[SkyPuncher]

Stark shouldn't be an issue to them. From what I remember the provider must provide options and can't recommend a specific one. They can still provide facts - which can include the fact that X and Y don't do home draws and Z does.

-----

While you reference an interesting piece from nppn.info, I don't find their argument to be very compelling. This piece reads like exactly what you'd expect from an lobbying org looking to protect their space. It reads like a very impressive argument - only when you don't look for any alternatives. I worked in a similar space and we found solutions to nearly every problem this piece lists.

[levinb]

Yes, certainly the author of that piece has a biased take. It is not just a hot-take however, and the main point is true; that the person who performs the draw must be in the employ of a CLIA approved lab that is accountable for their performance.

Since this doesn't seem to be their angle, that means they are contracting with labs, which means small scale regional providers, because generally LabCorp and Quest aren't interested in partnering with startups. Maybe they had a breakthrough here?

As an API service, their main customers would likely be the on-demand telemedicine startups (Nurx, DoD, Eden, many others.... However, they all are either narrow-service and national (Nurx, Roman; which have their own issues) or comprehensive and regional.

So that means they either can't operate legally (sketchy), have to do the work of cobbling together regional provider networks and clients that want those service areas covered (doable, but hard), or have scored a breakthrough with a big lab company or network that's a hidden advantage we don't see here.

Just interested in what they've found that can get them going in a tough space.