3 Signs Your Medtech Idea Could be a Viable Business

Is Your Medtech Idea Worth It? 3 Signs Your Concept Has Real Potential

For medtech founders facing countless potential opportunities, it can often be difficult to know which ideas merit serious pursuit. Joanna's framework for separating viable commercial opportunities from academic exercises centers on three critical factors that successful device companies must satisfy before committing significant resources.

"I think the voice of the clinician is everything," Joanna explains. This principle guided her decision to join Prana and has shaped how she evaluates opportunities throughout her career.

1. Clinical Urgency Without Convincing

The strongest signal for a viable medtech opportunity is physician interest that requires no persuasion. Joanna looks for clinical problems where doctors immediately recognize the value proposition without extensive education or convincing.

"If there isn't that clinical urgency or clinical interest that doesn't require convincing, then I would have pause about getting involved with something like that," she notes.

For Prana, this validation came from an unexpected source. When Joanna discussed the concept with a thoracic surgeon completely outside the project — someone unconnected to her cofounders — his response was immediate: "We had lightning in a bottle." That surgeon subsequently invested in the company.

The ultimate test of clinical urgency extends beyond advisory interest to financial commitment. Prana attracted half a dozen thoracic surgeons as angel investors in the early stages, demonstrating that physician enthusiasm translated into personal financial backing.

"To me, that signaled that KOL interest was really there and that we had something," Joanna reflects.

2. Asymmetry Between Value and Technical Risk

Almost every major device innovation requires significant investment in development, regulatory, and clinical. Joanna evaluates whether the clinical pain being solved justifies this inevitable burden.

"Is the amount of pain that we're solving way bigger than the amount of tech we're adding and the time it's going to take to bring that tech to market and the work it's going to take to get that tech paid for, cleared, and in physicians' hands?" she asks.

This calculation helps distinguish between ideas that are commercially viable and those that are better suited as academic research projects. Technologies that require extensive development timelines, complex regulatory pathways, or uncertain reimbursement scenarios must address proportionally larger clinical problems to justify the investment.

3. Market Timing and Readiness

Even clinically urgent problems with favorable risk-reward profiles can fail if the market isn't ready for a change. Joanna specifically chose lung cancer because the field was "ripe for transformation."

The introduction of lung cancer screening programs creates a tailwind for precision surgical solutions like Prana's platform. Earlier detection means smaller lesions that benefit from tissue-sparing approaches rather than traditional lobectomies.

"We're starting to screen for lung cancer for the first time. Finding nodules early and needing to meet patients where their disease state is and right-sizing intervention for them," Joanna explains.

This framework helps startup founders avoid the common trap of building sophisticated solutions for problems the market isn't yet ready to embrace, regardless of clinical merit.

How Non-Dilutive Capital Builds Investor Confidence (and Why Founders Overlook It)

Most medical device founders see funding as a binary choice: raise venture capital or bootstrap. Joanna’s approach challenges that mindset. By systematically combining grants, investor communication, and funding strategy, Prana has built compounding advantages that go far beyond just raising capital.

The company applied for grants quarterly — targeting sources like NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Texas's unique cancer technology programs — pausing only during its most execution-heavy periods. This wasn’t just about securing non-dilutive capital. It was about cultivating operational discipline and sending a strong signal to future investors.

"Early traction with non-dilutive capital is so attractive, and it gives you credibility and a little bit of a head start," Joanna explains. “It helped us continue to have that rigor of always expressing what we’re doing, always thinking about what’s 6-12 months ahead, and being able to tell investors we’re actively going after non-dilutive funding.”

This repeatable discipline has helped Prana raise approximately $4 million in grants to date — and it’s had a powerful psychological effect on venture investors. A visible track record of grant success signals execution ability and increases investor confidence that their dollars will be multiplied by alternative sources of capital.

For founders wary of the grant-writing lift, Joanna points to a shift: modern tools have lowered the barrier.

“Especially now with ChatGPT and all these LLMs, there’s no excuse not to submit something,” she says.  “I’m not saying you should use that to generate everything, but to take a page of bullets and turn that into something submittable — that’s totally doable.”

What truly differentiates Joanna is her ability to bridge the technical and financial worlds. Having sat on both sides of the funding table — as a founder and a former investor — she learned to translate across stakeholders and speak to what each one values most.

Understanding how venture funds operate — including portfolio construction, lifecycle stage, and partner preferences — enables her to tailor the pitch to the moment.

“If you’re pitching someone who’s eight years into their fund versus two years in, they’ll have very different risk appetites,” she notes. “Knowing that helps you meet them where they are — not just with your story, but with your ask.”