idea-001 · business case

Who pays, from which budget, how much, and 2-4 commercial routes to first revenue — every figure below traces to a copied claim or a declared assumption, and the routes are laid out unranked. Choosing a commercial strategy is a Tier 3 act, so this page presents options and stops.

Prescription home intravaginal NMES + EMG-biofeedback device for stress urinary incontinence, coded to E0740 and RTM — business case

Intended use: The device is indicated for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in cognitively intact adult women in the home setting, by prescription, following a documented failed four-week trial of pelvic muscle exercise training.

Who pays

The budget-holder chain has two candidate cheques in it, and which one actually pays is unresolved — that is the structural fact this section surfaces rather than a detail to fill in later.

Writes the cheque: If the device pathway pays, a Medicare Part B DME benefit (or an unestablished commercial-payer DME analog) pays a DME supplier who bills HCPCS E0740 [claim 7: verified]. If instead the remote-monitoring pathway pays, the cheque is a separate medical-benefit line into the prescribing clinician's own CPT billing — and the candidate's own Reimbursement row states that revenue "accru[es] to the clinician rather than the manufacturer," not to this device's maker at all [claim 18: unconfirmed]. Neither is settled: the coverage claim tying E0740 to Medicare NCD 230.8 is currently refuted in the candidate file, with a caveat the Verifier itself flagged as possibly a cache-linkage artifact rather than a confirmed absence of coverage [claim 9: refuted], and every CPT code the RTM leg depends on is permanently unverifiable in this repo by design, being AMA-licensed [claim 13: unconfirmed], [claim 14: unconfirmed], [claim 15: unconfirmed].
Out of which budget line: A DME supplier's Part B DMEPOS allowable for E0740 — a real, published, but small national rate [claim 10: verified] — or a state Medicaid/commercial DME analog that no claim in this file establishes [claim 32: unconfirmed].
Against which comparator: The in-clinic pelvic floor biofeedback visit, billed under CPT 90912 — a descriptor this repo cannot verify because CPT is AMA-licensed [claim 11: unconfirmed] — whose Medicare FFS floor volume is 28,093 allowed services/year, an order of magnitude below the >200,000 the candidate originally asserted [claim 16: refuted]. Also compared against three existing KPI-code devices — InControl Medical's InToneMV/InTone (two clearances, indications naming mixed, not stress, UI) [claim 3: unconfirmed] and a third InControl clearance under the same name [claim 37: verified] — and against Elidah's ELITONE/ELITONE URGE, a verified same-indication analog under a different regulation (cutaneous, not intravaginal) [claim 4: verified], [claim 5: verified].
Stops buying instead: Possibly nothing. The candidate's own framing is that prescribers would add the home device alongside continued in-clinic 90912 sessions rather than substitute one for the other — exactly the stakeholder-preference question adoption cannot answer [claim 24: unconfirmed]. No claim or assumption anywhere in the file quantifies what a PT/urogynecology practice would lose in retained 90912 revenue if a patient did switch to the home device instead.

The money model

Line	Figure	Backing
Medicare FFS floor volume — in-clinic biofeedback visit (CPT 90912)	28,093 allowed services/year (2024); refutes the candidate's own claimed >200,000	[claim 16: refuted]
Medicare FFS floor volume — the device itself (HCPCS E0740)	4,130 allowed units/year (2024); refutes the candidate's own claimed >10,000	[claim 17: refuted]
DMEPOS national allowed amount, E0740	$74.52	[claim 10: verified]
Implied Medicare-FFS revenue pool at that floor and rate	4,130 × $74.52 ≈ $307,700/year — arithmetic over the two rows above; no claim in the file asserts this composite	[claim 17: refuted] × [claim 10: verified]
Generator's claimed net revenue per dispensed system	$350–$700	[claim 18: unconfirmed] — unreconciled against the row above: this figure is 4.7×–9.4× the one verified payment rate in the file, and nothing in the candidate explains the gap
Addressable-share assumption (Generator's)	under 5% of women 45+ already in pelvic floor PT	[claim 19: unconfirmed]
Prevalence base	more than 15 million US women reporting SUI symptoms	[claim 20: unconfirmed]
Share of addressable episodes captured by year 3	not established anywhere in the file	[assumption A1]
Manufacturer's price per unit sold to a DME supplier or practice	not established	[assumption A2]
Fully-loaded cost of goods per unit	not established	[assumption A3]
Gross margin at achievable price and volume	not established	[assumption A4]
RTM revenue accruing to the manufacturer (rather than only the clinician)	not established; the file's own Reimbursement row treats this as flowing to the clinician by default [claim 18: unconfirmed]	[assumption A7]

