Problems › Should We Enter a New Market? › HealthTech & Digital Health
Market attractiveness is the easy half. Right to win is the half that decides the outcome. This page works through it for digital health companies specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a digital health company.
Market attractiveness is the easy half. Right to win is the half that decides the outcome. For digital health companies, this shows up in a particular place. The numbers that carry the answer are at-risk revenue share and engagement rate, and the complication specific to this industry is that outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle. The general version of this problem and the one you are actually in have different first moves.
New markets get evaluated on size and growth, both of which are knowable and neither of which predicts success. The predictive question is what you already have that transfers — a customer relationship, a distribution route, a cost position, a body of data — and what has to be built from nothing.
A market can be highly attractive and a bad idea for you specifically. The reverse is also true: a dull market where you have a structural advantage will usually outperform an exciting one where you start level with everyone.
The other discipline is a stated kill criterion before entry, because market entries are unusually good at consuming budget quietly for years on the argument that they are nearly there.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The case rests mainly on market size and growth rate
✓ Nobody has written down what would make you stop
✓ The existing business is flat and the new market is being asked to fix it
The move that usually makes it worse. Entering because the core business has stalled, which takes management attention away from the problem that actually needs it.
It is for you if you run or finance a digital health company and the case rests mainly on market size and growth rate. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a digital health company. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Vantabridge Health, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $62M ARR, 340,000 enrolled members.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Quick Market Scan · sample company profile
The move. Convert 180 existing employer relationships into $11.7M incremental outcomes-contingent revenue by Month 24 without new-plan procurement.
The leak it closes. $6.5M device leakage reduced by shifting kit cost to employer opt-in, improving gross margin 7 points on employer cohort
The assumption it rests on. 180 employers accept outcomes-contingent terms at 45% at-risk share — the engine put the probability at 0.7.
| Investment required | $0.6–0.9M total (2 FTE employer specialists @ $180K fully loaded each × 18 months + $120K enablement tools) |
| Expected return | 13.0× on $0.9M investment ($11.7M incremental revenue by Month 24) |
| Revenue, year 1 | $3.9M incremental employer outcomes revenue |
| Revenue, year 2 | $11.7M cumulative incremental employer outcomes revenue |
| Revenue, year 3 | $18.5M cumulative if employer cohort grows 15% YoY |
| Exit criteria | Terminate move if employer conversion rate <25% by Month 12 OR if employer at-risk share demanded exceeds 50% OR if device-kit leakage reduction <10 points by Month 18. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Market Entry & Expansion Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For digital health companies it works through at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin and logo churn, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
List what you already own that the new market values, and what a credible incumbent there owns that you do not. If the second list is longer and includes anything structural — distribution, regulation, data depth — entry is a build, not an extension.
Set the number before you start, and treat exceeding it as the kill criterion rather than as a reason to invest more. Most failed entries were never killed, only slowly starved.
Whichever reuses more of what you already have. Geography usually reuses the product and rebuilds distribution; a new segment usually reuses distribution and rebuilds the product. Whichever rebuild is smaller is the safer bet.
Materially, yes. Outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on at-risk revenue share and engagement rate. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.