为什么AI可能最终解决医疗资源获取问题 | Zocdoc首席执行官Oliver Kharraz

在旅行中，你预订航班。

In travel, you book a flight.

在电商中，你购买商品。

In e-commerce, you buy a product.

但在医疗领域，仅仅预约一个门诊可能就要等上几周。

But in healthcare, simply booking an appointment can still take weeks.

在本期节目中，a16z的普通合伙人Julie Yoo与Zocdoc的创始人兼CEO Oliver Kharraz坐下来，讨论为什么医疗预约仍然如此困难，以及AI如何改变这一现状。

In this episode, a16z general partner Julie Yoo sits down with Zocdoc founder and CEO Oliver Kharraz to discuss why healthcare scheduling remains so difficult and how AI could change that.

Oliver解释了Zocdoc如何构建基础设施，将患者与医生连接起来，跨越数百个预约系统，以及为什么公司现在将这项技术开放给AI代理和其他平台。

Oliver explains how Zocdoc built the infrastructure to connect patients with doctors across hundreds of scheduling systems, and why the company is now making that technology available to AI agents and other platforms.

他们还讨论了Zocdoc与Gemini的合作，为什么没有哪家公司应该独占医疗服务的入口，以及更好的预约系统如何帮助患者在几天内而不是几周内见到医生。

They also discuss Zocdoc's partnership with Gemini, why no single company should own the front door to healthcare, and how better scheduling can help patients see doctors in days rather than weeks.

最终，当找到并预约合适的医生变得像预订航班一样简单时，会发生什么变化。

And ultimately, what changes when finding and booking the right doctor becomes as easy as booking a flight.

我非常高兴能在这里和Oliver Kharraz一起，他是Zocdoc的CEO。

I am so excited to be here with Oliver Kharraz, who is the CEO of Zocdoc.

我和奥利弗认识很久了。

Oliver and I go way back.

你和我算是志同道合，这些年，甚至可以说这几十年来，我们都在努力解决医疗保健领域里很多类似的问题。

You and I are kindred spirits in both having tried to solve a lot of similar problems in healthcare over the years and, dare I say, decades almost.

我觉得我们有时候还互相竞争过。

And I feel like we competed at times.

我们可能本该直接合作，但看着Zocdoc不断发展，和你交流心得也很有意思。

We probably should have just partnered with each other, but it's been fun to share notes with you as Zocdoc has continued to evolve.

可以说，Zocdoc是医疗科技领域里少数真正建立起家喻户晓品牌的几家公司之一。

And arguably, Zocdoc is one of the few companies in health tech that has truly built a household iconic name for itself.

能做到这一点，真的很了不起。

So huge kudos for doing that.

奥利弗，也许我们可以先请你给听众们介绍一下最新情况。

Maybe, Oliver, we can start with you just providing the audience with an update.

现在的Zocdoc是什么样的？在你经营这家公司的这些年里，它最大的变化是什么？

What is Zocdoc today, and how has it evolved the most over the last several years that you've been building the business?

是的，谢谢你，朱莉。

Yeah, thank you, Julie.

很高兴来到这里。其实虽然已经过去几十年了，但感觉就像昨天一样。我一直很喜欢从你那里学到东西。

Good to be here, and in fact, it's been decades, but it feels like days, and I always enjoyed learning from you.

所以你的很多听众可能都会把Zocdoc想成一个目的地网站，他们去那里可以找到接受他们保险的医生，然后直接预约。

So a lot of your listeners will probably think of Zocdoc as a destination website where they go and can find a doctor that accepts their insurance, and then they'll book an appointment right there and then.

这当然是我们现在还在做的事情，但新的变化是，我们把这个支撑市场的基础设施拿出来，提供给第三方使用。

And that's something that we of course still do, but what is new now is that we take this infrastructure that we have built that enables that marketplace, and we make it available to third parties.

