How Much Does It Cost to Launch Direct-to-Consumer Testing for an Existing Laboratory?

For an established clinical laboratory, launching direct-to-consumer testing can cost anywhere from a relatively contained platform implementation to a substantial multi-system software project.

The difference depends on what the laboratory already has, what it wants to own, and how much of the consumer operating layer it needs to build.

A laboratory that already operates the testing infrastructure, LIS/LIMS, staff, quality systems, and collection network is in a fundamentally different position from a company attempting to build a new laboratory business from zero.

For the existing laboratory, the primary investment is usually not the testing operation itself.

It is everything required to turn that operation into a functioning consumer channel:

Commerce
→ Ordering
→ Payments
→ Patient identity
→ Provider authorization
→ Collection
→ LIS/LIMS integration
→ Workflow orchestration
→ Results
→ Support
→ Repeat engagement

The real question is therefore not:

How much does a DTC website cost?

It is:

How much does it cost to build and operate the consumer infrastructure around an existing laboratory?

The short answer

There is no universal market price because the scope varies dramatically.

But the cost structure can be divided into three categories:

1. Fixed launch costs

Typically including:

• strategy and workflow mapping;
• consumer experience;
• catalog configuration;
• platform implementation;
• LIS/LIMS integration;
• payment integration;
• collection configuration;
• provider-order workflows;
• results mapping;
• staging;
• QA;
• training;
• production deployment.

2. Fixed ongoing costs

Typically including:

• software/platform subscription;
• hosting and infrastructure;
• integration maintenance;
• security maintenance;
• support;
• ongoing product maintenance;
• internal personnel.

3. Variable costs per order

Potentially including:

• laboratory testing;
• specimen collection;
• physician or provider authorization;
• payment processing;
• shipping;
• collection-network fees;
• customer support;
• refunds and recollections;
• marketing/customer acquisition.

That distinction is critical.

A DTC program can be inexpensive to launch but economically poor to operate.

Or it can require a larger initial investment but have significantly better long-term unit economics.

A real platform-pricing benchmark

Solia Direct publicly prices its platform as:

• free synthetic Sandbox;
• Production plans beginning at $2,500/month, with included order volume and published order overages;
• optional custom services priced to the agreed scope.

Total first-year cost depends on the selected Production plan, billable Production-order volume, optional implementation, and separately scoped or third-party costs. (soliadirect.com)

Preferential implementation terms may be available for a limited number of qualified initial deployments; eligibility and terms are discussed directly.

For larger or more complex enterprise deployments, implementation and subscription are scoped per deployment rather than published as a fixed figure, with scope varying according to integration architecture, number of brands or markets, workflow complexity, and enterprise requirements. (soliadirect.com)

They should not be interpreted as an industry-wide average.

Many laboratory software vendors do not publish complete implementation and subscription pricing publicly, and final enterprise pricing often depends on integrations, transaction volumes, deployment scope, support requirements, and negotiated contracts.

The seven costs laboratories frequently underestimate

The platform license is only one part of the economics.

For most established laboratories, the largest surprises appear in seven areas.

1. Integration

Integration is often the most important technical cost in a DTC laboratory deployment.

The consumer system may need to exchange data with:

• LIS;
• LIMS;
• laboratory APIs;
• scheduling;
• collection systems;
• payment systems;
• identity systems;
• CRM;
• provider-order infrastructure;
• courier or logistics systems;
• results infrastructure.

The complexity depends less on the number of logos in the architecture diagram and more on the quality of the underlying systems.

An established laboratory with:

• modern APIs;
• stable HL7 interfaces;
• clearly structured test codes;
• reliable patient matching;
• documented workflows;

may be considerably easier to integrate than one operating legacy systems with undocumented interfaces and manual exception handling.

Integration cost is not simply “connecting the LIS”

A useful integration may need to handle:

Consumer order → patient demographics → authorization → requisition → accession → specimen state → result → amended result → consumer presentation

It also needs to answer:

• What happens when a message fails?
• What happens when a patient already exists?
• What happens when the specimen is rejected?
• What happens when an accession is manually changed?
• What happens when a result is amended?
• Which system is authoritative?