Read the largest figure first. It is the Generator's own $350–$700 net-revenue-per-system line [claim 18: unconfirmed], and it sits beside the one number in the file a connector has actually confirmed — a $74.52 national DMEPOS rate [claim 10: verified]. Nothing in the candidate reconciles the two: either most of the claimed revenue is meant to come from a price above the Medicare rate (commercial payer, cash-pay, or a bundled RTM fee) [claim 18: unconfirmed], or the $350–$700 figure was never checked against the rate that would actually apply under this device's own claimed code [claim 10: verified]. Both TAM volume components that are checkable came back real but small — 28,093 [claim 16: refuted] and 4,130 [claim 17: refuted] — and both are Medicare fee-for-service floors only, excluding Medicare Advantage, commercial, Medicaid, VA and cash-pay.

The two connectors that would ordinarily carry a business case both refuse, and the verdicts go on the page rather than being routed around:

python3 -m connectors market "US annual net revenue per dispensed home NMES device for stress urinary incontinence is $350-$700, on a base of 15M+ US women with SUI symptoms and an addressable share under 5%" → unverifiable — "Market-size claim (...) has no free, authoritative, machine-queryable source. Stays unconfirmed permanently unless a human attaches a licensed report and edits the claim by hand."
python3 -m connectors adoption "Urogynecologists and pelvic floor PTs will prescribe a home NMES device and bill RTM alongside in-clinic visits rather than treating it as cannibalization" → unverifiable — "Adoption/preference claim (...) asserts what clinicians, payers, or patients would do. No free, authoritative, machine-queryable source answers that — it needs primary research (interviews, survey, published preference study). Stays unconfirmed permanently unless a human attaches real research and edits the claim by hand. Do NOT substitute a model's own estimate of stakeholder behaviour: a synthetic stakeholder opinion is a fabricated claim. Consider rescoping to a checkable proxy instead — coverage (does a payer policy exist for the comparator?) or procedures (how often is this actually performed?)."

Re-running the underlying primitives (hcpcs E0740, payment E0740, coverage E0740, procedures 90912, procedures E0740) in this build returns unconfirmed — no local cache at data/… in every case, because this checkout's data/ directory currently holds only README.md. That is a build-environment gap, not a new finding: the candidate's own claims already carry the tags recorded when those caches were populated on 2026-08-30 ([claim 7: verified], [claim 9: refuted], [claim 10: verified], [claim 16: refuted], [claim 17: refuted]), and this case copies those tags rather than re-deciding them.

Path to first revenue

First dollar comes from: A DME supplier or PT/urogynecology practice buying the first units under the existing E0740 code [claim 7: verified], on the candidate's own capital and timeline estimate [claim 30: unconfirmed].
What must exist first: A 510(k) clearance against a resolved predicate — the only named candidates currently carry an indication mismatch (mixed UI, not stress; manometry, not surface EMG) [claim 3: unconfirmed]; PDAC coding verification confirming this closed-loop device still codes to E0740 [claim 8: unconfirmed]; a settled answer on NCD 230.8, currently refuted with a caveat [claim 9: refuted]; and the DMEPOS rate that already exists [claim 10: verified].
Calendar to first dollar: Low-single-digit-million capital, sub-two-year calendar — the candidate's own deck-surfaced estimate, never independently checked by any connector in this repo [claim 30: unconfirmed].
Capital to first dollar: Same estimate, same tag — low single-digit millions [claim 30: unconfirmed]. That estimate covers the 510(k) only; it does not cover fleet pricing [assumption A2], cost of goods [assumption A3], or channel-build spend [assumption A8], none of which any claim in the file addresses.

Routes

Four, laid out and not ranked. Choosing a commercial strategy is a Tier 3 act — the same class of decision as choosing what to shortlist — so this section presents options and stops.

Route A — Sell hardware into the existing DME/Part B channel under E0740

The model the candidate's own frontmatter and reimbursement claims already point at: a device company selling units to DME suppliers who bill Medicare Part B (or a commercial DME benefit) under HCPCS E0740, the same channel InControl Medical and Elidah already use.

Requires: 510(k) clearance against a resolved predicate [claim 3: unconfirmed]; PDAC coding verification that a closed-loop EMG-gated device still codes to E0740 [claim 8: unconfirmed]; a coverage answer for NCD 230.8, currently refuted with an unresolved cache-linkage caveat [claim 9: refuted]; a unit price to the DME supplier [assumption A2] and a margin over cost of goods [assumption A3], [assumption A4].
Costs: Low-single-digit-million capital, sub-two-year calendar to clearance [claim 30: unconfirmed], plus fleet/inventory pricing [assumption A2] and cost of goods [assumption A3].
Killed by: The NCD 230.8 cache-linkage ambiguity resolving to a confirmed absence of Medicare coverage — a direct pull of the NCD 230.8 text, which this repo cannot fetch (CMS returns HTTP 403), or a codes-linked coverage cache, would settle it either way — combined with a fully-loaded cost of goods above the $74.52 DMEPOS allowable [claim 10: verified], i.e. [assumption A3] resolving above that figure. If neither Medicare nor a comparable commercial payer covers enough to clear cost of goods, no DME supplier stocks it.

