Poster Session 4
Category: Digital Health Technologies (DHT)
Poster Session 4
Madeline F. Perry, MD
MFM Fellow
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Kristan A. Scott, MD
Neonatologist
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Diana Montoya-Williams, MD, MSPH (she/her/hers)
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Neonatologist
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Sindhu K. Srinivas, MD, MSCE (she/her/hers)
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology/Maternal Fetal Medicine
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, Pregnancy & Perinatal Research Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Scott A. Lorch, MD, MSCE
Professor of Pediatrics, Neonatologist
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
David Grande, MD, MPPA
Professor of Medicine
Perelman School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
The US has significant disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality. In response to this crisis, there has been public and private investment in maternal health. While venture capital (VC) investing in pregnancy health can drive innovation, limited research exists. We aim to describe VC-backed pregnancy health startups and assess how they address recognized problems in maternal health.
Study Design:
This was a content analysis of VC-backed pregnancy health startups. Included companies were founded between 1/1/2014-12/31/2022, headquartered in the US and directly related to pregnancy health. We used financial databases Pitchbook and Crunchbase to identify startups and obtain descriptive characteristics. Dual-coder content analysis was performed using company websites to assess business model, mention of health equity and maternal mortality, acceptance of insurance and/or Medicaid, and healthcare category. Kappa for content analysis ranged from 0.67-0.94 (median 0.82), demonstrating strong agreement.
Results:
172 companies were identified. During the study period, $1.8 billion was raised for VC-backed pregnancy health startups. Annually, there was a 63% increase in startups founded, with the greatest annual increase among virtual and hybrid wrap around care companies (Figure). We identified 8 healthcare categories for pregnancy health startups (Table). The content analysis further demonstrated: 1) few companies had any focus on health equity or maternal mortality, 2) 65% of companies advertised directly to consumers, 3) 42% of companies providing goods/services typically covered by insurance were covered by Medicaid. Virtual/hybrid wrap around care was the most common type of company (35%), but had below average total capital raised (Table).
Conclusion:
VC backed startups are filling gaps in pregnancy care delivery – rather than pharmaceuticals and devices as is most common in VC. Startups have the potential to address the maternal health crisis and contribute needed innovation, but few focus on low-income populations or health equity. Importantly, rigorous evaluation of startup outcomes is needed.