The cost is therefore partly technical and partly operational.

A laboratory should ask every vendor whether integration work is:

• included;
• partially included;
• priced per interface;
• custom scoped;
• maintained within subscription;
• separately charged after launch.

Solia Direct's standard implementation includes agreed integration and workflow configuration within scope, while new complex integrations and significant custom engineering may be priced separately. (soliadirect.com)

2. Collection

Collection can materially change DTC unit economics.

A laboratory may use:

• its own patient service centers;
• third-party draw centers;
• mobile phlebotomy;
• employer/workplace collection;
• home collection kits;
• partner networks;
• multiple models depending on geography.

Each has a different cost structure.

Laboratory-owned collection

If the laboratory already operates draw centers with available capacity, the incremental economics may be attractive.

But the true cost still includes:

• phlebotomist labor;
• supplies;
• facility overhead;
• scheduling;
• specimen handling;
• no-shows;
• recollections.

Third-party collection networks

A partner network can expand geographic reach without the laboratory building physical infrastructure.

The trade-off is a direct variable fee and reliance on another organization's service quality, availability, and workflow.

Mobile phlebotomy

Mobile collection can create a premium consumer experience, but it introduces:

• travel time;
• labor;
• scheduling density;
• geographic constraints;
• cancellations;
• courier/specimen handoff;
• potentially significant cost per successful collection.

This cost should not simply be absorbed without understanding the economics.

Possible models include:

consumer pays collection separately

or

collection is bundled into test price

or

membership/program economics subsidize collection

or

laboratory partially subsidizes collection to improve conversion.

The correct model depends on the laboratory's margins and customer strategy.

3. Provider authorization

Direct-to-consumer does not necessarily mean unrestricted consumer self-ordering.

Depending on the jurisdiction and test, the laboratory may need an order from an authorized person.

CMS notes that state law determines who is authorized to order laboratory tests and that some states restrict direct-access testing.

For a laboratory operating across multiple states, provider authorization can therefore become both:

• an operational workflow;
• a variable cost.

The laboratory may:

• use its own provider relationships;
• integrate an external provider network;
• use different ordering models according to state;
• limit geographic availability.

The important financial question is:

What does authorization cost per completed order, and what happens when an order cannot be authorized?

Do not model physician-order infrastructure as a generic fixed compliance expense.

It may behave like a transaction cost.

4. Payment processing

Consumer-paid testing introduces card-processing economics that may not exist in the laboratory's traditional referral business.

As one current benchmark, standard U.S. online card-processing economics is 2.9% + $0.30 per successful domestic card transaction, with additional fees potentially applying to international cards and currency conversion.

That means payment expense rises directly with order value.

For example, under that specific standard pricing:

Payment costs appear small compared with laboratory testing.

At volume, they are not insignificant.

A laboratory processing $1 million in consumer card revenue should understand the difference between:

revenue

and

revenue after payment costs, refunds, disputes, and failed transactions.

5. Consumer support and operational exceptions

Traditional laboratory workflows often depend heavily on provider offices, billing teams, accessioning staff, and other institutional channels.

DTC moves many questions directly to the laboratory.

Consumers may contact support about:

• which test to purchase;
• preparation;
• fasting;
• collection availability;
• missed appointments;
• order status;
• refunds;
• recollection;
• delayed results;
• account access;
• result availability;
• membership questions.

The laboratory needs to decide who owns that relationship.

Possible models include:

• existing laboratory customer service;
• dedicated consumer support;
• outsourced support;
• platform-assisted support;
• hybrid escalation.

Exception rate matters more than ticket volume alone

Suppose 1,000 orders generate only 50 support cases.

That may be manageable.

But if 100 of those orders require manual reconciliation between the storefront, collection partner, payment processor, and LIS, the operational cost is much larger even if no consumer ever opens a support ticket.

A mature DTC cost model should therefore measure:

cost per successful completed order

rather than simply:

cost per checkout.

6. Compliance, privacy, security, and legal review

An established laboratory already operates within a regulated environment.

