On Wednesday, e-commerce giant Amazon announced that its 167M US-based Prime members can now access One Medical primary care services for $9 per month, or $99 per year, which amounts to a 50 percent annual discount on One Medical membership. (Additional Prime family members can join for $6/month or $66/year.)
One Medical, which Amazon purchased for $3.9B last year, provides its 800K members with 24/7 virtual care as well as app-based provider communication and access to expedited in-person care, though clinic visits are either billed through insurance or incur additional charges. Amazon also recently started offering virtual care services through its Amazon Clinic platform, at cash prices ranging from $30 to $95 per visit.
The Gist:After teasing this type of bundle with a Prime Day sale earlier this year, Amazon has made the long-expected move to integrate One Medical into its suite of Prime add-ons, using a similar pricing model as its $5-per-month RxPass for generic prescription medications.
At such a low price, Amazon risks flooding One Medical’s patient population with demand it may struggle to meet. But if Amazon can scale One Medical, while maintaining its quality and convenience, it may be able to make the provider organization profitable.
Known for its willingness to take risks and absorb financial losses, Amazon is continuing to build a healthcare ecosystem focused on hybrid primary care and pharmacy services that delivers a strong consumer value proposition based on convenience and low cost.
In a matter of months, ChatGPT has radically altered our nation’s views on artificial intelligence—uprooting old assumptions about AI’s limitations and kicking the door wide open for exciting new possibilities.
One aspect of our lives sure to be touched by this rapid acceleration in technology is U.S. healthcare. But the extent to which tech will improve our nation’s health depends on whether regulators embrace the future or cling stubbornly to the past.
Why our minds live in the past
In the 1760s, Scottish inventor James Watt revolutionized the steam engine, marking an extraordinary leap in engineering. But Watt knew that if he wanted to sell his innovation, he needed to convince potential buyers of its unprecedented power. With a stroke of marketing genius, he began telling people that his steam engine could replace 10 cart-pulling horses. People at time immediately understood that a machine with 10 “horsepower” must be a worthy investment. Watt’s sales took off. And his long-since-antiquated meaurement of power remains with us today.
Even now, people struggle to grasp the breakthrough potential of revolutionary innovations. When faced with a new and powerful technology, people feel more comfortable with what they know. Rather than embracing an entirely different mindset, they remain stuck in the past, making it difficult to harness the full potential of future opportunities.
Too often, that’s exactly how U.S. government agencies go about regulating advances in healthcare. In medicine, the consequences of applying 20th-century assumptions to 21st-century innovations prove fatal.
Here are three ways regulators do damage by failing to keep up with the times:
1. Devaluing ‘virtual visits’
Established in 1973 to combat drug abuse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) now faces an opioid epidemic that claims more than 100,000 lives a year.
One solution to this deadly problem, according to public health advocates, combines modern information technology with an effective form of addiction treatment.
Thanks to the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) declaration, telehealth use skyrocketed during the pandemic. Out of necessity, regulators relaxed previous telemedicine restrictions, allowing more patients to access medical services remotely while enabling doctors to prescribe controlled substances, including buprenorphine, via video visits.
For people battling drug addiction, buprenorphine is a “Goldilocks” medication with just enough efficacy to prevent withdrawal yet not enough to result in severe respiratory depression, overdose or death. Research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that buprenorphine improves retention in drug-treatment programs. It has helped thousands of people reclaim their lives.
But because this opiate produces slight euphoria, drug officials worry it could be abused and that telemedicine prescribing will make it easier for bad actors to push buprenorphine onto the black market. Now with the PHE declaration set to expire, the DEA has laid out plans to limit telehealth prescribing of buprenorphine.
The proposed regulations would let doctors prescribe a 30-day course of the drug via telehealth, but would mandate an in-person visit with a doctor for any renewals. The agency believes this will “prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
The DEA’s assumption that an in-person visit is safer and less corruptible than a virtual visit is outdated and contradicted by clinical research. A recent NIH study, for example, found that overdose deaths involving buprenorphine did not proportionally increase during the pandemic. Likewise, a Harvard study found that telemedicine is as effective as in-person care for opioid use disorder.