不管你是支付方、AI平台，还是有消费者受众，你现在都可以让他们无缝预约医生，无论他们从哪里开始这个流程。

So whether you are a payer, you're an AI platform, you have a consumer audience, you can now give them the ability to schedule their doctors seamlessly, no matter where they start the journey.

这次对话的起因其实是你和我，在我几周前发了一条推文之后，互相发短信。那条推文是半开玩笑地说，人生中除了死亡、税收和医生目录问题之外，没有什么是确定的。

The genesis of this conversation actually was you and I just texting each other after I put a tweet out there a few weeks ago saying, tongue in cheek, that nothing is certain in life except death, taxes, and the provider directory problem.

你和我都曾尝试从不同角度解决这个问题，但它依然存在，对吧？

And you and I have both tried to solve this problem from different angles, but it still persists, right?

这也是我写那条推文的部分原因——我们不断遇到这个问题，无论是我们投资的公司，还是试图在这个领域创业的公司，他们都会问：为什么这个问题还没有被解决？

That's part of why I wrote it was we continue to encounter, whether it's our startup companies who are trying to build in this area and themselves ask the question, why hasn't this been solved?

那些老牌机构也在努力维护关于他们提供者是谁、谁在做什么、谁可以预约、谁接受什么保险等等的准确信息。

Incumbents who also struggle to maintain precise information about who their providers are, who's doing what, who's bookable, who takes what insurance, et cetera.

你觉得为什么这个问题一直存在？

What's your view on why this problem has persisted?

作为一个行业，我们没能协调好的根本激励是什么？你认为最大的障碍是什么，让我们无法为这个国家的每一位持牌医生建立一个真正的黄金记录？

What is the fundamental incentive that we've failed as an industry to align that you think is the biggest blocker to having a true golden record for every licensed medical practitioner in this country?

其实我觉得这个问题在很大程度上已经解决了。

So I think actually the problem is, to a large extent, solved.

如果我们看看我们正在做的——

If we look at what-

我们有能力预约到与我们连接的提供者。

... we're doing, we have the ability to schedule into the providers that are connected to us.

我们的数据准确率超过99%，这比一般的保险目录要好得多。

We have data that's more than 99% accurate, which compares quite favorably with your average insurance directory.

而关键所在，也就是那个戈尔迪之结，实际上是让交易能够实现。

And the reason, and the Gordian knot here was actually enabling the transaction.

当你发布一个医生目录时，你往往是在出版一本百科全书，对吧？

When you put out a provider directory, frequently you're in the business of publishing the Encyclopedia Britannica, right?

等你真正把它发布出去、呈现给患者的时候，它已经过时了。

By the time you're able to really put it out there and present it to patients, it's already out of date.

你总是在追着问题跑。

You're constantly chasing the problem.

一旦有了交易，它就更像维基百科了，对吧？

Once you have the transaction, it's much more like Wikipedia, right?

每一笔新增的交易实际上都在验证你已有的信息。

Every incremental transaction actually validates the information you have.

你犯的任何错误，只会犯一次，然后你就知道接下来会发生什么。

You make any mistake, you make exactly once, and then you know what's going in.

当然，你也知道，真正实现交易和让患者无缝预约，是一个非常难解决的问题。

Now, of course, as you know, the actual transactability and the ability for a patient to book seamlessly was an extremely hard problem to solve.

有几百种不同的电子病历系统，还有成千上万的保险计划需要映射。

There are hundreds of different EHRs, there's tens of thousands of insurance plans that need to be mapped.

这里面有很多很多不同的工作方式，不同的工作流程，不同的诊所，不同的专科，结果就变成了一个我们得去解决的俄罗斯方块游戏。我们花了20年才走到今天这一步，现在这个基础设施已经准备好了，任何人都可以接入，为他们的病人提供这种体验。

There are many, many different ways to work in this, different workflows and different practices, different specialties, and it turns into this Tetris game that we needed to solve, and it took us 20 years to get to where we are today, that this infrastructure is available for anyone who wants to plug in and to provide that experience for their patients.

好的，那真是太棒了。

Okay, that's amazing.

