DTC – The Health Care Blog

Function Health has a 23andMe problem

Mar 25, 2026

By DEEKSHA HEGDE

I had an itch to draw parallels between the two. The structural facts kept lining up in ways I couldn’t dismiss, and by the end, I stopped trying.

Function’s product is an app: you pay $365 a year, go to a Quest Diagnostics location, get 160+ biomarkers tested twice a year, and receive clinician-written notes interpreting your results. The lab testing is fully outsourced. Function is the layer on top: panel design, member experience, clinician note generation, longitudinal tracking.

Function Health raised $298 million at a $2.5 billion valuation in November 2025. At 25x revenue, the market clearly isn’t buying a lab reseller. It’s buying the data flywheel: longitudinal biomarker histories that compound in clinical value over time, aggregated across hundreds of thousands of members into a dataset that health plans, pharma companies, and AI developers can’t build any other way. A member with four years of data can’t switch to a cheaper competitor without losing the trend. The unit economics work if the interpretation layer scales without proportionally scaling headcount, which is what the Medical Intelligence Lab, their generative AI model launched in November 2025, is built to do. Function is also building toward a B2B enterprise channel, positioning the product as a way to keep employees “healthy, focused, and ready to perform.”

It satisfies a burning need for specific personas: the worried well, the health optimizers, the people who saw their loved ones get diagnosed a little too late, the people who aren’t waiting for a diagnosis before they start paying attention. These are people the rest of the industry has mostly left alone. I wrote earlier this year, in a piece on Hinge Health, about the prevention paradox: the employer ROI model is structurally blind to the member who benefits most from early intervention. Function skips the employer ROI story entirely, charges the member directly, and doesn’t try to prove a CFO case it can’t make. Yet.

Health in 2 point 00, Episode 24

May 16, 2018

In this edition of Health in 2 point 00, Jessica DaMassa asks me about enterprise sales (Qventus, Medicity, Health Catalyst), DTC vs Enterprises as a market, the VA allowing nationwide telehealth,, and the TEAP & TEFCA frameworks (that last answer may have overran the 2 minutes a tad!) — Matthew Holt

The Drug Formulary Death Cage Match of Awesomeness

Aug 23, 2012• 10

By Rob Lamberts, MD

I got an unusual request last week. I had written a prescription of a generic medication (which has been generic for a couple of years) and the prescription was denied by the insurance carrier. The reason for denial: I had to try a brand-name medication first.

Stop. Read that again. They wouldn’t allow me to give a prescription for the (cheaper) generic drug because I had to try the brand-name medication first. This is opposite of the usual reason for denial, the availability of a cheaper alternative than the prescribed drug, and, to my knowledge, is the first time I have ever seen it upside-down like this, and I have been in the ring for the duration of the drug formulary death cage match of awesomeness. I’ve seen it all unfold.

Here is what happened.

I am not, like many physicians and patients, against the idea of cost-control through the use of drug formularies. Medications are very expensive (unnecessarily expensive, as I have discussed previously), and the previously strong influence of drug reps made many doctors quick to jump for the latest and greatest medication. I did this myself, during the first few years of practice – before the advent of drug formularies.

We were constantly detailed on new NSAID’s, antibiotics, cholesterol, and blood pressure pills. There was always a reason the latest drug was worth using over the old one (sounds a lot like fancy smart phones, doesn’t it?), and since insurance paid the same for brand drugs, I was often influenced by the drug reps.