Of course, regulators need to monitor the prescribing frequency of controlled substances and conduct audits to weed out fraud. Furthermore, they should demand that prescribing physicians receive proper training and document their patient-education efforts concerning medical risks.
But these requirements should apply to all clinicians, regardless of whether the patient is physically present. After all, abuses can happen as easily and readily in person as online.
The DEA needs to move its mindset into the 21st century because our nation’s outdated approach to addiction treatment isn’t working. More than 100,000 deaths a year prove it.
2. Restricting an unrestrainable new technology
Technologists predict that generative AI, like ChatGPT, will transform American life, drastically altering our economy and workforce. I’m confident it also will transform medicine, giving patients greater (a) access to medical information and (b) control over their own health.
So far, the rate of progress in generative AI has been staggering. Just months ago, the original version of ChatGPT passed the U.S. medical licensing exam, but barely. Weeks ago, Google’s Med-PaLM 2 achieved an impressive 85% on the same exam, placing it in the realm of expert doctors.
With great technological capability comes great fear, especially from U.S. regulators. At the Health Datapalooza conference in February, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert M. Califf emphasized his concern when he pointed out that ChatGPT and similar technologies can either aid or exacerbate the challenge of helping patients make informed health decisions.
Worried comments also came from Federal Trade Commission, thanks in part to a letter signed by billionaires like Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak. They posited that the new technology “poses profound risks to society and humanity.” In response, FTC chair Lina Khan pledged to pay close attention to the growing AI industry.
Attempts to regulate generative AI will almost certainly happen and likely soon. But agencies will struggle to accomplish it.
To date, U.S. regulators have evaluated hundreds of AI applications as medical devices or “digital therapeutics.” In 2022, for example, Apple received premarket clearance from the FDA for a new smartwatch feature that lets users know if their heart rhythm shows signs of atrial fibrillation (AFib). For each AI product that undergoes FDA scrutiny, the agency tests the embedded algorithms for effectiveness and safety, similar to a medication.
ChatGPT is different. It’s not a medical device or digital therapy programmed to address a specific or measurable medical problem. And it doesn’t contain a simple algorithm that regulators can evaluate for efficacy and safety. The reality is that any GPT-4 user today can type in a query and receive detailed medical advice in seconds. ChatGPT is a broad facilitator of information, not a narrowly focused, clinical tool. Therefore, it defies the types of analysis regulators traditionally apply.
In that way, ChatGPT is similar to the telephone. Regulators can evaluate the safety of smartphones, measuring how much electromagnetic radiation it gives off or whether the device, itself, poses a fire hazard. But they can’t regulate the safety of how people use it. Friends can and often do give each other terrible advice by phone.
Therefore, aside from blocking ChatGPT outright, there’s no way to stop individuals from asking it for a diagnosis, medication recommendation or help with deciding on alternative medical treatments. And while the technology has been temporarily banned in Italy, that’s unlikely to happen in the United States.
If we want to ensure the safety of ChatGPT, improve health and save lives, government agencies should focus on educating Americans on this technology rather than trying to restrict its usage.
3. Preventing doctors from helping more people
Doctors can apply for a medical license in any state, but the process is time-consuming and laborious. As a result, most physicians are licensed only where they live. That deprives patients in the other 49 states access to their medical expertise.
The reason for this approach dates back 240 years. When the Bill of Rights passed in 1791, the practice of medicine varied greatly by geography. So, states were granted the right to license physicians through their state boards.
In 1910, the Flexner report highlighted widespread failures of medical education and recommended a standard curriculum for all doctors. This process of standardization culminated in 1992 when all U.S. physicians were required to take and pass a set of national medical exams. And yet, 30 years later, fully trained and board-certified doctors still have to apply for a medical license in every state where they wish to practice medicine. Without a second license, a doctor in Chicago can’t provide care to a patient across a state border in Indiana, even if separated by mere miles.