这是个很大胆的说法，我很高兴你这么有信心，认为我们已经解决了这个问题。

So that is a bold claim, and I'm so glad that you are confident that we have solved this problem.

奥利弗，我们能再深入聊聊这个吗？

Can we actually double-click on that a little bit, Oliver?

回想我们在Kairos处理这个问题的方式，我们基本上，稍微抽象一下这个问题，关于医生的数据可以分成三大类。

When I think back to the way that we approached this problem at Kairos, we largely, just to abstract out the problem a little bit, there's three buckets of data that matter about a doctor.

第一类是基本信息，比如医生是谁，他们有什么资质，接受哪些保险，组织隶属关系等等。

There's the basic demographic information, who the doctor, what are they credentialed in, what insurance they take, organizational affiliations, et cetera.

第二类数据是他们的执业数据。

There's a second bucket of data, which is their practice data.

他们在临床上实际是怎么做的？

What do they actually do clinically in practice?

甚至可能包括他们转诊给谁，或者谁转诊给他们，诸如此类的信息。

And maybe even things like who do they refer to or who refers to them, things of that sort.

然后第三类，你刚才也提到了，就是他们的实际可用时间。

And then the third, which you alluded to already, is what is their actual availability?

这意味着要接入像排班系统这样的数据源，了解系统的容量，以及如何有效分配。

And that means wiring into the source of truth like scheduling systems and understanding what the capacity of the system is and how to effectively route.

你能给我们讲讲具体的方法吗？

Can you just walk us through what is the approach?

是不是每一类数据都需要采取不同的处理方式？

Do you have to take a unique approach to each of those buckets?

哪一类最难解决？

Which one is the hardest to solve?

在哪些方面你取得了最大的成功，做了些你觉得别人多年来尝试解决这个问题时没想到的新颖做法？

Where have you had the most success in doing something that you think is novel relative to everyone else who's tried their hand at this problem over the years?

对，我觉得第一个问题和其他几个不太一样，对吧？

Yeah, so I think problem one is distinct from the others, right?

这些信息变化不那么频繁。

This is information that doesn't change as often.

他们在哪里上的医学院？

Where did they go to med school?

他们的诊所在哪里？

Where's their practice located?

这似乎是最容易解决的问题，所以大多数人都集中在这方面。

That seems to be the most tractable problem, and that's why most people focus there.

后两个问题相互关联，虽然都可以从电子病历中提取，但标准化起来非常非常困难。

The second two problems are related, and you can both extract them from the EHR, but they are very, very difficult to standardize.

我给你举个例子。

I'll give you sort of an idea.

是的，你可以编写与电子病历的集成，我们就是这么做的。

Yes, you can write integrations to the EHRs, which we do.

我们内置了175多种电子病历的集成方案。

We have them out of the box for 175 different EHRs plus.

但它们的用法差别很大。

But then they're being used very differently.

我给你举个完整的例子。

I'll give you one complete example.

我们刚开始的时候，发现有一家诊所，我们经常收到办公室经理的取消通知，说我们想给病人预约的那个时间段，医生没空。

When we first got started, we realized that there was a practice where we constantly got cancellations from the office manager that said that this doctor isn't available at the time we wanted to book the patient into.

我们怎么也想不明白，因为诊所那边的日历和我们这边的看起来一模一样。

And we couldn't figure out why, because the copy of the calendar in the practice and our copy seemed identical.

我们把Zocdoc最聪明的人都叫到一个房间里。

And we brought all the smartest people at Zocdoc in a room.

我给他们买了披萨。

I brought them pizza.

我还帮他们遛狗。

I walked their dogs.

他们也没找出原因。

They couldn't figure it out.

所以我坐在办公室经理旁边，发现有时候医生会走出来说：‘嘿，我下周五不在。’

So I sat next to the office manager, and what I realized is that sometimes the doctor would walk out and say, "Hey, I'm out next Friday."

