Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DOCTOR KLOVER 🍀's avatar

This framing is so clarifying. As a physician-scientist, the “missing middle” you’re describing reads less like a marketing category and more like an honest systems diagnosis: we keep saying “prevention”, but we’ve tried to deliver it through 10–15 minute primary-care geometry and acute-care reimbursement, and then act surprised when motivated people end up in Tier-0 noise (apps + anxiety) or Tier-1 “theatre”.

I also appreciate how explicitly you define Tier-2 as a repeatable operating system (pre-work → designed diagnostics → defined protocol → months of follow-through + escalation pathways). That’s exactly what’s missing in most “executive” or concierge models where access/time is the product and prevention is opportunistic and where the risk of overdiagnosis and incidentalomas quietly creeps in via unstructured test menus. 

If Tier-2 is going to become infrastructure (not just another premium layer), the credibility hinge for me is outcomes and guardrails:

1. clear “why this test” logic (evidence tiering, pre-test probability, avoid low-value screening)

2. standardized handoffs for abnormal findings (who owns it, time-to-action, and what escalation looks like)

3. and measurable endpoints beyond satisfaction: cardiometabolic risk trajectories, functional capacity, sleep metrics, stage-shift for selected cancers where appropriate, utilization patterns, and iatrogenesis rates. 

Your point that “frontier tools” often don’t have the spine to defend in front of tough clinicians/investors is spot on; diagnostics + disciplined follow-through will beat novelty almost every time. I’m genuinely interested to see how Lisa Wuerden operationalizes this in Portugal as a testbed (especially the program design and safety rails).

No posts

Ready for more?