A new consumer channel can nevertheless introduce additional questions around:

• ordering authority;
• state availability;
• patient consent;
• privacy;
• advertising;
• provider relationships;
• business associate relationships;
• patient identity;
• payment infrastructure;
• data flows;
• vendor contracts;
• cybersecurity;
• marketing claims.

CMS continues to administer CLIA requirements for laboratory testing, while state law can affect direct-access testing and ordering rules.

These costs are difficult to generalize responsibly.

A laboratory with mature compliance, privacy, and legal infrastructure may handle much of the work internally.

Another may require substantial outside counsel and compliance consulting.

The correct approach is to budget for the work rather than inventing a universal “compliance fee.”

7. Customer acquisition

Technology can launch the channel.

It does not automatically create demand.

This is one of the most important economic distinctions in DTC.

A laboratory may acquire consumers through:

• existing patient relationships;
• provider referrals;
• employer relationships;
• health-system partnerships;
• organic search;
• paid search;
• social advertising;
• affiliates;
• local market presence;
• email/CRM;
• partnerships;
• repeat testing.

The economics are radically different depending on the source.

A regional laboratory with a recognizable brand and existing patient traffic may enter DTC with a meaningful distribution advantage.

A laboratory attempting to build a national consumer brand from zero may spend considerably more on acquisition.

This is why DTC business cases should not assume:

build platform → customers appear.

Technology and distribution are separate investments.

Fixed costs versus variable costs

A useful DTC financial model should separate costs into two buckets.

Fixed costs

These exist regardless of whether the laboratory processes 100 or 10,000 consumer orders.

Examples:

• platform implementation;
• recurring platform subscription;
• certain integrations;
• core infrastructure;
• internal product/operational management;
• legal review;
• baseline support infrastructure.

Variable costs

These increase as order volume increases.

Examples:

• assay/testing cost;
• phlebotomy;
• collection-network fee;
• provider authorization;
• payment processing;
• shipping;
• consumables;
• incremental customer support;
• refunds;
• recollections;
• paid customer acquisition.

That distinction allows the laboratory to calculate contribution margin correctly.

The DTC unit-economics equation

At the order level:

Consumer revenue
minus
laboratory testing cost
minus
collection cost
minus
provider authorization
minus
payment processing
minus
shipping/logistics
minus
incremental support
minus
refund/recollection allowance
equals
Contribution before customer acquisition

Then:

Contribution before acquisition
minus
customer acquisition cost
equals
Contribution after acquisition

That number is far more important than gross revenue.

An illustrative DTC order

Consider a hypothetical test sold for:

$150

Assume, purely for illustration:

• testing and consumables: $40
• collection: $20
• provider authorization: $5
• customer-support/operational allowance: $5
• refund/recollection allowance: $5
• Standard U.S. card processing: approximately $4.65

That leaves:

$70.35 contribution before acquisition and fixed platform costs.

But the example demonstrates why retail price alone is not enough.

If customer acquisition costs $20:

Contribution after acquisition = $50.35

If customer acquisition costs $80:

Contribution after acquisition = -$9.65

Same test.

Same retail price.

Completely different business.

How many orders are required to cover the platform?

Once contribution margin is known, fixed-cost break-even becomes much easier to understand.

Using the illustrative $70.35 contribution before acquisition above:

A $30,000 annual platform subscription would require approximately:

427 completed orders per year

or approximately:

36 completed orders per month

to cover the subscription alone.

But that calculation excludes:

• implementation;
• acquisition;
• internal staff;
• legal/compliance work;
• additional integrations;
• other fixed costs.

If the laboratory wanted the same illustrative contribution to cover a $50,000 first-year platform investment, it would require approximately:

711 completed orders

before considering other fixed expenses.

Revenue is not ROI

A DTC program generating:

$1 million in annual consumer revenue

is not necessarily successful.

The more useful question is:

How much incremental contribution and strategic value did that $1 million create?

The program may have required:

• $400,000 in testing/collection;
• $200,000 in acquisition;
• $50,000 in technology;
• $100,000 in support and operations;
• additional staffing and overhead.

Or the same revenue may come from an existing patient base with low acquisition cost, laboratory-owned collection capacity, and strong margins.

