Episode 13: How academia and start-ups can accelerate the drug development pipeline with Pam Randhawa, CEO of Empiriko

Justin Steinman:
Definitively Speaking is a Definitive Healthcare podcast series recorded and produced in Framingham, Massachusetts. To learn more about healthcare commercial intelligence, please visit us at definitivehc.com. Hello, and welcome to the latest episode of Definitively Speaking, a podcast where we have data-driven conversations on the current state of healthcare. I'm Justin Steinman, chief marketing officer at Definitive Healthcare, and your host for this podcast.

Justin Steinman:
I'm joined today in person in the Definitive Healthcare podcast studio by my special guest, Pam Randhawa, the founder and chief executive officer of Empiriko, a biotech company focused on therapeutics for infectious diseases and home-based point-of-care devices for personalized patient treatment. Pam has more than 20 years of experience in the healthcare and life sciences industries, with expertise ranging from policy, corporate strategy, product development, analytics and marketing for Fortune 500 companies, startups and government.

Justin Steinman:
Pam's a bit of a Zelig, if you will. Kids, check out that 1970s Woody Allen reference. And she has served on the board of directors of Hercules Capital, Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, and on the board of directors of the Massachusetts Biotech Consulate. She was a member of the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on Biotechnology and the Boston Women's Workforce Council. That is a lot. And now, to top all of that off, Pam has achieved her career pinnacle by becoming a guest on Definitively Speaking. Pam, thank you for joining us.

Pam Randhawa:
Thank you. It's my pleasure to be here.

Justin Steinman:
I'm just kidding. We obviously cannot compete with that illustrious group of credits, but we are thrilled to have you join us, maybe even add a little credibility to our show here.

Pam Randhawa:
That's very kind.

Justin Steinman:
I was excited to have you on the show today because I think there's so much that we can talk about. You cut across such a wide spectrum of biopharma and biotech. Let's just get started. What areas of biotech get you excited today?

Pam Randhawa:
There are a number of areas, but specifically I'm excited about the conversions of technologies because that's where the future is going to be. We are looking at human etiology, really human biology. Very, very complex. And in order to really understand fully, and to really be able to provide solutions at an individual level or subpopulation level, you really need to combine the AI, you need to combine the high-throughput genomic assay, the proteomic assay. And to be able to create a biological models that allows you that kind of understanding, and to be able to then create new diagnostic biomarkers and have the right selection of patients for a personalized or precision therapy. And I think we've made a great progress in that space, but there's a lot more to be had.

Justin Steinman:
So what would I do with a biological model? Help me understand that here.

Pam Randhawa:
So biological models are... If you look at diseases, diseases have multiple pathways and today the drugs are developed with a single pathway because it's very expensive to target multiple pathways. If you take immunotherapies, for example, they are highly effective, but they're highly toxic if there's a off target effect. So understanding all those different sites, different pathways and how this whole system works, and to be able to then come up with a solution really requires that kind of understanding. And those models help you with that.

Justin Steinman:
Got it. Got it. So what's changed over the past five, 10 years that gets you excited about this now? Because I imagine this has been an age old problem, right?

Pam Randhawa:
Yeah. Yes. I mean, in the last decade plus, I would say maybe almost two decades, the technologies have come through like high-throughput genomics, proteomics, metabolomics. Those technologies have allowed us to understand at a molecular level what the changes takes place, whether they're genetically inherited or whether they are changed related to environment. Environment can be your lifestyle and could be your clinical family history. And so having that improvement in that technology, the high-throughput, combined with AI, which we have seen in the last decade or so, we've seen now really diagnostics, for example, that are really precise. Specifically in the cancer space, we've seen technologies that can identify who are the high responders, who are the low responders. And we can tailor that accordingly.

Justin Steinman:
When you say high and low responder, are you talking someone responding to the medicine?

Pam Randhawa:
Responding to therapy. Yes.

Justin Steinman:
Responding to the therapy.

Pam Randhawa:
Yes. Yes. And also early diagnosis. That's the other part of it. There has been so much of improvement that has taken place and it's again, combination of computational models, some AI in the last decade or so, and the high-throughput, these assay technologies. These instrumentation have such a precision and fast. You go to 23andMe and others, used to be thousands of dollars and now you can get in few hundred dollars, genetic tests. So those things have improved and changed.

Justin Steinman:
Got it. So just for some of our listeners out there, because we have a pretty broad audience listening. What is an assay technology as you keep talking about it here?