The PHE declaration did allow doctors to provide virtual care to patients in other states. However, with that policy expiring in May, physicians will again face overly restrictive regulations held over from centuries past.
Given the advances in medicine, the availability of technology and growing shortage of skilled clinicians, these regulations are illogical and problematic. Heart attacks, strokes and cancer know no geographic boundaries. With air travel, people can contract medical illnesses far from home. Regulators could safely implement a common national licensing process—assuming states would recognize it and grant a medical license to any doctor without a history of professional impropriety.
But that’s unlikely to happen. The reason is financial. Licensing fees support state medical boards. And state-based restrictions limit competition from out of state, allowing local providers to drive up prices.
To address healthcare’s quality, access and affordability challenges, we need to achieve economies of scale. That would be best done by allowing all doctors in the U.S. to join one care-delivery pool, rather than retaining 50 separate ones.
Doing so would allow for a national mental-health service, giving people in underserved areas access to trained therapists and helping reduce the 46,000 suicides that take place in America each year.
Regulators need to catch up
Medicine is a complex profession in which errors kill people. That’s why we need healthcare regulations. Doctors and nurses need to be well trained, so that life-threatening medications can’t fall into the hands of people who will misuse them.
But when outdated thinking leads to deaths from drug overdoses, prevents patients from improving their own health and limits access to the nation’s best medical expertise, regulators need to recognize the harm they’re doing.
Healthcare is changing as technology races ahead. Regulators need to catch up.
On Monday, San Francisco-based Carbon Health—a virtual-first primary and urgent care company with 125 clinics across 13 states—announced a partnership with CVS Health, which includes a $100M investment, as well as plans to pilot its operating model in select CVS stores. The announcement came just days after Carbon reported its second round of layoffs in the past year, as it scales back on less profitable business segments to focus on expanding its primary care model.
The Gist: It’s been over a year since CVS CEO Karen Lynch said the company was moving with “speed and urgency” to construct a physician-staffed primary care model. Last fall it purchased in-home health evaluation company Signify Health for $8B, after rumors that it had been close to acquiring One Medical.
Between its convenient retail footprint, insurance arm, and Signify’s risk-assessment tools, a nationwide primary care physician network is the last puzzle piece CVS needs to field a comprehensive and formidable primary care strategy.
While it’s currently rumored to be evaluating a $10B acquisition of Oak Street Health, this partnership with Carbon Health is a better bet to deliver value quickly, as CVS should be able to more easily integrate and leverage Carbon’s retail health expertise across its growing care delivery platform.
We expect 2023 to be a pivotal year for the industry, as the accelerated acceptance of virtual care and demographic trends, such as an aging population, increasing chronic illnesses and healthcare worker shortages, sustain demand for medtech-enabled solutions.
The combination of rapid developments in novel healthcare technology and heightened demand for integrated tech-enabled care has continued to fuel innovation in the medtech industry. At the same time, medtech innovators – whether in digital health, wearables and AI-driven offerings in healthcare, or diagnostics, telemedicine and health IT solutions – continue to face a patchwork of laws, rules and norms across the world. Life sciences and healthcare innovators and regulators are also looking to medtech to increase access to care and health equity. Here are ten global medtech themes we are tracking in the coming year:
Focus on digital tuck-in acquisitions in medtech M&A
Despite continued uncertainty in the overall financial market, medtech M&A activity continued at a steady pace in 2022. This year witnessed a rise in tuck-in acquisitions of smaller companies that can be easily integrated into buyers’ existing infrastructure and product offerings, as opposed to significantly sized takeovers of businesses that aren’t squarely aligned with buyers’ existing businesses lines. Medtech acquirers have been particularly focused on developing their digital capabilities to innovate and reach customers in new ways. As digitization continues to transform the industry, we expect acquirers to continue to prioritize the value of digital and data assets as they evaluate potential targets.
