INSTRUCTIONS
I want you to refute and challenge the assumption laid out in apps/qms/docs/pricing/initial-analysis/output.mdx.
Write the content of the objections into the file apps/qms/docs/pricing/objections/objections.mdx.
Some examples of objections could be:
- In the per capita model, the average of 7.5 reports per patient is too high. People don't have so many dermatological issues per year. Quote some statistics about average number of dermatological consultations per year to back up this claim.
- The reduction in costs may have be calculated considering that it will apply to all patients. But for instance, a reduction in costs from melanoma stage progression prevention will only apply to a very small subset of patients who would have developed melanoma. Incidence rates should be taken into account. Despite the high public profile of malignant skin diseases due to their severity, these conditions constitute a smaller fraction of dermatological diseases (about 5%). Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) make up the majority of skin cancers, while melanoma, though aggressive, remains relatively less common.
- Providing a maximum justifiably price is not a good strategy. The market may not bear that price, and it may be better to price lower to gain market share. The price justification should explain the upper limit of the price, but the actual price should be lowered to gain market share.
- Comparing a diagnostic report to a lab test seems unreasonable. In Valencia, "Analítica básica" has a price of €15. Legit.Health's price should be much lower since it requires less logistics, and has less costs overall.
- This objection can be also refuted by arguing that the value provided is equivalent, if not higher than a lab test, so the comparison is valid: the lab test does not provide a diagnosis, only data for a diagnosis, whereas Legit.Health provides a full diagnostic report that includes the most likely conditions.
- The price should consider that the Legit.Health has an accuracy of around 90%. Therefore, in 10% of cases, the diagnosis will be wrong. It seems unreasonable to charge the full price when there is a 10% chance that the diagnosis is incorrect. A discount should be applied to account for this uncertainty.
- Keep in mind that the Legit.Health device never replaces the consultation. In a percentage of cases, the patient will be referred to a specialist anyway. Therefore, the cost savings will not be as high as calculated. So, the best case scenario is that the primary care physician sees the patient using Legit.Health, and then does not refer them to the dermatologist. In this case, the cost saving is only the difference between the primary care consultation (€56.95) plus the Legit.Health price (25€), versus the cost for the dermatologist consultation (€74). In this scenario, the cost saving is only €2.95, which is not so enticing. And in all other cases, there is no cost saving at all, only an increase in cost, because the patient is referred to the dermatologist anyway, so one would have to pay both the Legit.Health price, plus the general practitioner, plus the dermatologist consultation (). For that reason, the price should be much lower to account for this reality.
- This objection may not be easily refuted, but it serves as a strong argument that organisations should use Legit.Health in a way that it indeed replaces specialist consultations in as many situations as possible, otherwise the cost savings are minimal or negative.
Ellaborate and clarify these objections in apps/qms/docs/pricing/objections/objections.mdx, and include objections of your own. You should not limit yourself to these examples. Use your judgment to come up with relevant objections based on the content of apps/qms/docs/pricing/initial-analysis/output.mdx.
ultrathink