而办公室经理实际上会拿一张便利贴——

And the office manager would actually take a Post-it note-

——把它贴在显示器上，而不是去电子健康档案系统里操作。

... and attach that to their monitor instead of going into the EHR.

一旦你知道这些情况在发生，你就能解决这个问题。

Well, once you know these things are happening, you can solve for that.

数学是你的朋友。

Math is your friend.

而且这只是一个例子。

And it turns out that's just one example.

实际上，我们得找出1000.1%的解决方案，才能让排班的电子健康档案集成真正准确。

There were literally 1000.1% solutions that we had to figure out to make the EHR integration for scheduling truly accurate.

这花了好几年时间，我觉得很多人可能都对这个任务感到沮丧，而我们足够固执，坚持了下来。

And that took us several years to do, and I think many folks just got frustrated with this task, and we were stubborn enough to persist.

所以，我们现在已经收集到了足够多的关于电子病历实际使用情况的信息，能够回答你提出的第二和第三个问题，而且只需要一次集成到他们的电子病历系统中。

And as a result, we have now gotten enough information about how EHR is actually used to answer question two and three that you laid out based on a single integration into their EHR.

我们以前开玩笑说，3M是我们最大的竞争对手，因为他们有便利贴。

We used to joke that 3M was our biggest competitor because of Post-it notes.

你得想办法解决这个难题。

You got to crack the nut.

Zocdoc相对于这个领域的其他公司，另一个独特的优势是你们一直以消费者为中心。

The other kind of unique distinction that Zocdoc has relative to a lot of others in the space is the fact that you've always been consumer aligned.

就像我之前说的，你们现在已经是家喻户晓的品牌了。

And to the point I made earlier, you guys are now a household brand.

我觉得消费者确实把Zocdoc看作是他们需要预约医生时的首选平台，而不是像很多公司，包括我们公司，更多是采用B2B模式，与医疗系统、医疗机构等合作。

I think consumers do view Zocdoc as a go-to place when they do need a doctor's appointment, as opposed to many companies, including mine, which took much more of a B2B approach and aligned with health systems, provider organizations, et cetera.

你觉得这在多大程度上帮助你们以独特的方式、更好地解决了这个难题，而不是像其他人那样走传统路线？

To what extent do you think that played into your ability to crack this nut uniquely and differently and better than others who are going sort of through the system, so to speak?

你能举一些例子，说明你们的消费者驱动方法最终是如何让医生改变行为，或者以独特的方式帮助解决这个问题的吗？

And can you give some examples of maybe where your consumer-driven approach was ultimately the thing that got providers to change behavior or that helped solve this problem in a unique way?

对，我觉得这正好说明了我们一直坚信的一点，就是一切都得从患者出发。

Yeah, so I think this speaks to the fact that we just firmly believe that everything has to start with the patient.

患者好了，大家就都好了。

And when the patient wins, everyone wins.

医生好了，Zocdoc也好了。

The provider wins, Zocdoc wins.

所以我们跟合作的医生也是带着这种理念去的。

And so that's a mindset that we brought to the providers we partnered with.

有意思的是，他们用的很多其他软件其实并不太支持这种理念。

And it's interestingly not a mindset that is easily reinforced by a lot of the other software they use.

医疗行业里经常有一种围墙花园的心态，就是觉得我们掌握着医疗服务的入口，患者是我们的。

There is a general walled garden preference in healthcare frequently, where the idea is that we own the front door to care, that we own the patient.

但现实是，这种想法本身就有问题，因为医疗不像一栋楼，你把患者引进来然后把门一关就完事了。

And the reality is that that's a flawed premise because healthcare isn't like a building where you lure the patient in and you slam the door shut behind them.

它更像一座城市，对吧？

It's a lot more like a city, right?

病人就像在城市里走动，根据他们当时的需求，可能会敲不同的门。

And the patient walks the city, and depending on what their need is at this current moment, they might knock on different doors.

