Congratulations to Diathrive Health for achieving validation from the Validation Institute (VI). That itself comes with a $50,000 Credibility Guarantee.

In rare cases of VI-validated organizations – such as Virta Health or Sera Prognostics or Acacia Clinics – I add my own “Best in Show” guarantee and offer a $100,000 reward for a successful challenge.

Any diabetes vendor mentioned in the Peterson Health Technology Institute report (other than Virta, which “won” in that report for its diet/coaching offering, which is not at all competitive with Diathrive) can challenge my statement that Diathrive has better and more validly measured savings than they do on the cost of supplies from a vendor that also incliudes coaching support.

Rosencare, based on the industry-leading results at Rosen Hotels, has achieved excellent results overall with Diathrive, but the specific cash-on-cash savings that are guaranteed would be actual diabetic supply prices offered by a company that also provides coaching.

Here are the terms to earn the $100,000 reward.

Terms and Conditions of Challenge

Selection of Judges

There will be five judges, selected as follows:

• Each side gets to appoint one, drawn from members as of 4/17/24 of The Healthcare Hackers listserve with 1300 people on it, from all walks of healthcare.
• Two others are appointed objectively. That will be whichever health services researchers/health economists are the most influential at the time the reward is claimed. “Most influential” will be measured by a formula: the highest ratio of Twitter followers/Twitter following, with a minimum of 15,000 followers.
• Those four judges will agree on the fifth.

Using the criteria below, judging will be based on validity of the measurement. Measurements deemed invalid, such as those described on the Validation Institute site, are a disqualifying factor the challenger.

Written submissions

Each side submits up to 1000 words and five graphs, supported by as many as 10 links; the material linked must pre-date this posting to discourage either side from creating linked material specifically for this contest.

Publicly available materials from the lay media or blogs or the Validation Institute may be used, as well as from any academic journal that is not open-access.

Each party may separately cite previous invalidating mistakes made by the other party that might speak to the credibility of the other party. (There is no limit on those.)

If a challenger is “validated” by a third party whose alleged outcomes have been invalidated on this site in the past, those other invalidations may be presented to the judges to impeach the credibility of this alleged validation.

Oral arguments

The judges may rule solely on the basis of the written submissions. If not, the parties will convene online for a 2-hour recorded virtual presentation featuring 10-minute opening statements, in which as many as 10 slides are allowed. Time limits are:

• 30-minute cross-examinations with follow-up questions and no limitations on subject matter;
• 50 minutes in which judges control the agenda and may ask questions of either party based on either the oral or the written submissions;
• Five-minute closing statements.
  

  ---

Entry process

The entry process is:

1. Challenger and TheySaidWhat deposit into escrow the amount each is at risk for ($10k for the Challenger, and $100k for TheySaidWhat). Each party forwards $10,000 to the judges as well, as an estimate of their combined fees and/or contributions to their designated nonprofits.
2. If the Challenger or Service Provider pulls out after publicly announcing an application, the fee is three times the amount deposited.
3. The escrow is distributed to the winner and the judges’ fees paid by the winner are returned by the judges to the winner, while the judges keep the losers’ fees.