/1
• Stage 3 vs. Stage 0: $36,004 - $48,589 additional cost over Stage 0/1
• Stage 4 vs. Stage 0: $40,986 - $134,178 additional cost over Stage 0/1

This does not include indirect expenses that also increase with the cancer’s progression.  These include physical therapy, mental therapy, relief of nausea or fatigue from chemotherapy (acupuncture), cosmetic adjustments (wigs), lost income for treatment and recovery times.

Current Average System Cost per Patient:

Ignoring the indirect costs, the direct costs of not detecting breast cancer in Stage 0/1 averages between $13,444 - $134,178 per patient. For the US alone, the annual excess system cost for breast cancer detection later than Stage 0/1 is between $2.4B and $23B, with an average of $12.7B.  Studies have shown that the total cost of treating breast cancer (including the early-stage costs) exceeds $20B (2020), so our analysis of the EXCESS costs for delayed detection ($12.7B) seems plausible.[6]

Cost-Benefit Analysis for the US:

In any cost-benefit analysis, the goal is to derive a factual or numeric basis for decision-making.  In this case, insurance companies would be motivated to use any device or process that reduced this net average cost, either by reducing costs in later stage cancer treatment or in detecting cancers earlier.  In this case, in the US, healthcare providers would want to see the net cost of adopting any new process or devices be less than the current costs. 

Early Breast Cancer Screening:  Key biomarkers in blood may indicate the presence of cancer in the body.  TRAQ has proven a direct, consistent and measurable relationship between blood serum biomarkers and many salivary biomarkers through clinical trials.

US Adoption Cost:  If all insurance providers (public, private) adopted monthly saliva-based tests focused on breast cancer screening for all women over the age of 40 (95% of cases):

• Number US women over 40 = 74,344,000 (45% of the US female population)
• Tests per month per person: 1.8
• Annual tests per person: 21.6
• Total test per year: 1,606,000,000
• Cost per test = $2.10 (cost of TRAQ Stone device allocated across all tests)
• Total Screening Cost Per Year: $3.4B
• Savings from Early Detection: $9.3B (Cost of adoption = ¼ current cost of late detection)

While the screening cost per year shows a net savings over later detection by $9.3B per year (recall the $12.7B in excess cost due to delayed detection of breast cancer) should be incentive enough for insurers and their stakeholders, there are also additional savings that insurers would reap that have not been accounted for with just breast cancer screening.

Other maladies with improved prognostic outcomes for early detection could also be added to the platform.  If the savings associated with breast cancer can be broadly applied to these other maladies that benefit from early detection (including other cancers), insurance carriers in the US could conceivably net billions in savings due to earlier detection.

Further, insurers could also motivate greater adherence to monthly testing with discounts to those submitting monthly acknowledgment of taking the test without having to share details, and more directly, cover a portion of test costs much like they currently do for blood-based testing. The testing would just be more frequent, less expensive, and non-invasive.

Global Comparison and Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Of course, the previous data is for the US.  In poorer countries, unfortunately the math is different as the cost of not testing a broader population is not the same in richer countries.  Some studies show that poorer countries spend less than 10% the cost of the US for treatment.

Regardless, the cost of later detection globally is just as startling[7]:

Stage 0/1: $29,724 (using 2015 USD)

Stage 2:  32% higher than detection at Stage 0/1 ($39,322)

Stage 3: 95% higher than detection at Stage 0/1 ($57,827)

Stage 4: 109% higher than detection at Stage 0/1 ($62,108)

Using the same analysis as in the US, the cost of later stage detection (after Stage1) globally, can be estimated at 78% greater cost than detection at Stage 0/1 or and EXCESS cost of $52,909.  Globally, this comes to a system cost of later stage detection for breast cancer of $73B.

Worldwide, this is well over $70B in system costs for failure to detect in Stage 0/1 breast cancer.[8]

Global Adoption Cost:

• 3.8B women globally
• 1.7B between the ages of 40-80
• Annual test per person: 21.6
• Cost per test = $1.95 (cost of TRAQ Stone allocated across all tests, greater sharing, scaled)
• $71.6B total cost.
• Total Screening Cost Per Year: $71.6B

The cost of adoption globally appears more than the current EXCESS cost of $70B; however, this is misleading given that even in the US, currently less than 75% of women with insurance and over the age of 40 are screened regularly for breast cancer.  Without insurance, less than 39% of US women are regularly screened.[9]

In trying to compare the cost of adoption and population coverage globally, the cost to adopt in the currently screened population (~500M) would be roughly $21B, as compared to the EXCESS cost of late detection of $70B.  Put another way, if the current systems screened ALL women over the age of 40 worldwide (1.7B), the late detection cost would exceed $190B globally, yet cost less than $72B to adopt early, salivary-based screens.

And again, this neglects the platform nature of the TRAQ solution with its multi-biomarker solution that could be used to scan for other serious maladies that would benefit from early detection (i.e. other forms of cancer, sepsis, kidney disease, liver disease, congestive heart issues). 