如果孩子生病了，他们可能会去急诊中心；如果得了罕见病，他们可能会找最专业的医生；如果有慢性病，他们可能会找能陪伴他们整个治疗过程的人。

They might go to an urgent care center if their kid is sick, or they might look for the most specialized doctor if they have a rare disease, or someone who can be there for the journey if they have a chronic condition.

所以你必须认识到，要让这一切真正运作起来，你需要打开所有的门。

And so you need to acknowledge that you need to open all the doors in order for this to truly work.

然后你会获得一些从单一电子病历系统中永远得不到的见解，因为你是围绕病人看待问题的方式来思考的。

And then you will sort of take learnings that you would never be able to get from a single EHR because you're focused around the problem the way the patient sees it.

好的。

Okay.

奥利弗，为了进一步强调这个有点反传统的观点，我认为没有任何一方应该独占入口，而且实际上，也不存在单一的入口。

And just to sort of reinforce that somewhat contrarian view, Oliver, I think the notion that no single party should own the front door, and in fact, there is no single front door.

无论病人想去哪里，我们都应该提供医疗服务——

We should enable care no matter where the patient wants to go-

……这与系统内许多人长期持有的信念有些矛盾，他们认为如果你这样想，可能会牺牲一些必要的协调，以确保病人在纵向时间上能在正确的时间获得正确的护理，直到他们真正解决自己的健康问题。

... is somewhat at odds with kind of the belief that I think has been long held by people in the system, which is that if you think about it that way, you might sacrifice some of the coordination that is necessary to ensure that a patient is getting the right care at the right time longitudinally to a point that they actually resolve whatever health issues that they have.

那你怎么调和这两种观点呢？

How do you sort of reconcile those two points of view?

也许你还能分享一下你们数据里实际看到的情况。

And maybe if you could even share what you actually see in your data.

你们大概有数百万甚至数十亿的数据点，关于患者如何看待对医疗提供者的忠诚度，以及在什么情况下，如果他们考虑全面的提供者选择，而不是只绑定于某一个医疗系统或某一个提供者，他们实际上能得到更好的护理。

You guys have probably millions if not billions of data points about how patients themselves view loyalty to a provider and in what circumstances do they actually get better care if they are looking at a holistic set of provider options as opposed to just being tethered to any one health system or any one provider affiliation.

你能举一些例子，说说你为什么这么认为吗？

Can you just speak to some examples of why you believe what you believe?

首先，让我们重新看看我们日常体验中其他事情是怎么运作的，对吧？

I mean, so first of all, let's just reset how everything else works in our everyday experience, right?

在电商里，你买东西；在旅行中，你订票。

In e-commerce you buy, in travel you book.

但在医疗保健中，你却被限制住了。

In healthcare, you're blocked.

这非常非常独特。

That is very, very unique.

我们让患者跟我们打交道变得非常困难，但这并不是患者真正想要的。

We make it really difficult for patients to do business with us, and that's not what patients actually want.

从患者的行为来看，他们通常会比较多家医疗机构。

When we see patient behavior, they typically check multiple providers.

他们会花很多时间看评价，了解这些医生或机构的背景。

They spend a lot of time going through the reviews and understanding what these providers went to.

相比生活中其他事情，他们对医疗选择非常慎重，参与度也很高。

There's a very high consideration, sort of engagement, relative to other things they do in their lives.

如果你把选择范围收窄，让他们难以接触到你，那你就会被忽略。

Narrowing the aperture of what you offer to them and making it hard for them to engage with you just lets you fall off the radar.

但反过来，一旦他们做出了选择，我们看到他们对所选医生的忠诚度其实非常高。

And so, but on the flip side, once they make that commitment, we see actually extremely high loyalty to the providers that they go to.

在同一专科内，患者再次预约同一医生的比例大约在75%到80%。

Roughly 75% to 80% rebooking rate with the same provider when a patient books in the same specialty.

这说明，其实没必要通过系统设计来锁定患者。

So it speaks to the fact that it's not really necessary to lock them in through the systems you build.