Continued interest by private equity and other financial sponsors
Private equity firms, healthcare-focused funds and other financial sponsors have continued to display a strong appetite for investing in Medtech companies, with top targets in subsectors such as diagnostics and healthcare IT solutions. Later-stage medtech companies in particular are gaining a larger share of venture capital funding, as later-stage investments allow financial sponsors to focus on businesses with higher yields, as well as less time to market and capital reimbursement. Demographic trends, including an aging population and the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, coupled with healthcare technology advancements have created robust demand for medtech-enabled solutions. Additionally, medtech offerings have broad applications that can extend beyond stakeholders in a specific therapy area, product category or care setting, offering the ability to satisfy unmet needs with large patient bases.
Strategic medtech collaborations as the new norm
Strategic medtech collaborations and partnerships have become the new norm in our increasingly connected digital healthcare ecosystem. In response to heightened consumer demand for tech-enabled care, pharmaceutical and medtech companies are collaborating to use digital technologies to engage with consumers, unlocking a vast range of treatments such as personalized medicine. Additionally, as the market rapidly evolves towards data-driven healthcare, we expect medtech companies to continue to work collaboratively to address existing barriers to data sharing and promote interoperability of healthcare data.
Continued scrutiny by antitrust and competition authorities
As expected, global antitrust and competition authorities continued to focus on the tech, life sciences and medtech sectors in 2022. The US, UK and EU authorities have stepped up efforts to investigate and challenge conduct by large pharma and technology companies pursuing mergers and acquisitions. We expect these authorities to assess similar concerns in the digital health context in an effort to account for the value of combined datasets and the interoperability of various offerings that could be derived from digital health mergers and acquisitions. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions have resulted in new and expanded foreign investment regimes to improve the resilience of domestic healthcare systems. Notably this year, the UK government implemented the National Security and Investment Act that allows it to restrict transactions that may threaten national security, including in the AI and data infrastructure sectors. Sensitive data continues to be a recurring theme for foreign investment review for Committee on Foreign Investment in the US and that of the EU as well.
Growing importance of data privacy and security
Increasing regulatory attention to sensitive health data and the escalating rise of ransomware attacks has made data privacy and security more important than ever for medtech innovators. The Federal Trade Commission has issued several statements about its willingness to “fully” enforce the law against the illegal use and sharing of highly sensitive data. Additionally, several state privacy laws coming into effect in 2023 create new categories of sensitive personal data, including health data, and impose novel obligations on innovators to obtain data-related consents. As ransomware continues to pose security-related threats, the US Department of Health and Human Services renewed calls for all covered entities and business associates to prioritize cybersecurity. New standards, such as cybersecurity label rating programs for connected devices, aim to address security risks. In the EU, medtech providers will need to consider how the launch of the European Health Data Space and newly proposed data regulation, such as the Data Act and AI Act, could impact their data use and sharing practices.
More active engagement with FDA/EMA/MHRA
We expect companies active in the medtech sector, particularly those that make use of AI and other advanced technologies, to continue their conversations with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and other regulators as such companies grow their medtech business lines and establish their associated regulatory compliance infrastructure. Given the unique regulatory issues arising from the implementation of digital health technologies, we expect the FDA, EMA and MHRA to provide additional guidance on AI/ML-based software-as-a-medical device and the remote management of clinical trials. 2022 saw stakeholders in the life sciences and medtech industries collaborate with regulatory authorities to push forward the acceptance of digital endpoints that rely on sensor-generated data collected outside of a clinical setting. As the industry shifts to decentralized clinical trials, we expect both innovators and regulators to work together to evaluate the associated clinical, privacy and safety risks in the development and use of such digital endpoints.