Pam Randhawa:
So it's multiple different types of instruments. So can I take a biological material and really understand the different components? It could be blood. It could be saliva. So that is what we are looking at from these different technologies.

Justin Steinman:
So it really feels like it's a big data problem.

Pam Randhawa:
Everything is data. I mean, if you really think about it, it is all data. It's a big data. It's really, I would say, intelligence learning and it's really making those decisions based on that information. We run tests, but that's really a way to get data. And even in the drug discovery process, whether we are doing in vitro in a test tube assay or whether we are doing animal studies, it's all about gaining that data. So the big data and intelligent data is the key.

Justin Steinman:
Got it. So it's a good time to be a data scientist?

Pam Randhawa:
Absolutely. I mean, we have a very, very high demand. In fact at Mass Life Sciences Center, we actually created a program for data scientists because we have a huge need in the data scientists. Computational biology, computational chemistry, data scientists. That whole range is in very, very high demand. I would say it's one of the number one area to go into.

Justin Steinman:
I should go have a career conversation with my kids when I get home tonight.

Pam Randhawa:
Yeah. Yes. That's a good idea.

Justin Steinman:
Yeah. That'll work for one of them, not for the other one. So we'll have a different conversation about that.

Pam Randhawa:
Maybe the other one can use more of the interpretation, the other logics.

Justin Steinman:
Exactly. So let's clarify something. I know I'm guilty of it. I use the words biotech and biopharma interchangeably, and I know I shouldn't be doing that. What's the difference between biotech and biopharma really? And for every person explanation, you explain it to me.

Pam Randhawa:
Well, the lines are very blurry. Just to create more confusion for you, I'll add pharmaceutical as a third term. So there's a biotechnology there, pharmaceutical and there's biopharma. Biotechnology really based on harnessing biology at the molecular cellular level and where pharmaceutical really is more making medicines from chemicals or synthetic materials. And biopharma is a combination of both. So they are doing the research R&D on harnessing biology, looking at the targets, and they are also making medicine, progressing them to clinic. So those are two combination of biopharma and those lines are very blurry. I mean, if you look at companies like Genentech or you look at Biogen or Vertex, that's where they started, as a small little biotech company and they grew to this amazing big companies now.

Justin Steinman:
So would you say similar to Moderna? How would you classify Modernas? Which one of those three categories, or all three of those categories?

Pam Randhawa:
Well, they are all three now because they are not only passing them through clinic, but they are also manufacturing them. So they are all become more like a bio pharma. So the lines are very blurry now.

Justin Steinman:
And do you think that that's driving this move towards personalized care that's blurred area or this big investment in big data and biopharma and biotech? You always hear about personalized care as the holy grail, and it's not just Justin talking to his doctor one on one, but more I think it's personalized treatments, personalized medicine, personalized clinical medicine. Is that really where we're heading in this space?

Pam Randhawa:
Yes, we are heading in that space, but the lines are blurry because not necessarily just that. Lines are blurry because the technology advances have made it happen for even smaller companies to go into clinic. And whether you call them different sort of the technologies, or R&D models or business models or investment models that have all come together to make it happen where companies can actually innovate and do the basic science and move it into clinic and be able to do that. The partnerships have become much easier. I give a lot of credit to also pharma companies providing that guidance or coming in early and co-developing it. So a lot of companies get trained like that with co-development. So for those reasons also, smaller companies have moved into that area and started to produce medicines. So the lines have been blurry because of that as well.

Justin Steinman:
Interesting. So that actually brings up other question that I had to ask you later, but I'm going to pull it forward here, which is, let's talk about the obligation of those big biopharma companies. Companies like Pfizer, Amgen, Moderna, Vertex, on and on and on. Do you feel like they have an obligation to the small startup ecosystem?

Pam Randhawa:
Well, yes. I mean, you could say they have obligation or they have a vested interest. So these companies do have that interest and advantage to be the first mover advantage where they can come in early and they can co-develop and they can ensure the success of it. Not just by making the investment available, but big pharmaceutical companies have a lot of experience specifically moving a product through clinic and they have a heavy understanding of the regulatory process, the commercialization process. And so if they come in early, not only they have a first pick of the advanced technologies to be able to license that early or buy them right out, but also they can help the company succeed. So it's a win-win situation when companies actually come together early.