Those are completely different businesses.

A better ROI formula

For an established laboratory:

Annual DTC contribution
Completed orders × contribution after variable cost and acquisition
minus
annual fixed DTC operating costs
equals
incremental operating contribution

Then compare that with:

initial implementation + integration + launch investment.

A simplified payback-period calculation is:

Initial investment ÷ monthly incremental operating contribution

The laboratory should model:

• conservative;
• base;
• upside;

scenarios rather than a single forecast.

Scenario planning: what would have to be true?

A useful DTC business case asks what assumptions must hold for the investment to work.

Conservative case

• consumer demand develops slowly;
• paid acquisition is expensive;
• repeat-testing rate is low;
• collection costs remain high;
• support requires significant manual intervention;
• initial catalog remains limited.

The DTC channel may take longer to recover its launch investment.

Base case

• existing laboratory relationships generate initial demand;
• paid and organic acquisition coexist;
• collection is operationally reliable;
• contribution margin is healthy;
• some consumers return for repeat testing;
• internal workflows become increasingly automated.

The channel becomes a meaningful incremental revenue source.

Upside case

• the laboratory has strong existing distribution;
• customer acquisition is efficient;
• available collection capacity keeps variable costs controlled;
• multiple panels have attractive margins;
• repeat-testing behavior develops;
• membership or structured programs improve retention;
• operational automation keeps service cost low.

In this scenario, the value of the platform extends beyond individual transactions because the laboratory begins building a durable consumer asset.

The purpose of scenario planning is not to produce optimistic projections.

It is to identify which assumptions have to be true before the laboratory commits capital.

Build vs. buy: the largest cost decision

For many laboratories, the single biggest technology decision is whether to:

• build the platform internally;
• assemble point solutions;
• deploy a dedicated DTC laboratory platform.

Each moves cost into a different part of the organization.

For a responsibility-by-responsibility view of these options, see the build vs. buy comparison.

Option 1: Build internally

A custom platform gives the laboratory maximum control.

But “build internally” should not be compared against SaaS as though internal software were free.

A credible consumer laboratory platform may require expertise across:

• software architecture;
• backend engineering;
• frontend engineering;
• product management;
• UX/UI;
• healthcare integrations;
• DevOps/infrastructure;
• identity and security;
• QA;
• analytics;
• payment systems;
• ongoing maintenance.

As a reference point, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median annual wage of $133,080 for software developers in May 2024, excluding the broader costs of benefits, management, recruiting, infrastructure, and the other roles needed to operate a production product organization.

One developer's salary therefore already exceeds the annual recurring cost of many specialized platform deployments.

That does not prove that buying software is always cheaper.

It demonstrates that the correct comparison is:

platform vendor cost
versus
total internal product organization cost.

Internal build makes sense when

• consumer technology is strategically core;
• the laboratory wants deep proprietary control;
• the organization already has strong engineering capability;
• integration infrastructure already exists;
• there is enough scale to justify permanent software ownership;
• leadership accepts ongoing product investment.

Internal build becomes risky when

• the project is treated as a one-time website;
• no long-term product owner exists;
• one developer becomes responsible for the entire system;
• compliance/security is bolted on later;
• LIS workflows are underestimated;
• maintenance funding disappears after launch.

The first version is rarely the expensive part.

Owning the system indefinitely is.

Option 2: Assemble point solutions

Another approach is to combine:

• ecommerce;
• payment processing;
• scheduling;
• telehealth/provider authorization;
• collection;
• patient portal;
• CRM;
• analytics;
• integration middleware.

This can lower the apparent cost of individual components.

But each additional vendor introduces another:

• contract;
• API;
• identity boundary;
• data store;
• support relationship;
• synchronization requirement;
• failure state.

The laboratory becomes the systems integrator.

The hidden cost is reconciliation

Suppose:

• ecommerce believes the order is paid;
• scheduling believes the patient completed collection;
• the collection partner marks the specimen delivered;
• the LIS never created the accession.

Which system identifies the failure?

Which employee fixes it?

Which consumer message is sent?

Who owns the audit trail?

This is why a collection of inexpensive SaaS products can become operationally expensive.