Route B — Structure the monitoring platform as a manufacturer-captured RTM fee

Instead of leaving remote-therapeutic-monitoring revenue with the prescribing clinician by default, charge clinics a platform/data fee for the EMG-adherence monitoring layer that rides alongside their own CPT billing.

Requires: CPT 98977/98980/98981 to exist and apply to this device's data stream — permanently unverifiable in this repo because CPT is AMA-licensed [claim 13: unconfirmed], [claim 15: unconfirmed]; pelvic floor status counting as "musculoskeletal system status" for 98977 [claim 14: unconfirmed] — the single highest-leverage unresolved claim in the candidate file, and the one the Generator itself flagged as most likely to be refuted; and a platform-fee agreement with prescribing clinics [assumption A7].
Costs: The same clearance baseline as Route A [claim 30: unconfirmed], plus software/ cybersecurity documentation burden the candidate notes but never costs, plus whatever fee structure [assumption A7] would actually negotiate.
Killed by: [claim 14: unconfirmed] resolving false — a CMS PFS final-rule read or the CMS RTM billing FAQ confirming pelvic floor status does not qualify as "musculoskeletal system status" for 98977. That removes the RTM leg from consideration entirely, per the candidate's own Reimbursement pathway row, and this route has no fallback revenue line of its own if it does.

Route C — Direct-to-practice cash-pay, bypassing DME/Medicare billing entirely

Sell the device directly to pelvic floor PT and urogynecology practices, or to patients, at a set price independent of the $74.52 DMEPOS rate and the contested NCD 230.8 question.

Requires: PT and urogynecology practices as a reachable distribution channel [claim 31: unconfirmed]; a cash price a practice or patient will actually pay [assumption A5]; no dependency on the coverage claim [claim 9: refuted] or the PDAC coding claim [claim 8: unconfirmed].
Costs: The clearance baseline [claim 30: unconfirmed], plus direct-sales/channel-build cost, not established anywhere in the file [assumption A8].
Killed by: [assumption A5] resolving to a cash price below the fully-loaded cost of goods [assumption A3] at the volumes the reachable-channel claim [claim 31: unconfirmed] would support if it were itself confirmed. A device nobody will pay cash for, sold into a channel with no reimbursement fallback, has no route to revenue in this scenario at all.

Route D — License the closed-loop EMG-gating module into an already-cleared incumbent

Ship the differentiator, not the whole device: the candidate's own moat claim concedes the stimulator hardware is commodity and names the EMG-plus-adherence dataset as the defensible asset [claim 22: unconfirmed]. License or OEM that module into InControl Medical's, Elidah's, or Zynex's already-cleared KPI/QAJ hardware rather than build a standalone device company.

Requires: A partner incumbent willing to integrate a third-party module [assumption A6]; an FTO position on the closed-loop EMG-gating element, which has never been searched in this repo — no patent number exists to run and the required API credentials are unset [claim 21: unconfirmed]; and evidence the closed loop actually outperforms the open-loop stimulation these incumbents already ship, which the file's own dossier-sourced Cochrane finding does not provide [claim 33: unconfirmed].
Costs: No fleet or channel capital; a module-validation and regulatory-scoping spend, not established anywhere in the file [assumption A9]. Revenue in this route is a royalty or transfer price, not a device price, so [assumption A2] and [assumption A4] are replaced rather than answered.
Killed by: [assumption A6] resolving false — no incumbent licenses a third-party closed-loop module rather than building the capability itself. The nearest evidence on file points that direction already: when Elidah needed to extend from stress to urge incontinence on the same hardware, it filed its own second 510(k) (K223884) rather than licensing anything in [claim 5: verified].

Assumption register

Every assumption cited above, with what would settle it and who could run it. These are written back to the candidate as unverified claims 46–54 — an assumption that lives only in a business case is invisible to the Verifier.