你只要做个好医生，就能赢得他们的忠诚。

You will gain their loyalty just by being a good doctor to them.

对，而且结合我们现在的情况来聊这个话题挺有意思的，对吧？

Yeah, and it's interesting to have this conversation in light of where we are today, right?

我们现在已经进入Instinct和Muse这类消费级智能体的时代几周了，人们正用它们来做你刚才说的那些事，奥利弗，比如预约、订旅行、订餐厅，当然还有不可避免的医疗体验。

We're a few weeks into the sort of like the era of Instinct and Muse and all of these consumer agents that people are now using to do exactly the types of things that you're describing, Oliver, booking appointments, travel, restaurants, and of course, inevitably their healthcare experiences.

你们宣布了和Gemini的合作，这样用户就能通过智能体更高效地找到合适的医生并预约。

You guys announced a partnership with Gemini along these lines where agentically people can use your platform to more efficiently get to the right doctors and book appointments.

你怎么看？在这个个人消费级助手智能体的时代，你对Zocdoc角色的看法有没有根本性的改变？还有你代表医疗服务提供方客户所扮演的角色，他们肯定在期待这些工具带来的大量咨询，他们该如何应对这些咨询呢？

What's your view, and maybe like has anything changed, I guess, fundamentally about how you view the role of Zocdoc in this era of personal consumer copilot agents and also the role that you play on behalf of your provider customers, in terms of how they can reconcile all of the inbound that I'm sure they're anticipating getting from all these tools?

是的，当然。

Yeah, so for sure.

如果我来思考AI在这里的角色，它确实让患者参与度大幅提升。

If I think about the role of AI here, it's really making patient engagement go through the roof.

他们能获得更个性化的信息。

They get much more personalized information.

感觉更具体了，也更容易促成行动，而这正是Zocdoc发挥作用的地方，对吧？

It feels much more specific, and it's much more likely to lead to action, and that's where Zocdoc comes in, right?

AI可以给你信息，但Zocdoc能让它真正落地，让你能去看医生。

The AI can give you the information, but Zocdoc can make it actually actionable so that you can go see a provider.

所以这种动态才刚刚开始，但已经非常非常强了。

So that is a dynamic that is just beginning, but already very, very strong.

现在，关于AI，正如你提到的，我们已经和Gemini合作了。

Now, AI, as you mentioned, we are partnered with Gemini.

我们当然愿意和任何想要实现即时预约的人合作。

We're certainly here to partner with anyone who wants to have that immediate bookability.

有趣的是，“入口”的数量正在激增，因为现在有很多不同的智能体。

And what's interesting about this is that the number of "front doors" is really exploding because there are lots of different agents.

消费者使用它们的方式也多种多样。

There's a lot of different modalities on how consumers can use them.

对医生来说，要一个个去找这些入口并逐一对接，真的不现实。

And for a doctor, it's really inconceivable to sort of hunt them all down and try to connect to them one-off.

所以我们给医生的承诺是，只要和Zocdoc做一次集成。

And so our promise to the provider is do a single integration with Zocdoc.

然后我们会把你的可用时间分发到所有不同的平台上，帮你省去分发的烦恼。

We then distribute your availability to all the different platforms that are out there, and sort of take that distribution worry off your hands.

我们在这里的角色其实就是医疗服务的接入基础设施，对吧？

Our role in this is really just that of healthcare access infrastructure, right?

我们不需要每一次预约都发生在zocdoc.com或者我们的应用上。

We don't need every booking to happen on zocdoc.com or our app.

我们只是希望确保，无论病人敲的是哪扇门，那扇门都能打开。

We just want to make sure that whatever door the patient is knocking on, that door actually opens.

对，而且从这种动态中产生了一个有趣的问题，首先，很高兴听到你对此很投入。

Yeah, and the interesting question that arises from that dynamic, first of all, that's great to hear that you are into it.