The correct economic comparison includes the labor required to keep the systems synchronized.

Option 3: Deploy a dedicated DTC laboratory platform

A dedicated platform centralizes more of the consumer lifecycle behind one operating architecture.

For example, Solia Direct is designed to connect:

Consumer Commerce
→ Scheduling & Collection
→ Patient Accounts
→ Workflow Orchestration
→ Results & Longitudinal Health
→ Intelligence
→ Admin & Operations

to the laboratory infrastructure already in place.

The economic model changes from:

fund and maintain the core product yourself

to:

pay implementation + ongoing platform cost + deployment-specific third-party costs.

Advantages

• lower internal engineering requirement;
• faster path to a complete operating model;
• reusable infrastructure;
• ongoing platform maintenance;
• less fragmentation;
• defined implementation process.

Trade-offs

• vendor dependency;
• subscription cost;
• platform constraints;
• custom functionality may cost extra;
• migration or contract-exit considerations;
• integration complexity still exists.

A dedicated platform does not eliminate cost.

It converts a substantial portion of unpredictable internal product-development cost into a more defined commercial relationship.

First-year cost versus long-term cost

Laboratories should evaluate at least three years, not just launch.

Consider these categories:

A low Year 1 price can be misleading if the architecture requires constant custom work later.

A higher implementation cost can also be wasteful if the laboratory launches features it does not need.

The objective is not to minimize initial spend.

It is to minimize:

Cost per successful, profitable consumer relationship.

What should be included in a platform implementation fee?

Before comparing proposals, laboratories should normalize scope.

An implementation fee may cover some or all of:

Discovery

• operating model;
• workflows;
• existing systems;
• catalog;
• collection;
• commercial goals;
• integration requirements.

Consumer experience

• branding;
• domain;
• navigation;
• catalog presentation;
• test pages;
• checkout;
• patient experience.

Commerce

• catalog configuration;
• test/panel mapping;
• pricing;
• promotions;
• payment workflow.

Collection

• locations;
• scheduling;
• mobile collection;
• network configuration;
• eligibility.

Integration

• LIS/LIMS;
• APIs;
• HL7/FHIR;
• result mapping;
• payments;
• scheduling;
• collection.

Operational tooling

• orders;
• customer records;
• catalog;
• pricing;
• result workflow;
• user permissions.

Launch

• staging;
• QA;
• workflow validation;
• training;
• domain deployment;
• production go-live.

Solia Direct publicly includes these categories within its implementation framework, with complex integrations and custom work subject to additional scope.

The important procurement question is therefore not:

What is your implementation fee?

It is:

What specifically is delivered for that implementation fee?

What should the monthly platform fee cover?

A recurring software fee should also have a defined purpose.

For Solia Direct, the current $2,500 standard subscription publicly includes continued operation of the production consumer platform, laboratory control plane, platform infrastructure, applicable shared-platform updates, routine maintenance, supported integration continuity, and platform support.

Other vendors may structure recurring charges differently.

Laboratories should determine whether subscription pricing includes:

• hosting;
• production infrastructure;
• platform updates;
• security maintenance;
• integration monitoring;
• customer support;
• administrative users;
• transaction volume;
• additional environments;
• analytics;
• new functionality.

Also identify what is not included.

That can matter more.

The third-party costs to isolate before signing

A platform proposal can look comprehensive while excluding meaningful operating costs.

Ask specifically about:

• payment processing;
• collection-network fees;
• mobile phlebotomy;
• laboratory testing;
• physician/provider authorization;
• shipping;
• SMS;
• email;
• identity verification;
• third-party software;
• API usage;
• additional interfaces;
• data migration;
• custom reporting;
• customer support.

Solia Direct, for example, explicitly identifies payment processing, testing, collection-network charges, shipping, third-party software, material communications usage, and external vendor fees as potential pass-through costs rather than implying they are included in the base subscription.

That transparency should be expected from any vendor.

What does a DTC launch cost if the laboratory already has most of the infrastructure?

This is where established laboratories have a structural advantage.

