Why FDA Approval Isn’t Enough: Navigating Market Access | Lori Siegel

Commercialization doesn’t have to be a solo sport. Schedule a call with Bill Schick to pressure-test your launch plan before surprises show up downstream. https://www.linkedin.com/in/founderandcdo/

In this episode, I sit down with Lori Siegel to talk about what really happens after FDA approval. Lori shares lessons from working on pre-launch commercialization in biotech, including why approval doesn’t automatically lead to adoption. We also dig into how journey mapping and Jobs to Be Done thinking can reveal the real customer, and why reimbursement and hospital budget realities can derail even the strongest clinical story.

- Contact Lori Siegel: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lori-siegel-mph-40453315/

00:00 Introduction to medical product adoption challenges
01:29 From clinical trials to commercialization strategy
04:06 Identifying the real customer in healthcare markets
08:03 Why doctors are not the only decision makers
11:17 Messaging that works for hospitals and payers
17:35 The hospital budget reality most founders miss
24:54 NTAP reimbursement and funding new medical technologies
29:50 Why expert partners and industry networks matter

Three Pro Tips

1. Treat Commercialization as a Parallel Workstream, Not a Phase
Too many teams mentally sequence commercialization after clinical success, even when they intellectually know better. What Lori’s story reinforces is that commercialization decisions are not downstream tasks. They are design constraints. Budget impact, reimbursement mechanics, and operational feasibility quietly shape whether a product can exist in the real world at all. If these constraints are discovered late, teams are forced into reactive repositioning rather than intentional strategy.

A practical way to act on this is to run commercialization planning in parallel with pivotal trial execution. That does not mean building final messaging prematurely. It means stress testing assumptions early. Who pays first? Where does the budget actually sit? What decisions are irreversible if we wait? Treating commercialization as a living system rather than a milestone dramatically reduces late stage surprise. Early commercial readiness assessments and go-to-market risk audits are just two of the ways you can accomplish this.

2. Separate Clinical Value from Operational Permission
A subtle but critical insight from Lori’s story is that agreement does not equal permission. Clinicians may believe in the therapy. Payers may acknowledge long-term value. Yet operational permission, the ability to actually deploy the product, can still be missing. That permission often lives with pharmacy leadership, pharmacy and therapeutics committees, and operational workflows that rarely appear in early go-to-market plans.

Teams should explicitly ask: Who grants operational permission, and what do they require to say yes? This shifts strategy from persuasion to enablement. Evidence packages, packaging decisions, and deployment models should be built around removing friction for these gatekeepers, not just convincing end users.

3. Build Your Expert Bench Before You Think You Need It
One of the quiet throughlines of this episode is how often progress came from who Lori’s team spoke with, not just what they analyzed internally. Hospital leaders, reimbursement experts, and experienced operators surfaced constraints no spreadsheet could reveal. The mistake many teams make is not ignorance. It is waiting too long to ask.

A practical rule of thumb: if a decision could materially delay launch, you should already know someone who has navigated it before. 

Enjoyed this episode? Subscribe to LifeSci Continuum for real-world insights on biotech, medtech, and pharma commercialization, from people who’ve lived it.

#LifeSciContinuum #BiotechCommercialization

Transcript

0:00

How do we get a hospital to increase their budget to include your technology? Just because a drug is successful in a clinical trial and the regulators might approve it, that doesn't mean that doctors are gonna prescribe it and payers are gonna pay for it and that's the whole market access piece that I didn't fully appreciate until I started with this role. Welcome to LifeSci Continuum. My guest today is Lori Siegel, Senior Manager of New Product Development for Biotech and Pharma. She has deep expertise across corporate strategy, product development, and clinical and regulatory science. So even if you're on the ball with your NTAP assessment and approval process, there's still a lag. So you're still looking at maybe adding another six months to a year. Lori and I talk about the surprises that come up during the development of your Pharma go-to-market plan, why approval doesn't guarantee that doctors will use your drug, and how journey mapping and jobs to be done help uncover the right messages, users, and your real influencers. until your results are known, until your approval with the agency is known to start this process, you're behind. We also dig into reimbursement, budget, and market access challenges with a real example of how she broke through and why you need a bench of experts on speed dial early instead of assuming "we'll deal with it later" is a strategy. Maybe that's the other piece of advice. Knowing what you don't know and reaching out to the people who know it. All right, let's go. Thank you for hopping on today. Why don't you tell us a little bit about you, you know your background and your journey till now. uh my name is Lori Siegel and my most recent job within the pharmaceutical biotech industry was a senior manager of new product development at what could be described as a small biotech startup. That was not always my career focus. um Out of college, out of undergrad, I really wanted to be a veterinarian and that kind of didn't pan out. I stumbled into the biotech pharma industry by working in a vivarium and I think when you kind of think of how a drug progresses along the development phases, it starts in pre-clinical testing and then moves into clinical, regulatory, and then commercial. That's kind of how my career has progressed as well. So I followed along that same trajectory. And here I am talking about my most recent role, which was pre-launch commercialization of a product. So tell me a little bit about your last position, the work you've done and the success as you've seen there. At Faraday Pharmaceuticals, I started out really managing some of our clinical trial programs, our early stage clinical trial programs, which showed some promising signals. But as we moved to the pivotal study, we hired on a team of people who had lots of experience managing a pivotal phase three study for approval. At that point, I shifted into pre-launch corporate development or commercialization. It was a wake-up call for me because I didn't really realize that a lot of that work had to be done at risk. So without knowing the results of this phase three clinical trial, we had to start planning to market this drug. uh We had to start thinking about things like market access, reimbursement, payment structure. And that's pretty difficult to do when we don't even know if we have a product to work with. But if you wait until approval, uh a successful trial or regulatory approval occurs to start those types of... endeavors, you're way behind the eight ball. So we hired someone who I reported to, who was my boss, who had tons of experience in commercial launch, because a lot of people at Faraday, including myself, had no experience with that. And so we would have been lost without him. And he really helped develop my career and my understanding of what it takes to commercialize a drug. Which is, we talked about this a little bit before where You know, just because a drug is successful in a clinical trial and just because the regulators might approve it, that doesn't mean that doctors are going to prescribe it and payers are going to pay for it. And that's the whole market access piece that I didn't fully appreciate until I started with this role. Let's dig into that a bit. You were at a point where you were preparing to market the product and you started hitting, I think, some friction and customer identification. was some realignment needed there between where you started and then where you landed. Yeah, we did. then, I think if it's okay, in order to understand the confusion about who our audience was, our market audience was, it might be worth briefly summarizing the patient journey and the product that we were trying to develop. What we were trying to develop was a product to mitigate some of the downstream damage that occurs as a result of a STEMI heart attack. So what a STEMI heart attack is, is it's generally in a complete occlusion of the coronary artery. And this occluded artery results in lack of blood flow, obviously, to the heart. And if it's not rapidly unblocked or reperfused, it can lead to, among other things, permanently infarcted or damaged heart tissue and the development of heart failure. Paradoxically, though, additional damage can occur to the heart tissue as a result of the reperfusion and... The treatment for heart attack itself can actually cause a certain degree of additional damage and that's mediated by oxidative stress and that's called reperfusion injury. So while unblocking the artery in the short term is necessary to save the life of the patient, there's this degree of damage that can sometimes occur from the procedure itself. So our drug product was designed to be given as a single IV injection at the time of this reperfusion. and to hopefully mitigate some of this downstream damage. Unlike other forms of heart attack, the symptoms of a STEMI are not subtle and they're hard to ignore. Nearly all STEMI cases receive urgent revascularization or reperfusion, and ideally within 90 minutes of hospital arrival. The procedure typically includes a hospital stay of two days, and after that initial treatment, of what we'll call the index event for the purpose of this conversation, the patients discharged and referred to cardiac rehab and follow-up care with a non-invasive cardiologist. So in the ideal scenario, I will say that this product did not meet its primary endpoints during our pivotal study. But had it done so, in that ideal scenario, where our product succeeded in reducing the incidence of death and heart failure development, in the years following this index event, the question became, who did we need to convince to adopt its use? Who would we market the drug to? So who was our customer? There are lots of stakeholders, obviously. There's the patient who benefits the most from this type of product. There's also the interventional cardiologist. And we initially believed that because the drug was given in the hospital at the time of reperfusion, that our customer was the hospital and the interventional cardiologists themselves, because that's where the products implemented. And as such, they would bear the initial cost burden of this treatment before seeking reimbursement. But while this interventional cardiologist in a human sense cares, I would imagine, cares very much about improving the downstream health of their patients, it's not really their responsibility. uh Their main responsibility is to rescue or stabilize the patient in the short term during the index event. And they're pretty uninvolved in the management of the downstream sequelae that occur. And that's really the job of this non-invasive cardiologist. So were they the customer? uh And the question of that, or the answer to that question really matters because it shapes our approach and our messages in successfully integrating our product into the care of STEMI patients. I think that's really pointed. We actually see that a lot in that initial thoughts on when we're going to market, who we're tailoring messaging to. Often the primary user, the person who's at point of care is seen as the and often only customer for marketing. And that's simply not the case. There's a dynamic ecosystem of, you know, downstream caregivers. There's the hospital system. There are just things within that entire uh universe of care that come to bear when adopting, bringing in a new product. payers are part of that as well. They need to be convinced as well that this is something that's worthwhile to pay for. So if I understand correctly what you're saying is initially in the outset of developing the strategy um while you were, um I think you said in review, you're starting to build the strategy and your initial thought was at point of care that was what you're messaging for. However, how did you find out or how did you get down the path of realizing there were other audiences for your messaging? What happened was it was actually the opposite. We weren't sure. We were confused. We didn't have clarity on which of these stakeholders would be the primary audience and who we needed to direct our messaging towards. And so what we did was we enlisted the help of this group of interventional cardiologists. They were our cardiovascular advisory board, which most companies have. And it was through them that we began to understand that this was more complex. And the messages would have to be varied in order to appeal to different stakeholders. But to get to the core of that, this cardiovascular advisory board helped us do jobs to be done analysis. Although no one used those words, but that's basically what it was. And what that type of analysis does is it drills down into the very basic question, which is what job is this product being hired to do? And in the big picture, This product was being hired to reduce development of new onset heart failure and death following the STEMI. But when you drill down though, it was being hired to enable patients to live happier, more active lives. It was being hired to rescue patients from the lifetime burden of managing chronic disease with doctors visits, hospitalizations, loss of wages even, uh compounding health deterioration. So one condition like heart failure begets other health issues. It was being hired to reduce global and institutional health care costs absorbed by hospitals and payers. So then we asked ourselves, in addition to the patient, what messages, know, who benefits from this product doing its job well and how? And that's when we realized that it's both the hospital intervention slash interventional cardiologists and the non-invasive cardiologist, as well as the patient. and each of these all require different messages. So it was through this cardiovascular advisory board that we began to really understand this. So now you have multiple audiences and you need to figure out what to say to them, what to communicate and how for each of those audiences because there may be some overlap but often the messages, the priority message, the key thing that that person needs to hear is probably really different from what the other audiences need to hear. How did that go for you and how did you get there? Once we nailed down that both the hospital and interventional cardiologists handling the immediate emergency and then the managing non-invasive cardiologists overseeing the long-term care were the key customers, if you will, or audience members, and that they benefited differently, we tailored these messages to speak their individual language. And we enlisted the help of some experts who conduct health economics outcomes research studies to help us with that. to help us really drill down on the specific messages for each, because the message was never one size fits all. So for the managing cardiologists, the ones dealing with the post STEMI follow-up, we focused on long-term cost effectiveness. Basically, we'd say something to the effect of this drug costs X amount upfront, but it's going to cut the odds of new heart failure by Y percent, which saves big on ongoing care, like doctor's visits, meds. hospitalizations, and loss of productivity over the years. So those are the things that the managing cardiologist cares about. And we would back that with these cost-effectiveness studies with the help of these experts showing a net savings for payers and patient's quality of life, things like that. A great real-world example of that is Zoll. The company Zoll has a product called Super Saturated Oxygen Therapy. em And it's a device, so it was approved. for this similar indication. And they did a really great job of showing the benefit of their technology for managing cardiologists by using this key evidence measure of this, the ICER, which is basically this extra cost per quality of life you're gained for the patient. So it's how much bang for the buck. In other words, it's, this is how much it costs per year to improve a patient's quality of life by this much. So that, convinces managing cardiologists to implement this technology because you can see that while there are some upfront costs overall, the cost savings and the quality of life of the patient improves. So we really wanted to model our strategy in targeting managing cardiologists in the same way that they did. For the hospital and the interventional cardiologists who actually bear the cost upfront initially of implementing our technology. We would use something a little bit different. We'd use budget impact models and these show how this drug or this technology would tighten episode economics. avoiding cost overruns in outpatient or inpatient scenarios. these are things like reduced length of stay in the hospital for the index event. Things like reduced complications from STEMI, such as cardiogenic shock. uh reduced number of 24 hour readmissions, things like that. And those are, those are things that the hospital itself and the interventional cardiologists focus on and that they care about. So that message there basically is the drug costs X amount, but it reduces length of stay readmissions and complications from the STEMI itself, from the index event. What I see initially when I work with a lot of clients is that a lot of their messaging and positioning, if they have it in place, is really focused on the features of a device or a treatment or a therapy versus what the audience, what they really care about and what matters to them. So it's more, are the features of my product, well, of course you should buy it versus the specific outcomes that that audience is influenced by and looking for. Absolutely, they have to be inspired. They have to be given a solid rationale for adopting this technology. Reimbursement and budget constraints drive everything, drive the decisions. And so if they can be convinced, it should go without saying that everyone cares about improving patients' lives. But that doesn't... move the needle in a lot of ways. They have to have a practical rationale for adopting this technology. so those messages really have to be incorporated into the strategy. Was there anything else that you wanted to sort of bring home the point on there? Yeah, I think this realization that budgets are fixed within the hospital. So that was something that I didn't realize right away was that just because we could convince someone that our technology was worthwhile uh and cost effective in their respective setting doesn't mean that there was actually room in their budget to pay for it, even if they wanted to. So that was something that, uh until I moved into this pre-commercial activity that I didn't understand. what I'm hearing for, and this is actually a common case, where the upfront cash outlay is actually fairly substantial. uh And there's an impact there, but over the lifetime of the patient or a product, there's a substantial cost savings. And that long-term view, I think, is really important. And we do see a lot of companies hinge their success on exactly that point. Up front, it's significantly more expensive, you know, but long term, there's a huge cost savings. So it's figuring out how to manage that and communicate that. However, ah what is, you know, in your experience, what's the reality of that? The reality, I think, is even if you can convince them of that, they may not have the money to pay for it. So that's a reality. What I didn't understand at all was that we could build the greatest budget impact models, the greatest cost effectiveness studies, and everyone would be on board. But when it came time for someone to open the wallet, the money just wasn't there. And what I mean by that is that um the cost born initially for this technology, as I mentioned, ah It's born by the hospital and the interventional cardiologist, the ones administering the drug. em And that happens in an emergency cath lab setting. Hospitals, they have something called a DRG, which is basically a fixed lump sum per episode. The easiest way to describe this is people who experience a STEMI. The hospital working with the payers will agree that there's a certain amount of money allotted for each STEMI patient. think it's in the United States, it's estimated right now roughly to be around$20-30,000 per STEMI episode. And there's basically no room for incremental costs unless you can prove this net savings uh beyond argument. And I didn't appreciate that, that just because the science is compelling, The clinical benefit is there. Everyone's on board. Everyone understands how this technology can improve costs in the long run, even though it initially has upfront costs. They still might not be able to implement it because of fixed budget constraints. And that realization came to us when we visited Mass General in Boston. My boss had an associate there who was so gracious to walk us through how a drug is implemented. in emergency care, in urgent care, and some of the complexities involved in that occurring. And that was when the light bulb came on for us that, well, there's a fixed constraint here that we didn't appreciate. And so how do you work around that? How do you get a hospital to increase their budget to include your technology? It has to be very compelling, and it requires a lot of messaging to what's called the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee at that hospital. It involves working with Medicare, CMS, other payers, just to get the wallets to open, basically to help pay for this. um And that is, there are some real constraints there that are challenging. You know, again, I think that as we're developing products and therapies solutions, we're really focused like a laser on our outcome and how impactful that will be. While there's an entire system that is, it's not built to keep us out necessarily. It might be the wrong way to think about it, but there are a lot of gates to get through that I think get minimized as we're, as we're thinking about the solution and getting it out to market. And they just pop up and they're very surprising and they're often not in our favor. Do you think you have um a few recommendations on, you know, if you were to start this over knowing what you know, are there a couple of ideas that you have a recommendations for better managing that or getting through that hurdle? Yeah. I think the first thing that we should have maybe done is talk with a hospital first and foremost. That trip that we took out to Boston to Mass General was so eye-opening. We talked with the clinical pharmacy manager, the pharmacoeconomics group, the head of their pharmacy and therapeutics committee. We started out the conversation talking about how is our, how would our drug be implemented in the cath lab flow? That was the purpose of the talk. Do we have the right vial size? Is it going to fit in your storage? How does it get, who draws it up? Does it reside in the pharmacy or in the cath lab itself? Just the practicalities. And that conversation led into these payer and reimbursement surprises. that popped up. that, that information came to us accidentally through a different conversation. And it came halfway through our efforts, our pre-commercial efforts. That trip and that conversation should have occurred at the very beginning. Let's talk to the people who are administering our drug and find out on the ground how that actually works or if it can actually work. And from there, we can build, begin to build strategies. So we began to build strategy in absence of that conversation. And then when it came along, we sort of had to recalibrate. So, you you don't know what you don't know, but lessons learned. And I think moving forward, if I had to do it again, that conversation would have come first. You know, and I think that's a really good point and and this is something that you know We have conversations about all the time and that it's one hurdle to get a founder Who's got just really big eyes for this new innovation that they're bringing to market. They're really excited They have a lot of energy It's one hurdle for us to get them to understand that we should talk to the customer we should talk to the user and see what their feedback is on you know, what it is you're developing. But I think it's another hurdle entirely to go to the extended users, the extended customers, um, the extended committees that are all involved in this and any of them, uh, could torpedo it and, know, put up a, put up a wall that stops us in our tracks. And so I think, you know, for, for founders and product leaders, it's really important to identify your, you know, your primary user. and definitely get voice of the customer and an understanding to that, but really dig into those next levels and that whole ecosystem that supports or works around or approves the processes because you're not just selling a solution. You're looking to a large complex organization to change how they do business. And they have a lot of protections and processes in place to avoid, you know, negative outcomes for patients. and to keep that business going. it's a lot to think about um early on in the process. Yeah. And that ecosystem involves, you know, as you said, the main user, it involves the payers. It involves CMS. It involves everyone who is going to be impacted by the implementation of this new technology and how some of their systems can help or hinder that, the uptake. I think that conversation at Mass General was pivotal for us in terms of the understanding of just exactly what we were up against. And I think that the budget constraints within the hospital were the biggest surprise and the biggest challenge. So you're faced with that gate, that barrier, if you will. I mean, you don't just give up. You try to figure out the solutions to each of those things, how to get through that gate to the next. What were some of the things that you worked on? When we found that we were against this fixed budget constraint within the hospitals, the DRG payment, we began to explore ideas for overcoming that challenge. And one option for us was to apply for NTAP approval. And NTAP stands for New Technology Add-on Payment for people who don't know. And it's a special Medicare program that's run by CMS that helps hospitals get extra money. when they use certain new innovative medical products or treatments for patients during their hospital stay, their care. So as mentioned, the hospitals usually are working with a fixed bundled amount for patients for their entire hospital stay based on their main diagnosis. that fixed amount covers everything. But the NTAP payment could potentially fix this or work around this by providing additional payment on top of the regular DRG amount. And the goal of it is to encourage hospitals to adopt promising new treatments quickly because these budget constraints should not dictate patient care. And hospitals, you know, and payers want to encourage the adoption of new treatments that can improve health outcomes, although it's a struggle at times financially. And it's also to support manufacturers and innovators by making it financially easier for hospitals to use the product in the first few years after it's approved. But what that meant for us was that now we have a new stakeholder. We have a new process we have to understand, which is how do you get NTAP approval? What are the requirements? And basically, the product qualifies for NTAP reimbursement if it's new, which ours was. NTAP reimbursement typically lasts two to three years following FDA approval. It has to be proven that this offers a substantial clinical improvement using real evidence from clinical trials than to improve care over the existing treatments. So it has to be novel and it has to offer substantial improvement. so the application process itself was another challenge that we had to understand. So we began engaging with Trinity and Manette who really are experts in this. And they helped us understand the NTAP approval process and helped us assess our technology to determine if it would even qualify for NTAP reimbursement. And they felt that it might. We had some, there was some potential there for this product to qualify. But that meant working with these stakeholders early. So that was a new layer that we didn't know about when we started this process. So it sounds like the NTAP might be a great avenue for some companies who are falling into that fixed budget constraint where um the influencers and the users and basically the whole community is kind of spread out and the outcome might be further down. Do have any recommendations for anybody who is just sitting down maybe for the first time in how to successfully navigate that NTAP process? My advice is to engage with a vendor or a subject matter expert early because the NTAP process, like everything, is complex and it follows a certain timeline. So, NTAP review can't even really occur until not just successful clinical trial data. Following that, NTAP review and approval can occur until regulatory approval, basically, regulatory filing and approval. So there's this long complex timeline and series of events that have to occur in sequence woven through the clinical testing and approval process. And I won't go step by step to describe this process. I don't know if I could, em even if I tried. There was probably a time when I knew it, but I don't now. basically, again, if you wait until, until your, your results are known until your approval with the agency is known to start this process, then you're behind. So even if you're on the ball with your NTAP assessment and approval process, there's still a lag. So you're still looking at maybe adding another six months to a year following FDA approval before NTAP application, NTAP reimbursement implementation occurs. So in order to avoid even more delays in the reimbursement process and market uptake of your drug, this is something that has to happen pre-launch, pre-approval even. Right. And I think that's one of the key takeaways here, which is you really have to have a good sense of the end of the process right before launch instead of waiting until the very end. Not that you waited, but this was a new process for you. And for a lot of founders and a lot of product leaders, this is their first time going through a lot of these things. um So it is important to rely on partners, vendors. consultants that really have been through these things before. you know, one, that you're going through the right steps, but also you're starting early enough to have, I think, the outcome that you want. When I say a lot of these things are a surprise to us, what I mean is they were a surprise to me. You know, I mentioned that we hired a very experienced product marketing person who I reported to and these things were probably not a total surprise to him. Although each product is unique. with unique challenges. uh But had he not had his contacts within the industry, and had we not talked to the right people, such as the pharmacy and therapeutics lead at Mass General, these surprises would have smacked us in the face at the worst possible time. So it is because of his experience and his contacts that we were able to learn about these things and help mitigate the process. So I guess maybe that's the other piece of advice is utilizing knowing what you don't know and reaching out to the people who know it for health. And that is a consistent message that I hear in almost every one of these interviews. You know, I think a lot of founders have a sense of being able to go it alone for a lot of the process. And that I think it's different in this case, but a lot of the parts of the process of bringing something to market, they're doable. I would say 80 to 90 % are, you know, things that somebody who is an engineer or clinician can manage. And it's not about not knowing or not understanding, it's just being able to do it. But when you choose to go it alone, um when some very specific things show up, where you really rely on a lived, worked experience um in getting through, like the timing of something. If you were to be working linearly, there's a sense of, I'll tackle it when I get to it. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Well, a lot of these things, like you said, have to happen in parallel streams or in tandem so that you hit the timing that you need given the constraints that you have nothing to do with. So I do hear that a lot. So relying on, you know, consultants or experts in the space who've done it before, who know when and how and where, um I think is really, really important. So it's glad it's really great to hear that. that you were able to tap into that. I actually was a little surprised how willing people were to help educate us. uh We worked with agencies, of course, who we had a contract with, and we paid them to help us. But then there were also just lots of people who wanted to offer their insight, who were willing to offer that insight. uh And I think that's amazing about our community too, is that people will do that. And so I can't underestimate the value of maintaining contacts and just... knowing who to turn to when you need some advice. aren't already plugged in. I think it's surprising for some people to learn how giving people are of their time or their experience uh and insight. Just pick up the phone, send an email, and people are very, happy. think for some people, they want to keep it hush-hush and a secret because if I talk to people about it, they'll steal my idea. ah I've heard that a lot. And it's really not the case. People want to help you succeed um because they want to help, you know, they want to help build the market. They want to help patients. It's flattering too when someone views you as the subject matter expert and they are seeking your advice. Of course you're going to help. That's pretty high compliment. You can pay someone. Yeah, I think it's really rare for somebody to turn down and ask like that. So I think that's an interesting takeaway too, is to really, if you have the network, tap into it. And if you don't have the network, you should look at the people that you're bringing in and what their network is, what do they have access to. It's like looking at investors. You don't go to investors only for the money. You look at what their domain expertise is, other companies they've helped, but also what their network is. Who can they bring in to help make this a success and get me to market as quickly as possible? Laurie, thank you so much. It was great having you on today. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you and your audience today. The best way to get in contact is at this point through LinkedIn. I'm open to any kind of conversations. Okay, and we'll make sure that we put the link to your LinkedIn in the description below. If you made it here, thank you. If you haven't already, like, share, and subscribe to the channel. If you want to learn more about this topic, I expand on it below, as well as in my LinkedIn newsletter. That's all for now. More soon.