PATIENT vs CARE PROVIDER

TERMINAL PATIENT

ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROVIDER

Patients have no alternatives. And it forces the hand of Terminal patients. They don’t have the luxury of waiting for clinical trials to be finished.  Death is always lingering around.

The problem is therefore that for the perspective of the provider of treatments: their wallets hardly mind if their treatment works or not. It might work. That would be great. But it does not necessarily has to do anything. Alternative care providers get revenue by you buying their treatment, service or other goods. There is not enough accountability afterwards.

So what FinalStand is aiming to do is to introduce accountability in the game. Let us first discuss the old situation above. As you can clearly see it is unclear who gets more or less money. Patients might be unwilling to pay anything due to unclarity. They might think hugs are the way to go. Or they trust the people willing to help. With FinalStand the x-axis can be filled in:

Does your product or service work? You’ll earn more money. Congratulations! However, what if providers of alternative healthcare decide to pretend they just found a new cure? We need to introduce accountability. We can do this by comparing the outcomes of the patients. Did the terminal patient die prematurely? Did they live as long as expected? Or did they live longer? 

So if the patient lives longer, the provider of the alternative treatment earns more hard-earned money. That seems fair right? 

One problem then comes up: where should one draw the line in the middle? Even if you give free hugs, there might an off-change probability of a medical wonder happening! This is where the auction element is introduced…