If the laboratory already has:

• CLIA-certified testing operations;
• LIS/LIMS;
• test catalog;
• clinical staff;
• quality systems;
• accessioning;
• result generation;
• existing collection capacity;
• billing/payment relationships;
• compliance infrastructure;
• brand recognition;

then the laboratory is not financing an entirely new diagnostics company.

It is financing a new distribution and operating layer around infrastructure that already exists.

That can materially improve the investment case.

The DTC platform is effectively attempting to unlock more value from existing assets.

When the cheapest approach is actually the most expensive

A $5,000 storefront can be more expensive than a $50,000 operating platform if it creates:

• manual order entry;
• manual patient matching;
• fragmented scheduling;
• failed requisitions;
• support burden;
• spreadsheet reconciliation;
• disconnected results;
• expensive engineering fixes;
• an eventual second rebuild.

Likewise, a $100,000 platform can be wasteful if the laboratory only needs a simple regional ordering workflow with a small catalog.

The correct architecture depends on the ambition.

Small DTC extension

If the goal is:

let existing local patients buy 10 tests online

the laboratory may need relatively little.

Strategic consumer channel

If the goal is:

build a branded multi-state consumer laboratory business with commerce, multiple collection models, structured results, repeat testing, memberships, analytics, and operational automation

the technology requirement is materially different.

Scope should match strategy.

Questions to answer before approving a DTC budget

A laboratory should be able to answer these questions before selecting a technology approach:

Commercial

• What will we sell?
• At what price?
• What is the expected contribution margin?
• Who is the target consumer?
• How will we acquire them?
• What repeat behavior do we expect?

Clinical and regulatory

• Who can initiate each order?
• Where can each test be offered?
• Which provider workflows are required?
• Which additional state requirements apply?

Collection

• Where will consumers be collected?
• Who pays for collection?
• What happens after a no-show?
• What is the recollection process?

Technology

• Which system owns patient identity?
• How does the order reach the LIS/LIMS?
• How do results return?
• What interfaces already exist?
• What needs custom engineering?

Operations

• Who handles customer support?
• Who resolves failed integrations?
• Who manages refunds?
• Who manages catalog/pricing?
• Who handles specimen exceptions?

Financial

• What are fixed costs?
• What are variable costs?
• What is contribution per order?
• What CAC can the business tolerate?
• How many completed orders produce break-even?
• What happens if volume is 50% below plan?

If the business case only works under the optimistic forecast, the business case is weak.

A practical budget framework

Rather than starting with an arbitrary number, build the DTC budget from the operating model.

One-time launch

Budget for:

• Platform implementation
• integration
• workflow configuration
• legal/compliance review
• launch content/configuration
• training
• contingency

Recurring fixed

Budget for:

• Platform/software
• internal operating ownership
• infrastructure not included in platform
• integration support
• compliance/security maintenance

Per-order

Model:

• Testing
• collection
• provider authorization
• payment
• shipping
• support
• refund/recollection allowance

Growth

Budget separately for:

• Customer acquisition
• partnerships
• organic content
• lifecycle/retention
• commercial team

Do not hide marketing inside technology ROI.

They solve different problems.

What would have to be true for Solia Direct to make financial sense?

Using Solia Direct's current public pricing, first-year platform cost depends on the selected Production plan, billable Production-order volume, optional implementation, and separately scoped or third-party costs.

For that investment to make sense, at least one of the following should be true:

• the laboratory expects enough profitable DTC volume to recover the investment;
• DTC creates strategically valuable new consumer relationships;
• the platform replaces meaningful manual operational cost;
• the laboratory would otherwise spend more building and maintaining comparable infrastructure;
• longitudinal engagement increases repeat-testing economics;
• the platform supports additional revenue channels beyond basic DTC;
• the consumer infrastructure strengthens the laboratory's competitive position.

The platform should not be purchased simply because DTC is fashionable.

There should be an identifiable economic or strategic return.

Frequently asked questions

How much does it cost to launch direct-to-consumer laboratory testing?

There is no universal figure. Costs depend on platform choice, integrations, ordering model, collection, payment processing, internal staffing, customer acquisition, and any separately scoped custom services. Solia Direct currently lists a free synthetic Sandbox and Production plans beginning at $2,500 per month with included order volume and published order overages. Enterprise, custom, and third-party costs depend on the applicable scope and agreement.

