If this device is so good, why isn't anyone already using it? Now, this is one of the most dangerous questions a MedTech founder can hear from an investor, and in this episode, you'll learn how to answer it in a way that builds confidence rather than accidentally killing the room. Welcome to Clinician to CEO, the podcast helping clinicians simplify your go-to-market strategy so that you can stop guessing and turn your working prototypes into international MedTech businesses. I'm your host, Hakeem Aade. Let's get started. So at the end of the last episode, I gave you a decision scenario. You're pitching investors, you're explaining the product. You're talking about the opportunity, you're showing the clinical impact. Then one of them stops you and he says, just a minute. If this device is so good, why isn't anyone already using it? Now this is a brilliant question. Not because the investor is trying to be awkward, although sometimes they are obviously, and not because they've suddenly become a clinician, because trust me, they haven't. But it's a brilliant question because hidden inside it is the real. Commercial issue. They're not just asking whether the product works, they're asking whether the market is ready, whether hospitals will adopt it, whether the evidence is strong enough, and whether the business can actually scale. In other words, they're asking, is this a product problem or is this an adoption problem? And if you answer badly, you can make a good business. Sound weak. So let's get back to the options that I gave you in the last episode. The question was, do you say, A, we're still gathering more data before the hospitals adopt it, or do you say, B? The clinical and economic proof isn't strong enough yet? C. We're currently running studies to generate the evidence hospitals need, or D. We identified the evidence gap early and we are running targeted studies to close it. The best answer is D. We identified the evidence gap early and we're running targeted studies to close it. That's the best answer because it does three things at once. Firstly, it shows awareness. Secondly, it shows leadership. Thirdly, it shows that you have a plan. And then obviously you have to demonstrate that you've got the plan. Of course. And those three things matter because investors are not expecting perfection. They know that early stage med tech companies do not always have mass adoption on day one. That would be lovely, obviously. But this is healthcare and it's not just another launch of your favorite trainers or sneakers. What they do expect is that you understand the gap between a good product and real adoption. They want you to understand what's blocking that adoption and that you're closing that gap intentionally. That's why D is so strong. It tells them we know what the issue is. We spotted it early. We are not being reactive. We are running the right studies for the right reasons. That sound investible. Now let's look at why the other answers fall short. Option A was we're still gathering more data before the hospitals adopt it. Now that sounds passive. It sounds like you are waiting, it sounds like you're hoping for something. It sounds like the plan is basically, let's get some more data and then maybe some magic is gonna happen. The problem with this with a it's not that it's completely wrong, the problem is that it makes you sound as though the market is happening to you rather than being driven by you. And that is a killer in an investor conversation because investors, back teams to create momentum, not teams that stand next to the evidence machine waiting for it to. Then we move on to option B. The clinical and economic proof isn't strong enough yet. Now this may well be true. In fact, it may be brutally true, but saying it in this manner is like turning up to a job interview and then saying to the interviewer, well, to be honest, I'm not really ready for this opportunity, but thank for seeing me anyway. You're naming the problem, but you're not framing it properly. There's no control in that answer. There's no strategy. There's no sign that you know how to close that gap. So why would they be interested? It just leaves the investor with a loose, very unpleasant thought running through their mind. Right. Okay. So the evidence isn't good enough yet. Great. So why on earth I here the truth obviously matters, but raw truth without commercial framing is just self-sabotage dressed up as something else. So the answer is definitely not Option B. Let's have a look at option C. We are currently running studies to generate the evidence hospitals need. Now, this is definitely better because it's at least an active answer. It shows movement, it shows that you're doing something, but it's still a bit generic and a bit too generic for me because it says that you're running studies, but it does not say why those studies are being chosen. It doesn't say how deliberate the process is or that you really understand the adoption pathway. So see is decent. But D is definitely stronger because D adds that missing ingredient. It adds in intentionality because we identified the evidence gap early and we are running targeted studies to close it. It is that word that targeted that matters because now you're not just collecting evidence, you're collecting the right evidence, and that's the difference between a founder who understands healthcare adoption and generating the specific evidence to drive it, versus one who's producing lots of studies and papers with no clear commercial purpose. Hospitals do not adopt products because founders are passionate. They don't adopt products because the device looks clever. They don't adopt products because your slide deck. Says transformational in size 28 font. They adopt products. When the clinical case is clear, the economic case is believable and the operational case makes sense. So when you say that you identified the evidence gap early and are running targeted studies to close it, what you're actually telling the investor is, we know adoption is evidence led. We know what kind of proof matters, and we're building that proof on purpose, and we understand that reimbursement workflow and buying decisions all sit downstream of achieving those things. That's now a serious answer. And the real lesson. If bigger than one investor question, too many MedTech founders think the goal is to prove the product works. That's not enough. You need to prove that the product can get used repeatedly, safely, economically, and in the real world because a device that works in theory but does not get adopted is not really a commercial product yet. It's a promising object. And sadly, healthcare is littered with promising objects, and that's why this matters so much. So if an investor asks, why isn't anyone using it already? They're not asking for a defensive answer. They're actually looking to see whether you understand the difference between product validation and adoption validation. Those two are not the same thing. A founder who does not know the difference sounds naive. A founder who does know it sounds fundable. And actually as a little bonus, if you want an even more polished version of D. Here's how I would say it. If I was in the room, i'll say something like, well, we identified early that adoption would depend on stronger clinical and economic evidence. We're running targeted studies now to generate exactly what hospitals need to say yes. Now that works because it connects the dots, not just the evidence, not just activity, but evidence tied to adoption, and that is what good investors want to hear. So what does that mean for you if you are a clinical founder, an early stage med tech, CEO, or part of a team trying to get a medical device into hospitals. Here is the decision rule that you have to remember. Do not just gather more evidence, gather the evidence that remove the next adoption barrier. Now, that barrier can be a multitude of things. It might be clinical confidence, it might be workflow, it may be health, economic value. It may be reimbursement justification or buyer confidence. But wherever it is, be specific because vague evidence creates vague progress. And vague progress is where good products go to die. So three questions to ask yourself now before you do any more pitches to anybody, one. What exactly is stopping adoption right now? Not in theory, but in reality. Two. What evidence would reduce that risk for the next decision maker, whether that's a clinician, a value analysis committee, a procurement lead, or an investor? And three, are we running studies to answer the right questions? Or just studies that make us feel busy and that third one will sting a bit. I know. Because you have to be brutally honest with yourself. But it matters because I've seen plenty of MedTech companies do lots of work, spend lots of money, and generate a truckload of data only to realize they did not produce the evidence the market actually needed. And that's not strategy. That is just a very, very expensive exercise. So here is the final takeaway. When an investor asks you if this device is so good, why isn't anyone already using it? Do not sound defensive. Do not sound vague and definitely don't sound surprised by the question. Show them that you really understand the adoption gap and that you're closing it deliberately because in MedTech, the companies that win are not the ones with the loudest claims. They're the ones that know exactly what proof the market actually needs next, and then they go and get it. And if you're building a MedTech business and you're not sure whether your next move should be around evidence, market access, commercialization, distributor strategy, or adoption. Don't guess. Booker Healthcare export accelerated diagnostic Call with me. Use the link in the show notes and in that session I'll help you identify the specific constraints blocking your momentum and the commercial move, most likely to unlock your progress. Until next time. If it doesn't Get used, it doesn't matter. So thanks for listening. Keep challenging your assumptions and keep growing.