Pam Randhawa:
And that's happening already, but it can certainly be enhanced. And one of the thing I think that more needs to happen from larger biotechs or pharmaceutical companies is that really investing in much earlier than they have been coming. And so for example, some of the technologies that are not licensed for academia, for example, you're starting from ground zero. You're starting from a concept all the way to doing the proof of concept studies and moving through the stages of the development. If they come in early with ideas that actually potentially be, cutting edge disruptive ideas that could have potentially many applications like platform technologies, they would have much more advantage over really being innovative. Because majority of the pipeline comes from the biotech, or a big amount of that comes from biotech.

Justin Steinman:
So let me see if I'm following you here. Do you think that big biopharmas should be outsourcing a lot of their innovation and R&D to these smaller startup companies?

Pam Randhawa:
I wouldn't call that outsourcing. I would say much more is that you're scouting and you're mentoring and you're guiding in the direction where you need to go, where you want to go. And so if you come in early, you can actually motivate and you can co-develop the technology in how you need it. Because it's like if you already have a fully baked product or to some degree, it's really difficult, it cost more to change that. But if you are coming in early, making smaller investments, and those smaller in investments is a huge help for early stage companies. And specifically the guidance and mentorship, that also is extremely helpful.

Justin Steinman:
But it's really interesting because according to the pharmaceutical research and Manufacturer's Trade Association, it takes on average 10 years for a new medicine to get to market.

Pam Randhawa:
Yes. Actually even more.

Justin Steinman:
I mean, that's an average. It's half more, half below. And clinical trials alone take six or seven years. And most small startups do not have the capital or the time, the people, the expertise to be running clinical trials, a big investment. And this blew my mind when I was looking at it. The average cost to research and develop a successful drug is about $2.6 billion. So if I am, again, one of these big biopharma companies, I think I want to place a lot of bets. I want to cover up my entire roulette board. Is that right?

Pam Randhawa:
And the competition is very high. Everybody's going into specific areas and everybody wants to get there first, and everybody want to be able to get to market first. And so it's very important, I think much more needs to happen, that support from the big pharma to biotech. So it's a win-win situation for both sides.

Justin Steinman:
And what's the role of academia and all this? But we're sitting here in Greater Boston, we've got MIT, we've got Harvard, we've got all these great, amazing universities. You hear about all these genius scientists cooking up stuff and spinning it out through licensing. How does academia fit into this?

Pam Randhawa:
Well, academia plays a major role and academia creates a huge, pretty sizable pipeline of these innovative therapies. And a lot of times technologies are licensed out by a postdoc who actually helped develop the technology, which is a fantastic way to have that process. And they start a company and they license out. They start a company and then they move through the stages. But there is area that I think is very underutilized, which is really research collaboration, for example. And the research collaboration really allows you that you have an idea and it's so basic that you need expertise and you need somebody to be able to spend that time in developing that or progressing that idea to a proof of concept. And going with that idea to an academic institute and partnering with them and having a research collaboration is a joint IP. That to me, you can have so many of those that you possibly cannot have in your company.

Pam Randhawa:
So I think to progress that innovation and drive more products, to me, that area is heavily underutilized. And I think specifically by smaller companies, because they look at it as they have an option to license the technology from academia, or start from scratch. When they license the technology, there are advantage to that. They get to have some data there. They have technologies built. They have a PI, principal investigator who has expertise who can guide them. So there's a lot of help in that respect. And it's easier to raise money because you have something to show for. It becomes really challenging for a biotech company that is actually starting from scratch and building their own technology and going through the stages and trying to raise funds at the same time. It's really challenging. And I think a lot of biotech companies miss out on that you have an option to do the research collaboration.

Pam Randhawa:
And my personal experience with empirical, we've done a number of those partnership. We've done with Harvard. We've done MIT, MIT Lincoln Lab. We worked with Northeastern. We also worked with other universities through matching grants from NSF. And my experience is that the universities, it's a tough process to negotiate those contracts. And sometimes it takes a long time, but it really is worth it because if you get the good team, you can really speed up. And the resources that you could utilize, you cannot possibly have a $100 million dollar lab. You cannot possibly have the institutional knowledge that you can tap into. You cannot possibly have even just as simple as standard operating procedures and best practices and so forth. You get that type of expertise and your network gets all amplified.

Pam Randhawa:
That is my personal experience with empirical and my past life, that I think companies really underutilize that. And that to me, you can be a two people team and you can do something like that and have almost 40, 50 people equal value. And so that's something I think should be more utilized by smaller companies as well as large companies.

Justin Steinman:
So how do we improve that? You keep saying it's underutilized. What can we do about it?