#	Assumption	Falsifier	Owner
A1	A device sold into the DME/Part B channel captures a material share of the addressable HCPCS E0740 Medicare FFS volume by year 3 of launch	Revealed-behaviour twin, not a market-share survey: Medicare Part B claims volume for HCPCS E0740, by supplier/NPI, in the 12–36 months following the last two comparable KPI/QAJ-code launches (ELITONE, K183585, decided 2019-02-11; ELITONE URGE, K223884, decided 2023-02-24)	Commercial / business development
A2	The manufacturer's price per unit sold to a DME supplier or a PT/urogynecology practice is high enough to support a standalone device business at the volumes the Medicare FFS floor establishes	Revealed-behaviour twin: actual acquisition prices DME suppliers pay for the incumbent InTone/InToneMV (K133826, K150180, K134020) and ELITONE (K183585, K223884) units, from distributor price lists, state purchasing schedules, or supplier invoices	Commercial / business development
A3	The device's fully-loaded cost of goods — probe, EMG front-end electronics, companion app and first-year connectivity — is below the $74.52 DMEPOS national allowed amount for E0740	A contract-manufacturing bill-of-materials quote for probe, EMG front-end, controller, battery and companion-app/connectivity costs at stated annual volumes	Engineering + operations
A4	Gross margin at the achievable price and volume supports a standalone device business rather than only a subsidized or bundled model	The bill-of-materials roll-up (A3) run against the achieved unit price (A2) at achievable volumes (A1)	Commercial + engineering
A5	Pelvic floor PT and urogynecology practices or patients will pay a cash price for the device that is not anchored to the $74.52 DMEPOS allowable	A pricing survey of 20 DME suppliers/PT-practice purchasing decision-makers, per `_shared/evidence-classes.md` Class 3 — this repo's own `market`/`adoption` connectors would return this unverifiable, which is the honest, specific work item rather than a routed-around number	Commercial / business development
A6	An incumbent KPI- or QAJ-code device manufacturer (InControl Medical, Elidah, or Zynex) would license or integrate a third-party closed-loop EMG-gating module rather than build the capability in-house	Direct licensing-outreach negotiation with the three named incumbents, or a revealed-behaviour twin of comparable OEM-component licensing deals in the KPI/QAJ device class	BD / licensing lead
A7	RTM platform revenue accrues in part to the device manufacturer, via a software/data-platform fee charged to the prescribing clinic, rather than solely to the clinician's own CPT billing	A comparable-market check of what RTM device manufacturers in an adjacent category (e.g. musculoskeletal RTM) actually charge prescribing clinics for platform/data-monitoring access, or a drafted clinic-facing SaaS agreement	Commercial / business development
A8	Building direct-to-practice sales-channel coverage in pelvic floor PT and urogynecology practices is affordable within a launch budget and does not require DME/Medicare billing infrastructure	A costed direct-sales go-to-market plan (rep headcount, cycle length, CAC) benchmarked against a comparable direct-sold device in an adjacent DME category	Commercial / business development
A9	Qualifying a closed-loop EMG-gating module as an OEM addition to an already-cleared KPI/QAJ device does not require a new full 510(k) for the host device	A regulatory consultant's written scoping opinion on whether adding EMG-gating hardware/firmware to an already-cleared KPI/QAJ device is a letter-to-file, a special 510(k), or a new submission, plus a bench-validation quote	Regulatory consultant + engineering

Where this case outruns the file

Every figure with no claim behind it, gathered as work items.

The $350–$700 net-revenue-per-system figure the entire TAM rests on [claim 18: unconfirmed] is 4.7×–9.4× the one payment rate this file has actually verified, $74.52 [claim 10: verified], and no claim in the candidate reconciles the two. Whichever number a reader trusts changes every downstream figure in this case by roughly an order of magnitude.
Share of addressable volume captured by year 3 (A1), unit price to the channel (A2), cost of goods (A3), and gross margin (A4) — nothing in the candidate file speaks to any of the four, and together they are the entire device P&L, on either the DME channel (Route A) or the direct channel (Route C).
Whether RTM revenue reaches the manufacturer at all (A7) — the candidate's own text assumes it accrues to the clinician by default, and no claim in the file establishes any mechanism by which the device maker captures a share of it.
Whether an incumbent would license the closed-loop module rather than build it (A6) — the only evidence on file (Elidah filing its own second clearance rather than licensing anything, [claim 5: verified]) points away from this route, and no claim in the file addresses it directly.
Channel-build cost (A8) and OEM-qualification cost (A9) — the candidate's own capital estimate [claim 30: unconfirmed] is explicitly scoped to the 510(k) only and speaks to neither.
The true size of the addressable market — market and adoption both return unverifiable permanently on this candidate, by design, and the two checkable volume components that exist are Medicare-FFS floors only [claim 16: refuted], [claim 17: refuted] — they exclude Medicare Advantage, commercial, Medicaid, VA and cash-pay, and are not a market size in either direction.

Generated from knowledge-base/commercial/idea-001.md by engine/scripts/build_review.py on 2026-09-09. This page is a view — edit the source file and rebuild, never edit here.