What is the ongoing cost of a DTC laboratory platform?

Ongoing cost may include platform subscription, hosting, integration maintenance, support, payment processing, collection, provider authorization, customer support, and acquisition. Some costs are fixed; others increase per order.

How much does a DTC lab website cost?

A website alone is not a useful benchmark for an established laboratory launching a real DTC operation. A functioning program may also need patient identity, ordering, payments, collection, requisitions, LIS/LIMS integration, workflow orchestration, secure results, exception handling, and operational administration.

Is it cheaper to build a DTC laboratory platform internally?

Not necessarily. Internal development avoids a core software-vendor subscription but requires the laboratory to fund engineering, product management, UX, infrastructure, integrations, security, QA, and continuing maintenance. The BLS reported a median annual wage of $133,080 for software developers in May 2024 before broader employment and organizational costs.

What are the biggest hidden costs of DTC laboratory testing?

Commonly underestimated costs include LIS/LIMS integration, collection, provider authorization, customer support, failed/rejected specimens, recollections, payment processing, compliance/legal review, and customer acquisition.

How should a laboratory calculate DTC ROI?

Start with contribution per completed order after testing, collection, provider authorization, payment processing, support, refunds/recollections, and acquisition. Then subtract annual fixed DTC costs. Compare the resulting incremental contribution against the initial implementation and integration investment.

Can an existing laboratory launch DTC more cheaply than a startup?

Potentially, yes. An established laboratory may already possess the expensive clinical infrastructure required for testing: laboratory systems, staff, quality processes, test catalog, collection capabilities, and result workflows. The primary incremental investment can therefore focus on the consumer and operational layer rather than creating the clinical laboratory itself.

The financial advantage established laboratories already have

Consumer-health companies entering diagnostics often need access to laboratory capacity.

Established laboratories already own or operate that capacity.

They already understand:

• specimens;
• testing;
• accessioning;
• laboratory quality;
• result generation;
• laboratory operations.

The DTC investment is therefore not primarily about recreating the laboratory.

It is about connecting that existing clinical capability to:

consumer discovery
→ commerce
→ collection
→ workflows
→ results
→ repeat engagement

in a way that is economically sustainable.

That distinction is the business case.

Where Solia Direct fits

Solia Direct provides a platform-based consumer operating layer for laboratories that want to launch DTC without building the entire software stack themselves.

Current standard pricing is:

• Platform: Production plans beginning at $2,500/month
• Usage: included monthly order volume with published plan overages
• Optional custom services: separately scoped

before material third-party costs, complex integrations, or custom engineering.

The implementation configures Solia Direct around the laboratory's:

• brand;
• domain;
• catalog;
• pricing;
• consumer experience;
• collection model;
• workflows;
• integrations;
• results.

The ongoing platform operates the reusable infrastructure underneath:

Consumer Commerce
→ Scheduling & Collection
→ Patient Accounts
→ Workflow Orchestration
→ Results & Longitudinal Health
→ Intelligence
→ Admin & Operations.

For laboratories evaluating the economics, the next step should not be a generic software demo.

It should be mapping:

your catalog + your systems + your collection model + your expected economics

against the deployment required to operate them.

Sources and references

1. Solia Direct — Pricing. Current public implementation, subscription, enterprise scoping, first-year investment, implementation scope, ongoing platform scope, and third-party cost structure.
2. Solia Direct — Platform. Public architecture for consumer commerce, scheduling and collection, patient accounts, workflow orchestration, results and longitudinal health, intelligence, administration, and LIS/LIMS integration.
3. Solia Direct — Payments Integration. Public documentation of consumer payment orchestration, transaction status, refunds, collection fees, and laboratory/payment system boundaries.
4. Standard Online Card Payments Pricing. Current standard U.S. online card pricing used for the illustrative payment-processing examples in this guide.
5. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Software Developers. National software-developer compensation data referenced when discussing the economics of internal software development.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Current federal CLIA program information relevant to laboratory testing operations.