Increasing medtech localization in the Asia Pacific region
2022 saw multinational companies (“MNCs”), including American pharma/device makers make an active effort to expand their medtech business lines in the Asia Pacific region. At the same time, government authorities in the region have been increasingly focused on incentivizing local innovation, approving government grants and prohibiting the importation of non-approved medical equipment. In light of MNCs’ market share of the medical device market in the Asia Pacific region, especially in China, we expect the emergence of the domestic medtech industry to prompt discussions among MNCs, local innovators and government authorities over the long-term development of the global market for medical technology.
Long-term adoption of telehealth and remote patient monitoring technologies
The Covid-19 pandemic saw the rise of telehealth and remote patient monitoring technologies as key modes of healthcare delivery. The telehealth industry remains focused on enabling remote consultations and long-term patient management for patients with chronic conditions. Looking forward, we expect to see increased innovation in non-invasive technologies that can provide early diagnostics and ongoing disease management in a low-friction manner. At the same time, we anticipate telehealth companies to face increasing scrutiny from regulatory authorities around the world for fraud and abuse by patients and providers. Consumer and patient data privacy and security in connection with telehealth and remote patient monitoring continue to remain top of mind for regulators as well.
Women’s health and privacy concerns for medtech
We expect to see increased consumer health tech adoption for reproductive care, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Following the Dobbs decision, a number of states introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or restricts access to reproductive health services beyond abortion. In response, women’s health-focused companies are expanding their virtual fertility and pregnancy, telemedicine and other services to patients. At the same time, such companies need to assess the legal risks stemming from the collection and storage of their customers’ personal health information, which could then be used as evidence to prosecute customers for obtaining illegal reproductive health services. We expect companies active in this space to take steps to navigate the patchwork of data privacy and security laws across jurisdictions while establishing clear digital health governance mechanisms to safeguard their customers’ data privacy and security.
Addressing inequities in the implementation of digital healthcare technologies
Medtech innovators and regulators have been increasingly focused on addressing inequities in the healthcare system and the data used to train AI and ML-based digital healthcare technologies. In 2022, a number of medtech companies collaborated to provide technologies that result in improved patient outcomes across all populations, as well as boost participation of diverse populations in clinical trials. In parallel, we are seeing increased interest from regulators to reduce bias in digital health technologies and the accompanying datasets, as evidenced by the EU’s proposed AI Act and the UK’s health data strategy. In the US, which currently lacks comprehensive government regulation of AI in healthcare, there have been increasing calls for institutional commitments in the area of algorithmovigilance. Because of the inaccurate conclusions that may result from biased technologies and data, MedTech companies must prioritize health equity in the implementation of digital healthcare technologies so that everyone can benefit from the latest scientific advances.
In conclusion, the medtech industry has remained resilient amidst the challenging macroeconomic environment. We expect 2023 to be a pivotal year for the industry, as the accelerated acceptance of virtual care and demographic trends, such as an aging population, increasing chronic illnesses and healthcare worker shortages, sustain demand for medtech-enabled solutions. At the same time, the rapidly changing legal and regulatory landscape will continue to be a key issue for medtech innovators moving forward. Adopting a global, forward-thinking regulatory compliance strategy can help MedTech companies stay competitive and ultimately, achieve better outcomes for patients.
Telemedicine is supposed to make consumers’ lives easier, right? One of us had the opposite experience when managing a sick kid this week. My 14-year-old has been sick with a bad respiratory illness for over a week. We saw her pediatrician in-person, testing negative for COVID (multiple times), flu, and strep. Over the week, her symptoms worsened, and rather than haul her back to the doctor, we decided to give our health plan’s telemedicine service a try. To the plan’s credit, the video visit was easy to schedule, and we were connected to a doctor within minutes. He agreed that symptoms and timeline warranted an antibiotic, and said he was sending the prescription to our pharmacy as we wrapped up the call.
Here’s where the challenges began. We went to our usual CVS a few hours later, and they had no record of the prescription. (Note to telemedicine users: write down the name of your provider. The pharmacy asked to search for the script by the doctor’s name, which I didn’t remember—and holding up the line of a dozen other customers to fumble with the app seemed like the wrong call.)