Pam Randhawa:
I think that one of the thing that... We've started actually a project at Mass Bio and Mass Life Center, is to really promote that between the academia and the industry. And Mass Life Sciences Center has a little bit of advantage that we can put some money behind, seed money to catalyze the idea and do a test case. And so one of the greatest part of Massachusetts is that because we had the $1 billion life sciences bill and we have a Mass Life Sciences Center and it's a small team, 22 plus people, but they are very, very effective in making sure that we actually identify the gaps and where the gaps are. How do we start that process? And bringing academia to the table has been very important because what we recognize is that they need to make it easier for companies.

Pam Randhawa:
It takes a long time. It could take six months to 15 months to do a deal. And if you are a startup, you're starving. You don't have money, you don't have resources and you don't have time. So there's no way you will survive with that. So the companies resort to either licensing existing technology or they start doing their own thing. So I think they need to make easier process. They need to have less prohibitive terms and conditions. They need to ensure that it's not a long process like that. And some best practices that they can share ahead of time-

Justin Steinman:
Who's they by the way?

Pam Randhawa:
Academia.

Justin Steinman:
Academia? Okay.

Pam Randhawa:
Yes. To share with the industry so people know what to expect.

Justin Steinman:
So you think the burden on addressing this underutilization sits with the academia side?

Pam Randhawa:
Well, it is both, but academia can make a big difference in terms of making it easier, that processes are explained to you and that's my personal experience. And having done it many times and even then it's a tough process and you're talking about hundreds and thousands of dollars, sometimes attorney fees.

Justin Steinman:
Right.

Pam Randhawa:
I mean, that is a reality.

Justin Steinman:
Right. And a lot these institutions probably have the lawyers on staff, they have a technology licensing office and they do this every day. And for the small startup, they're not doing this every day. It may be their first time through this process.

Pam Randhawa:
Yes.

Justin Steinman:
Exactly. Do you think there's a role for the government in this or the public sector?

Pam Randhawa:
For this particular area?

Justin Steinman:
Yeah.

Pam Randhawa:
Well, there is. The government develops a lot technologies too. And there is a process for that too to how to license those or how to co-develop, and I think that's also underutilized specifically by smaller companies. We are currently working on something and yes it's a little bit long process, but it's worth it and so government has a similar type of a role. One is to make people aware what is available, and those things are available, they're buried somewhere. If you don't know, it's a massive. There's so many different agencies and so many different areas and subsections and so forth, and it's just very hard to find. There's no easier way to find what's available and what can be utilized and where the potential is.

Justin Steinman:
Yeah. It's interesting you've got this great interesting background, you've lived in intersection of the public and the private sector for so long, right? How do you think the public and private sector should work together to drive innovation? I mean, Massachusetts seems to be doing pretty well based on my opinion, but there are 49 other states out there that I think maybe could be doing a better job. A little bit of a home court bias here I'll admit. How do you think public and private sector should work together to drive innovation in biopharma?

Pam Randhawa:
I want to give an example. I want to go back to the Mass Life Sciences Center and I'll bring in other examples, and these are just the personal examples, personal experiences.

Justin Steinman:
Personal examples.

Pam Randhawa:
Yeah. And so Mass Life Sciences Center was established in 2008, the bill was passed under Governor Deval Patrick. The idea started maybe before that, but he carried on and made it happen. And so there was a creation of Mass Life Sciences Center, and there's a budget, it was a billion dollars over 10 years, 100 million each year. It may not sound that much, but when you think about technologies that are very early stage and have a high potential and no investor is going to fund, we were able to fund those. And money may not have been large, but the promotion was very big. And specifically the due diligence process that Mass Life Sciences Center went through with those companies really gave comfort to investors. So the follow on money has been in hundreds of millions of dollars for these companies, and so that was a success. We were able to have Massachusetts become the number one leader.

Pam Randhawa:
We have like over 2000 life sciences companies in Massachusetts, and that doesn't include the research institutes. And so that is a big number between therapeutics, diagnostics, digital health, medical devices and tools. So that bill was across two administration, Democrats and Republican, and so it was in 2018 we went through reauthorization under Governor Baker with over $600 million reauthorized for five years. So per year it was more than the first billion dollars.

Justin Steinman:
And you were investing in these companies, right?

Pam Randhawa:
We're investing in those companies, so there's-

Justin Steinman:
You're taking ownership shares as well for the state?

Pam Randhawa:
Well, we've done convertible notes for example.

Justin Steinman:
Okay.

Pam Randhawa:
There's three big categories. We have tax incentives, we have grant making, and we have the investment fund. So between those three, we have been able to provide different mechanisms for large companies, medium sized companies, as well as small companies. We needed to make sure that the R&D facilities are located here, so we moved so many of them from New Jersey to here because we attracted. Massachusetts is very attractive, over 300 colleges and universities, and then you look at these major institutions, and hospitals, and you have a talent. So it was very strategically designed. So we became the number one and we are the enemy, but we need to keep it as number one, right?

Justin Steinman:
Right.

Pam Randhawa:
Right. So you asked about role of government. That was a good example of a role of a government to really make this as number one player in the world, not just in the United States. We really lack in later stage companies, for example, bio manufacturing we lose that to North Carolina, or Maryland, or sometimes even California so that's one area that we need to ensure... We do great job in innovating in early stage, we need to do equally good job in having the workforce, for example, for regulatory expertise in regulatory clinical research like clinical trials, manufacturing, commercialization. We need to do more and more of that and state recognizes that. So through Mass Life Sciences Center, MassBio nonprofit, as an industry association, and the industry working all collaboratively. One, we have 40,000 jobs that we need to fill in the next three years.

Justin Steinman:
Wow.

Pam Randhawa:
And two is that we want to make sure that these clinical stage companies, or later stage growth stage companies, we keep them here in Massachusetts. And we are all working very aggressively towards that and we have a number of projects both at Mass Life Sciences Center, MassBio, they have a very tight collaboration. And we bring industry into this and as well as government through the Mass Life Sciences Center. So I think that we're going to be able to fulfill those demand for the workforce. We are actively working on bio manufacturing sites, we have one in Worcester. We are working with academia to train professionals students for regulatory, for example, or bio manufacturing so there's active curriculums being designed. And so the academia is at the table too. That's a real live example of what's happening now. So that is my experience with State of Massachusetts, but there's something that at the federal level has happened as well and I was part of that.

Pam Randhawa:
It was the NSF and NIJ at the National Institute of Justice, they had a matching grant program where academia, industry, the government will come together and it was really focused on the advanced forensic science. And so we were able to create a program where there were five or six universities part of this program, and many federal agencies like FBI, the DEA, Secret Service, US R&D missile group, Military, they were all part of this group. And so we created an industrial board and everyone had a board seat and I chaired for one of the term, that board. And what that allowed us to do is to really come up with ideas that our respective companies needed, and we provided that funds to university. And NSF, NIJ matched those funds, and then we had an option to license or continue to jointly develop those ideas. This is another way to acquire the innovation by seeding that innovation, and this is another example, but these are again happening in... They're scattered, there needs to be more a cohesive strategy like we did in Massachusetts that needs to happen at the federal level as well.

Justin Steinman:
But listening to you it almost sounds like we're on the verge of a major change of how our economy works. I mean, all these jobs, all these new industries, I mean, this stuff back when I was in school didn't even exist, right?

Pam Randhawa:
Right.

Justin Steinman:
I mean, we've covered data science, bio manufacturing, all sorts of stuff. There's a whole new set of industries that are rapidly emerging.

Pam Randhawa:
Absolutely.

Justin Steinman:
That are going to change the jobs and the futures. And if I was in college today I would start thinking about some of this type of stuff.

Pam Randhawa:
I mean, I'll give you an example of our personalized diagnostics, it would be at home, and it's just a high powered, comprehensive platform. So it has a miniaturized mass spectrometry which typically a vacuum pump is the size of this room, and-

Justin Steinman:
Our room's not that big by the way because no one can see it, but yes, keep going.

Pam Randhawa:
But it is big enough. Imagine that a machine be like this size where you have-

Justin Steinman:
Right.

Pam Randhawa:
And so you have a device cost 500 to 1000, to a million dollars, you need a very skilled experts to run that instrument, and its analysis for small molecules, for example, like drug analysis or food analysis and it's needed for the industry and it's expensive. So a lot of the companies can't really afford it so they outsource it, and then they send samples and it takes some time. Now in clinical medicine, it's not really even used because it's not feasible, it's not cost effective. I mean, thousands of dollars per analysis it will never be able to afford, no insurance company will pay and patient will not be able to sustain that out of pocket.