Lastly, insurers and healthcare providers also benefit from increase visibility into compliance, something sorely lacking with current solutions.

It’s clear that for both wealthy nations and globally, the financial incentive for insurers and health care providers to adopt saliva-based screening is significant. 

The drive for early detection is an incentive for patients, medical humanitarian groups as well as for insurers and healthcare providers.

[1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa...

[2] https://www.breastcancer.org/f...

[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/...

[4] https://www.verywellhealth.com...

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagnosis/stages-of-breast-cancer.html, https://www.bcsc-research.org/...

[5] https://www.webmd.com/breast-c...

[6] https://www.medscape.com/viewa...

[7] https://journals.plos.org/plos...

[8] Using previously supplied data:  2.3M women diagnosed with breast cancer annually, worldwide. 60% detect late (after Stage 1).

[9] https://www.komen.org/breast-c...

Given its solution’s relatively high technology focus, TRAQ leadership is truly based on the core of its technical team – the chemical, mechanical, electrical and biomedical engineers that make it up.  We are fortunate to be located between two world-renowned and diverse University of California research universities (UC Irvine, UC San Diego).  As such, these Universities pool a broad array of worldwide, diverse technical talent.  Therefore, our candidate pool for employment in northern San Diego county, as well as our current employee roster, mirrors the diversity of these universities.

Further, the stated mission of “Effective, equal, timely access to healthcare, globally via non-invasive, on-demand, cost-effective saliva tests,” typically self-selects employees to be predisposed toward a compassionate, understanding and equitable nature, for both fellow employees, prospective employees as well as patients/customers/users.  

Clinical trials, typically meant to reflect a diverse population, also serve to reinforce positive messages related to DEI.  

Lastly, typical annual, company-wide planning exercises spend time on the “What do you want to do with this?” question, whereby employees express (with some doing so privately) their heartfelt desires as to what they would like to see done with the technology and solutions they are developing on a daily basis.  As diverse as TRAQ is, their answers, while individually illuminating, tend to focus on those individuals and populations quite different from their day-to-day exposure at TRAQ, San Diego and even the United States as a whole.

For profit.  Freemium, subscription based.

Customer value:  Non-invasive, rapid, cost-effective, on-demand testing of fitness, health & wellness.  As the tests are portable, they can be performed anywhere, in a private manner.  If the tests are indicative of any underlying health conditions, the results can be shared instantly with advisors or healthcare professionals, resulting in earlier detection in more rapid action than with existing means.

Delivery:  On the fitness side, TRAQ delivers value through online sales and support.  Customers gain rapid insight into their fitness state in real-time.  On the health & wellness side, direct (B2C) sales are certainly possible, but more broad value can be obtained working at the forefront of current healthcare referral pathways (B2B), such as private/public insurers, regional healthcare providers, charitable organizations, NGOs and telehealth providers.  Patients derive value in earlier, less invasive, more convenient testing.  Healthcare insurers and service providers gain value through reduced system cost via early detection, more accurate compliance measurements, and simpler screening mechanisms with less need for medical professional testing oversight. Further, non-profits benefit from impact metrics, such as test panels conducted and “earlier than average detection” scores.

Profit:  The company intends to profit via:

• Sale of handheld POCT devices;
• Sales/subscriptions for regular tests;
• Possible ad sales for actionable insight products or monthly fees for premium (no ad) version;
• Referrals to advisors, coach, healthcare professionals;
• Telehealth service delivery add-on.

Freemium, subscriptions, possible ad revenue, bid system for advisors and coaches, telehealth subscription.

• The handheld POCT device is expected to retail at ~$200 USD (GM=50%). 
• The subscription-based single-use cartridges will retail between $2.50 - $15 (GM = 26 – 65%). 
• With a freemium model, users may see test-based advertisements for approved actionable insights at the “Free” level.  At the “Premium” level (<$5/month), users would be ad-free.
• The “Premium” level may also allow for access to “preferred” coaches and advisors.  These coaches and advisors may bid for higher visibility, much like search engines bidding system for key search words, with winners showing up higher in search result listings.
• Telehealth providers may also be billed a monthly subscription for co-branding the TRAQ device.

It is intended for data to always be private for individuals; however, TRAQ envisions the future use of test results in three ways:

• Users keep data private;
• Users can choose to share tests result(s) more broadly for discounts on future products or subscriptions;
• Aggregated, anonymized data can be used to track more general health trends, impact analysis, epidemic/pandemic tracking, and finally, for researchers involved in meta-health data analysis and care coverage.

Lastly, the model will allow for upcycling/recycling, whereby used cartridges are recycled.  Users can get discounts on future services/tests by sending back used cartridges.  Financial analysis shows that this is not only beneficial ecologically, but also financially (approximately 5% less in the bill of materials).

Original funding for the development of the core technology (USAF, NIH), over nearly 10 years, was roughly $32M prior to incorporation.

Post incorporation, $4.0M funding received from venture capital, equity crowdfunding.  Current funding round underway ($6.5M).

Revenue sources to date:

• Services - Clinical trial sponsorship
• Products - Pre-sales to US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC)