To: StockDung who wrote (2281 ) 6/20/2000 12:52:00 AM From: sommovigo Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3392
Floyd, I don't think that the press release is confusing at all. The EHC 400 system is described by the company as follows:The EHC 400 Desktop Patient Station is a cart or a desktop-based system designed for individual patient homes , and for multi-user applications such as medical clinics or employee health centers, and group living environments such as assisted living centers and skilled nursing homes. The EHC 600 system is for the healthcare provider and is described by the company as follows:The EHC 600 is the control station that interconnects all of the patient care devices within a provider network, allowing provider access to all patients within the network. The station enables all forms of communication including scheduling and medical histories, and multiple provider stations can be connected to the network for simultaneous video-audio/data access to patients, medical records and other providers. At least one provider station must be installed to establish a network. The EHC600 accommodates all Internet connectivity methods including standard telephone lines, Cable TV, ISDN, DSL, etc. The FDA approved these two products for marketing, and in the press release it states the following:CYBeR-CARE RECEIVES FDA 510K CLEARANCE TO MARKET ITS ELECTRONIC HOUSECALL? 400 & 600 SYSTEMS BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. - June 16, 2000 - CYBeR-CARE, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYBR) announced today that it has received 510k market clearance (Regulatory Class II) from the FDA to sell its Electronic HouseCall? (EHC400 & 600) systems , a patented Internet-based technology that remotely monitors individuals in their homes for health care purposes in the United States. The approval, it would seem, is for the marketing of both of these systems for their intended target demographics. Therefore, one could safely assume that the EHC 400 could be marketed for use in the home and the EHC 600 could be marketed to the healthcare provider. Using your example, I would assuem that you could arrange to purchase an EHC 400 system and place it in your home and monitor yourself - however, the Network connection (and thus the recurring revenue stream for monitoring) would be required and your machine would have to be connected to the network so that you could be monitored remotely by a care-giver. Sure, you could test your vital stats all by yourself, but self-diagnosis is not what the system is intended for - remote diagnosis is what it is intended for. This system is not intended to be marketed to individuals like so many Sony Playstations - it is intended to be utilized by health care organizations, HMO's, PPO's, etc. to reduce the cost of care for the chronically ill. Thus, the most likely scenario for your actually getting a machine in your house and hooked up to a network would be one in which your health-care provider 'prescribed' or otherwise recommended the use of the machine for your chronic illness, and the machine would then be connected to the network which would allow you to be in contact with your care-giver for monitoring of various vital statistics. The network is the key, not necessarily the machine itself. So many of the technoids have been focusing on the machine itself, but the technology and value of the patents reside in the network itself, and the network-ability itself. What has not been approved by the FDA yet, apparently, is the EHC 500 system. I do not know if it has been submitted to the FDA for approval. Meanwhile, two systems which, together, make up the functional EHC Network have been approved for marketing and, therefore, it would seem an extension of logic that if you really wanted one badly enough - you could buy one for your home. But the 400 machine itself is only 1/3 of the equation - the provider machine is required for the middle 1/3, and then the network connection and monitoring setup is the last 1/3rd. The machine is not intended for self-diagnosis, it is intended for remote diagnosis by a qualified care-giver.