Nihit Gurram on the Pilot-to-Scale Gap: Why Promising Health Startups Stall After the Demo

Contributed content: this article was written by a third-party contributor and does not necessarily reflect the views of ABC Money. Editorial and Advertising Policy

The founder of Mosaic Health Solutions spends part of his week on the other side of the table. He argues the healthcare companies that die are usually not the ones with weak technology.

There is a specific kind of failure that recurs in healthcare technology, and Nihit Gurram has now watched it from both sides. As founder of Mosaic Health Solutions, he is building clinical decision support for medication safety in older adults. As an investment intern with Chaanakya Capital, he sits in on the diligence conversations where other founders’ companies get evaluated. The pattern he keeps seeing is not a technology problem.

“The company that dies is rarely the one with the worse model,” he says. “It is the one that ran a beautiful pilot and could not explain what happens next. Everybody is impressed, nobody expands, and eighteen months later the champion who sponsored it has changed jobs. That is the whole story more often than anyone wants to admit.”

A Demo Is Not a Deployment

Gurram argues the pilot-to-scale gap exists because a pilot and a deployment measure different things. A pilot answers whether a tool can work under favorable conditions: a motivated site, an engaged champion, a narrow patient population, and a vendor team paying close attention. A deployment answers whether the tool survives a normal Tuesday, in a workflow nobody redesigned for it, in front of a clinician who did not volunteer.

“Pilots select for enthusiasm,” he says. “Scale selects for indifference. The question is not whether your best user loves the product. It is whether your least interested user still opens it on the day they are running forty minutes behind. Almost nothing that works in the first case survives the second without being redesigned for it.”

That gap, in his view, is where a specialist investor’s attention should sit. Generalist diligence tends to concentrate on the model, the team, and the size of the market. Healthcare-focused diligence has to ask a harder set of questions earlier, and Gurram lists four: what the regulatory posture actually is, what the reimbursement path looks like, who signs and who uses, and what evidence the company plans to generate to justify renewal.

Who Buys Is Not Who Uses

The distinction Gurram returns to most often is between the buyer and the user, because healthcare separates them more sharply than almost any other market. The person who signs the contract is measured on cost, risk, and system performance. The person who has to open the tool is measured on getting through a full schedule. A product that satisfies only one of them has a ceiling that no amount of capital moves.

“You can win the buyer with an outcomes story and still lose the clinic,” he says. “If the tool costs a clinician thirty extra seconds per patient and gives back nothing they can feel, it gets abandoned quietly. Nobody sends an email. Usage just drifts to zero, and it shows up in the renewal conversation a year later as a surprise. It was never a surprise.”

This is why he treats adoption metrics as leading indicators rather than reporting details. Retention inside a single site, in his framing, tells an investor more about durability than the headline accuracy of the underlying model.

Where Deal Flow Actually Comes From

Gurram is equally direct about sourcing. The healthcare companies worth backing early, he argues, rarely arrive through an inbound form. They come out of clinical networks, academic spinouts, accelerator cohorts, and operator referrals, which is to say they come from people already embedded in the environment the company intends to sell into.

“Proprietary sourcing in healthcare is not a networking flex,” he says. “It is a diligence advantage. If you found the company through a clinician who has been complaining about that exact problem for four years, you already know the problem is real and you already have someone who will tell you the truth about the product. Inbound gives you neither.”

The Operator Half of the Job

What draws Gurram toward the operating-partner side of investing is that healthcare companies tend to need help with execution rather than capital alone. The failure modes he watches for, stalled pilots, unclear evidence plans, adoption that never compounds, are operational problems, and he argues they are addressed by working alongside a company rather than by writing a larger check.

“Capital does not fix a workflow problem,” he says. “It just funds a longer version of it. The value you add post-investment in this sector is usually unglamorous. Help them sequence the evidence. Help them figure out who actually signs. Help them stop treating a pilot as a finish line.”

Why He Wants Both Seats

Gurram is candid that the two roles inform each other, and that this is the point. Building a product taught him how far a good demo is from a durable deployment. Sitting on the diligence side taught him how consistently that distance goes unpriced. He is preparing to begin medical training as well, a third vantage point he expects to sharpen the same instinct from the clinical end.

“I want to understand healthcare from every altitude,” he says. “How capital moves toward an idea, how a buyer decides, how a clinician actually behaves at four in the afternoon, and how a patient experiences the result. Those are not four separate subjects. They are the same system, and most of the expensive mistakes happen because somebody only had one view of it.”