The Wild Ride of Digital Health

Alright, folks, buckle up because today we're diving into a part of the healthcare universe that most people (except some very dedicated tech nerds) have never thought about: Digital Health Strategy and Durable Medical Equipment (DME). And yeah, I know, you might be thinking, "DME? What, like wheelchairs and oxygen tanks?" Yes—but also no. It's wheelchairs plus tech buzzwords, like integration, interoperability, and platforms. It's like taking your grandpa's oxygen tank and hooking it up to a blockchain (okay, maybe not quite that, but you get the idea).

So, let’s take a look at how Samsung Electronics America is navigating this messy, promising jungle, with the help of some digital pioneers: Apria and Tomorrow Health. Get ready for an adventure that involves choosing between a huge traditional player (Apria) and a slick, tech-savvy newcomer (Tomorrow).

A Digital Health Dream (Or Nightmare?)

Imagine you’re Samsung, and you're in charge of the Digital Health Strategy in America. You’re looking at all these Durable Medical Equipment suppliers like Apria, Tomorrow Health, Verse, and Parachute—all hoping to be the one to streamline patient care at home. Samsung has a plan: they want DME suppliers who can do more than just sell equipment—they need them to integrate tech, be cost-efficient, and improve healthcare outcomes.

Why? Because in this world, it’s all about ROI, interoperability, and cutting re-admissions. Samsung doesn’t just want a chair; they want a chair that talks to a data platform that a doctor sees at 4 AM because the patient's heart rate spiked.

Apria vs. Tomorrow Health – A Tale of Two Models

Meet Apria. Apria is your granddad's favorite: reliable, traditional, and has a catalog as thick as a dictionary. You name it, Apria’s got it. Their SKUs are everywhere, and they know how to get a deal done—often cheaper, too. But they’re old-school. They’ve been around forever, and it shows in their systems. Their tech? It’s a bit like watching someone try to use Google Maps in 2008—you’ll get there eventually, but it won’t be pretty.

Now let’s introduce Tomorrow Health. They’re the new kid on the block. Imagine if Tesla made a DME supplier—all sleek interfaces, algorithms predicting what patients need, and automation for days. They call it "smart prescribing" because why not put "smart" in front of everything? Their tech is new, shiny, and makes Apria look like it's still figuring out how to sync a fax machine. But there’s a catch: this fancy stuff costs more, especially up front. The interface is great, but is it worth the long-term price?

Integration and Interoperability – Or How Many Engineers Does It Take to Plug in a Wheelchair?

A huge part of the decision for Samsung was figuring out how smoothly these companies could integrate with the existing healthcare systems. Apria had the advantage of scale and supplier relationships, which meant if a hospital system was using Epic (a massive electronic medical records system), Apria could just plug into that relatively easily—think USB into your laptop.

Tomorrow, on the other hand, was like an HDMI cable with 15 adaptors—they needed some custom work to integrate with the big systems. They were great for the future but a headache right now. Plus, Samsung had built a proprietary platform that they weren't about to abandon, so whoever they partnered with needed to fit with that. Tomorrow promised all the bells and whistles but required an 8-week integration—with a potential extra 6-week "discovery" phase to see if their platform could actually connect to Samsung's.

Chapter 4: ROI – Because Saving Money is Sexy

At the end of the day, Samsung wanted results. They asked the simple question: Who’s going to save us more money? Tomorrow Health promised a 20% reduction in re-admission volumes thanks to their smart tech and predictive algorithms. Their platform tracked everything, from a catheter to a patient’s oxygen intake, and sent those metrics to the cloud where doctors could make informed decisions.

Apria, on the other hand, had their competitive pricing on bulk purchases and established supplier relationships. If cost savings are what you're after, Apria's numbers didn’t lie: they had better supplier pricing, and they didn’t need fancy tech to get it done. It was straightforward—good pricing and dependable relationships, a bit like that uncle who always knows a guy for everything.

But here's the kicker: Tomorrow Health's fancy re-admission savings worked best for long-term care patients. If Samsung was only going to be working with patients for 6-12 months, the upfront cost of Tomorrow’s platform made it a hard sell. The ROI story was different based on how long you were planning to stick around.

Pricing Models – Like an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, But With More Fine Print

Apria was pretty straightforward: there were no big implementation fees, and the costs per transaction were stable. The value here was predictability. Tomorrow Health? Not so much. Their pricing was flexible, which, depending on who you asked, was either amazing or infuriating. They had monthly SaaS-like fees for their marketplace participation, value-based care contracts for payers, and good old-fashioned transaction fees for individual integrations.

The implementation? Oh, that could run into the low five-figures just to start—and potentially a six-figure bill if Samsung’s platform turned out to be hard to integrate. Plus, each individual transaction had a fee, so if you had a big family with a lot of medical needs, the costs would add up over time. It was a classic tech startup move: the user experience was great, but it came at a cost, and it was more of a "you’ll see how much it costs once you’re in too deep" scenario.

The Final Verdict – Picking a Partner

In the end, Samsung had to decide between the futuristic appeal of Tomorrow Health and the reliable, cost-effective approach of Apria. Tomorrow offered a shiny, tech-forward solution with great long-term ROI if Samsung was willing to invest heavily upfront. Apria was dependable, offered lower costs, and made sense for shorter-term patient engagements. It was like choosing between a Tesla and a dependable old Toyota—one might be the future, but the other will get you there today without any surprises.

Samsung decided that both had their strengths: for scalable, longer-term patients where ROI was measurable over years, Tomorrow's smart platform made a lot of sense. But for the here-and-now cost efficiency, where margin was tight and patient stays were shorter, Apria's approach felt like the right move.

Conclusion: The Digital Health Maze

This journey into digital health has shown us that picking a partner is all about context: Are you in for the long game, or do you need quick savings now? Samsung's decision between Apria and Tomorrow Health isn’t just about technology or pricing—it’s about vision. It’s about where healthcare is headed and what kind of journey you want to take to get there.

And remember: whether it’s a smart oxygen tank that pings your doctor or a plain-old bedpan, everything in digital health is part of a complicated, interconnected web of relationships, tech standards, and—ultimately—people who just want to get better at home.

Got any questions? Want me to dive deeper into any part of this? Or maybe a whole other topic with more infographics? Let me know!