Pam Randhawa:
So what we are doing is miniaturizing that mass spec, and then our second version we are doing 3D printing of mass spec. And if you tell anyone today, it's not possible. So you are talking from coming from $500,000 or a million dollars down to 10, $20,000, maybe $25,000. It's a massive, massive shift in cost reduction, but more importantly not losing that sensitivity and specificity value that you need for a clinical use, for example. So what our goal is that we want to personalize that care, to be able to understand how you respond to a therapy. That's just one component of the device that 3D printed, but then there are sensors to do the DNA, RNA analysis and immuno the chemical chemistry and so forth. That would have not been possible even like five, six years ago, but it's more possible now because the 3D printing biomaterials, that technology have improved so much that we're able to actually do something like this. So there's a core dependence of these technologies.

Justin Steinman:
Yeah. Wow. I feel like my father when I say the pace of change in the world just continues to accelerate, because it's mind blowing talking to you. So we've covered a ton grand. This has been really interesting and really amazing so thank you for that. I want to pivot a little bit and talk about your time as an entrepreneur. This is your first, second, third company?

Pam Randhawa:
Second.

Justin Steinman:
Second company that you founded, right? What do you like about being an entrepreneur in this space?

Pam Randhawa:
I mean, I like all parts of entrepreneurship. From a concept, an idea of back of the napkin all the way to really development of a product and commercialization of product, but I specifically like really creating stuff and I like that there are a lot of highs and lows. Most of the time I'm terrified and insecure, I feel like the house is going to burn down, but I think the satisfaction that you get from creating something that is going to change and improve either whether that's a process or whether that's lives of people, and in our case we hope that we will change many lives and improves and save lives. So that whole process is very, very exciting. And as we discussed there's just so many parts to this. And it feels like every time you start something, you feel like you don't really know much, and that really is the best part of biotechnology field.

Pam Randhawa:
I spent half my career in the digital health side and... Well, first 25% of my career in the healthcare policy, and then subsequent 10 plus years in the healthcare digital health. 20 plus years ago we were using advanced analytics, today called AI and using big data. And so moving from the healthcare digital health side into biotechnology now it's over 10 years, it feels like I still know nothing because the technologies are changing so fast and there's so many angles to this. It's a multidisciplinary. I mean, we have a team in our partnership with MIT, there's a sub subspecialties of biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and computational technology, I mean, expertise and to software and hardware and biomaterials and there's just such a cross-functional team that it's just mind boggling.
When you're in those meetings you feel like literally you're in a sci-fi world, and that is the exciting part, is that learning every day something new that I think that this is a sector that really provides so much more so than any other sector. Maybe I'm just biased, but-

Justin Steinman:
So then I'll give you my last question. [inaudible 00:35:37] You're a young entrepreneur starting a business, what advice would you give him or her?

Pam Randhawa:
I mean, given the macroeconomic world today, I would say that one of the number one is really expanding your network. I can't say enough about that is when you're a young company, you're always tight with resources, you always don't have enough money, you don't have enough expertise and so forth. Expansion of your network and really bringing those advisors and just even informal people once in a while you met for coffee and you got some feedback, and then partners. That to me is how you can get through the complexity of technologies and increase the possibility of success. That, I think is one of the number one in that. Obviously today if you talk about making sure that you have adequate funding because biotechnology doesn't come cheap.

Justin Steinman:
Yeah, we've covered that. Yeah.

Pam Randhawa:
It is. Yes. I mean, just the expense of the laboratory, the consumable, the instruments, the expertise of scientists, and going through the regulatory hurdle, it is just huge. So having those partners and network to lean on and leveraging the ecosystem to the max I think is going to be the key.

Justin Steinman:
That's really good advice Pam, and thank you for taking the time to talk with us, coming all the way out to the Framingham podcast studio here. I really appreciate it.

Pam Randhawa:
Well, thank you so much I enjoyed this.

Justin Steinman:
And thank you to all of our listeners as always for joining us on Definitively Speaking, a Definitive Healthcare podcast. Please join me next time for a conversation with Beth Holmes from Hint Health, a provider of direct primary care. Direct primary care has been all over the news recently, especially with Amazon's recent purchase of One Medical. Plus Beth has a background as a healthcare insurance executive so I think she and I can geek out and talk about our time working at insurance companies. I hope you'll join us. If you like what you've heard today, please remember to rate, review and subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. To learn more about how healthcare commercial intelligence can support your business, please follow us on Twitter @DefinitiveHC, or visit us at definitivehc.com. Until next time, take care, and please stay healthy.