我觉得现在有很多公司在各个行业扮演着这种市场平台的角色，它们对待这些代理的方式各不相同，反应也大相径庭。

I think there's a lot of companies right now that serve sort of this marketplace type role in a variety of industries who are taking different approaches and having very different reactions to how they deal with these agents.

所以我同意，你确实有巨大的机会成为所有这些活动的底层基础设施。

So I agree that there's a huge opportunity for you to become the sort of the utility layer to all this activity.

你怎么看待选择这个问题？

How do you think about choice?

我觉得你们现在有界面，有应用，比如我就用你们的应用，作为消费者，我可以自己决定我的偏好。

And I think what you guys, today you have a UI, you have an app, like I use your app, and I, as a consumer, can apply my own agency to determining what my preferences are.

如果我有七个选择，我该怎么给这些选择排序，然后选出我认为最适合我的那一个呢？

If I have seven choices, how do I rank order those choices and pick the ultimate one that I think is best for me?

随着Zocdoc的角色越来越偏向中间层、基础设施层，显然，你们会失去一些与消费者的互动，这种互动在某种程度上可能被视为公平层。

As the role of Zocdoc goes more towards that sort of the middleware layer, the utility layer, obviously, you lose some of that interaction that might be considered a fairness layer, in some ways, to the consumer.

你们在路由方面是怎么考虑的？有什么标准吗？

What's your rubric for how you think about routing?

你们会在路由层做判断吗？比如系统返回12个选择时，你们会替消费者做一些偏好筛选，还是你们已经想出了办法，仍然能把这种选择权交给最终用户？

Are you guys applying judgment to the routing layer, where if your system brings back 12 choices, you apply some preference on behalf of the consumer, or have you thought through ways that you could actually still surface that level of agency to the end user?

我们一直把所有的选择权都交给最终用户，也就是患者，对吧？

So we have always sort of given all the agency to the end user, to the patient, right?

我们展示选项，由患者自己选择。

We present the options the patient chooses.

而且在我们看来，这些AI代理就是患者的延伸，对吧？

And in our view, these AI agents are just going to be extensions of the patients, right?

当然，每个代理可能有自己的处理方式，但它们大概会以某种方式收集患者的偏好或决策标准，然后应用这些信息。

Obviously, every agent might have their own way to solve that, but they probably gather the preferences or the decision criteria of the patient in some way and then apply it.

我们真的把患者和代理看作一个整体。

We really look at that as one thing, the patient and the agent.

我们不区分这两者，我们会为它们提供所有可用的选项，然后由它们来决定哪个最合适。

We don't differentiate between these two things, and we'll serve them both with whatever options are available to them, and then they decide what's the best match.

奥利弗，你能谈谈你们市场供应方是如何随着时间演变的吗？

Maybe can you speak, Oliver, a little bit to how the supply side of your marketplace has evolved over time?

我知道最初，那也是几年前的事了，很多重点都放在初级保健、紧急护理、甚至牙科这类较低复杂度的专科领域。

I know initially, and this was, again, years ago, a lot of the focus was on kind of the lower acuity specialty areas like primary care, urgent care, even dental, things of that sort.

而且从文化上来说，让真正的专科医生愿意在这样的平台上合作，确实更具挑战性。

And it was just culturally more challenging to get the true specialists aligned in a way that they would play nice on platforms like this.

这种情况有改变吗？

Has that changed?

你真的看到专科诊所开始采用开放式预约了吗？你们做了什么，或者你觉得市场上有什么变化推动了这种演变？

Do you actually see specialist practices getting on board with open scheduling practices, and what did you guys do, or what do you think has changed in the market to drive that evolution?

其实我们覆盖面已经挺广的了，有一段时间了。

So we've been pretty broad for a while, actually.

当然，去看全科医生或牙医的病人肯定比看神经外科医生的多得多。

Now, obviously, many more patients go to a primary care doctor or dentist than to a neurosurgeon.

这是肯定的。

That's the case for sure.

但我们的平台上有250个不同的专科，而且每个专科都有预约。

But we have 250 different specialties on the platform, and all of them are being booked.