We left and contacted the telemedicine service to see if the prescription had been transmitted, and after a half hour on hold, were finally transferred to pharmacy support. It turns out that the telemedicine service transmits their prescriptions via “e-fax”, so it was difficult to confirm if the pharmacy had received it. Not to be confused with e-prescribing, e-fax is literally an emailed image of a prescription, with none of the safeguards and communication capabilities of true electronic prescribing.
The helpful service representative kindly offered to call the pharmacy and placed us on hold—only to get a message that the pharmacy was closed for lunch and not accepting calls! Several hours later, which included being on hold for 75 minutes (!!!) with our CVS, my daughter finally got her medication.
Despite the slick app and teleconferencing system, the operations behind the virtual visit still relied on the very analog processes of phone trees and faxes—which created a level of irritation that rivaled trying to land Taylor Swift tickets for the same kid. It was a stark reminder of how far healthcare has to go to deliver a truly digital, consumer-centered experience.
After COVID restrictions introduced millions of Americans to telehealth, it became an open question whether virtual care would revolutionize healthcare delivery, or turn out to be a flash in the pan. Using commercial claims data from Fair Health, the graphic above reveals that roughly one in twenty commercial medical claims are now for virtual care, a rate that has held fairly steady since dropping from its early pandemic peak. (These use rates likely extend to Medicare, as a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis showed that the virtual share of outpatient visits barely differed between those younger and older than 65.)
What could be considered a true revolution is virtual care’s impact on behavioral healthcare,which makes up nearly two-thirds of overall virtual care volume. According to Zocdoc, an online marketplace booking both in-person and virtual care services, 85 percent of psychiatric appointments booked in the first half of 2022 were for virtual care, dwarfing the virtual visit levels of the other top specialties.
Meanwhile, consumers have incorporated virtual care into their lives as a useful option, though not as the sole way they access care. A recent survey found that a near-majority of consumers have accessed care both virtually and in-person, far more than the number who rely exclusively on one channel or the other. The pandemic changed consumers’ baseline expectation of what care could be delivered at home. The ability to deliver accessible, efficient virtual visits and connect that care to in-person care delivery will be a competitive advantage in the “hybrid” care environment sought by many consumers.
As companies navigate having both in-office and at-home workers, the role of the traditional office is being reconsidered.
Having less people in an office every day could mean cutting space, but those spaces need to better suit the workforce of today, executives say.
How that experience evolves could be the difference between workers coming back to the office smoothly or leaving their jobs.
As companies and workers continue to try to figure out where and how work will take place in a hybrid environment, the costs being spent on existing office spaces previously built around the 9-to-5, five-day workweek are being closely examined.
Flexibility has become the buzzword for both sides of the employee-employer power dynamic. Workers have been leveraging the empowerment gains they’ve made amid the pandemic and a tight labor market to maintain the personal time that has come with working from home. Companies, many fearful of eroding culture that could increase turnover as well as stifling innovation by having a mostly remote workforce, have tried to meet workers somewhere in the middle by gently prodding, not pushing, workers back to the office.
The question becomes then, how does that impact budgeting and spending on typically costly workspaces when a large portion of your workforce won’t be there every day, if it all? Is there an opportunity to cut costs, or do those spaces now require additional investment to try to draw workers who are at home back into the office?
Scott Dussault, the CFO of HR tech company Workhuman and himself a pandemic-era hire, is seeing the change firsthand.
“I always quote Larry Fink’s [2022] letter [to CEOs] where he said no relationship has been changed more by the pandemic than the one between employer and employee; that’s never going to change and we’re never going back,” Dussault, a member of the CNBC CFO Council, said. “The concept of 9-to-5 in the office five days a week is gone – the keyword is going to be flexibility.”
For many companies that means retrofitting offices to meet this new normal and employee demands, while also investing in other tools to make sure connections are still being made efficiently – efforts that could mean spending more money even if square footage or leases are adjusted.
“I’m not so sure it’s going to be a cost negative,” Dussault said. “I’m not sure if people are going to take less real estate; they’re just going to change the way that real estate works.”
Workhuman is currently coming towards the end of its lease in its Boston-area headquarters, and Dussault said the company is considering expanding its space, which would provide a “clean slate” to adjust to this new working environment.
He recalled his time at a job in the 1990s where it was a “football field of cubicles” – the kind of situation where you could “go to work and sit in a cube all day and never interact with anybody – you truly could lose that connection.”
Dussault said he sees the office becoming what he calls a “collaboration destination,” part of a hybrid environment where while you might work from home on days where you’re catching up on work or emails, the office can serve as a space that is “all about connection.”
“You’re going to see a lot more open spaces, collaboration spaces, conference rooms, meeting rooms, break areas where people can sit and get together,” he said. “It’s going be focused on connection which I think frankly is positive and it is evolution – it’s going to be about making those connections more meaningful.”
That would mean investing more in things like a gym, where employees could take a physical break, or other spaces that would provide a place to take an emotional break or meditate, Dussault said, something he said results in costs shifting “from one bucket to another.”
“We need to understand and recognize that when employees are home and productive, they have those things, and we need to try to make sure that those things exist in the office as well,” he said.
That also puts a further onus on the investment in digital tools, because there still needs to be ways for workers to connect with peers even when they’re not in person.
“Companies always talk about how important employees are and how employees are the most important investment – they haven’t always acted that way,” he said. “This is a good thing that’s come out of the pandemic.”
Neal Narayani, chief people officer at fintech company Brex, noted that in 2019 the company had people coming into offices five days a week in San Francisco, New York, Vancouver, and Salt Lake City. At that time, “nobody worked from home, because it was seen as a negative,” Narayani said. But as the pandemic forced employees to work from home, where they successfully took on several large projects, that view shifted.
“We recognized very quickly that we were able to actually work more productively and faster, and that video collaboration is a very productive tool when you don’t have to commute somewhere to search the office for a conference room,” he said.
With a belief that a remote-first approach was the future of work, Brex leaned in. Of the company’s more than 1,200 employees, 45% are fully remote. The company still maintains those four office location hubs where workers can go if they want, but the company has altered its approach so that every process is designed for remote workers.
That also changed the thinking that went into those spaces as Brex planned out its growth.
“When you unwind the real estate costs, we were able to look at how many people would come into an office if we were to make it fully optional, and it was about 10%,” Narayani said. “So, we were able to move into a 10%, maybe even less, real estate option, and then take the rest of those dollars and repurpose that towards travel, towards talent development, towards diversity and inclusion efforts, and towards anything else that makes the employee experience better.”
“It turns out to be a much better experience for us because that real estate cost was very high, and those markets are very expensive,” he added.
Roughly a third of the cost of the company’s previous real estate strategy has been put into the company’s new off-site strategy, Narayani said, with other portions of that being used to pay for the four office spaces and other co-working spaces.
Larry Gadea, CEO of workplace technology company Envoy, said that he thinks many companies are looking at ways they can reduce costs right now, with office space spending as one area potentially ripe for cuts.
However, Gadea warns that “people need to be together with each other, they need to know each other.”
“They need to have a sense of purpose that’s unified, and you need to bring people together for that,” he said. “How are you going to bring people together when they’re all around the country? I think that there is a substantial amount of people thinking they’re going to be saving money on real estate, but United and other airlines and Hilton and other hotels are getting it instead.”
Gadea said that as companies try to manage a tight labor environment as well as other market challenges, more time needs to be spent on “thinking about how to bring teams together.”
“The number one reason that most people stick with a company is that they love the people they work with,” he said. “It can be a lot harder to love those people if you don’t ever see them because they turned off their video on Zoom or if they don’t even know them at all.”
HENRY KOTULA 