我刚开完一个会，了解到仅在纽约市，通过Zocdoc完成的肿瘤科预约就有好几万次。

I just came out of a meeting where I learned that we have literally tens of thousands of oncology bookings going through Zocdoc in New York City alone.

所以这范围很广，从“嘿，我就是想找个医生看看”或者“我有牙科问题或心理健康问题”，到“我需要看一个非常专业的专家”。

So this is very broad from, "Hey, I just need to go see someone or I have a dental issue or mental health issue," to, "I need to see someone very subspecialized."

所有这些在Zocdoc上都能找到，而且比打电话跟办公室经理玩预约拼图游戏要快得多。

And all of that is available on Zocdoc, and it's available much sooner than if you got on the phone and played scheduling Tetris with an office manager.

这跟过去的争论有什么关系呢？特别是像肿瘤科这样的高端专科诊所，以前的观点是，在把宝贵的预约名额给某个病人之前，需要做大量的临床资格审核。

How does this relate to kind of the argument in the past, especially with kind of high-end specialty practices like oncology or what have you, was that there's a great deal of clinical qualification that needs to happen before you take that precious slot and give it to a certain patient.

那你看到的情况是怎样的？这些医疗服务提供者又是怎么应对的呢？

What are you seeing there in terms of how, again, the providers are just playing in that zone?

他们现在是否已经接受让消费者完全自助选择？

Are they now comfortable with fully self-service kind of selection on the consumer's part?

有没有AI工具可以帮他们实现以前那些死板的预约规则？这些规则以前大多嵌在电子病历系统里。

Are there AI tools that they can use to sort of implement some of what used to be these really rigid scheduling rules that were largely baked into the EHR platforms?

你觉得在这个环境里，哪些是AI无法替代的？

What do you think is AI-proof in this environment?

我觉得这两方面都在进步，对吧？

So I think it has moved on both directions, right?

一方面，帮助病人筛选合适医生的技术这些年进步飞快。

Both the technology that helps patients filter down providers that are a good match for them has improved by leaps and bounds over the years.

另一方面，医生们也变得越来越有信心，因为他们意识到，绝大多数病人其实自己很清楚该不该看这个医生。

And then providers have also gotten increasingly confident because they actually realize that the vast majority of patients have pretty good judgment on their own whether they should see this provider.

很多时候，他们其实是在按照初级保健医生的转诊建议行事，那位医生和他们有长期的关系，他们只是用Zocdoc来筛选市场，提前在资料上看看可能想见的医生。

Many times, they're essentially acting on a referral that has been given by them from their primary care doc that has the sort of ongoing relationship, and they just Use Zocdoc because it's a tool for them to really screen the market and pre-meet providers that they might want to see on the profile.

所以这方面在过去几年里一直在不断改进，我相信通过AI还会进一步提升，但即使在这些最新的AI工具发布之前，这也不是我们的障碍。

So that's something that has just been getting better and better over the last years, and I'm sure we're going to further improve through AI, but it has not been a blocker for us, even predating the release of this latest series of AI tools.

我们经常看到的一个大领域，某种程度上对创业者来说就像是一个“圣杯”问题，就是谁会打造下一代AI原生的诊所管理和电子病历平台。

One of the big areas of activity that we see a lot of, which is in some ways like a holy grail problem set for entrepreneurs is, who will build the sort of next generation AI native practice management and EHR platform.

我知道Zocdoc已经开始在某种程度上垂直整合一些传统上属于诊所管理系统领域的能力和组件。

And I know Zocdoc has already kind of started to vertically integrate into certain capabilities and components of what traditionally has been known more as like a practice management system zone.

但这些是你们已经在做的从漏斗顶端角度出发的工作的自然延伸。

But are natural extensions of the work that you're already doing from top of funnel perspective.

你们的愿景是什么？

What's your vision there?

你们最终是否认为自己会逐渐成为诊所内日程安排和其他行政功能的记录系统？

Do you view yourselves ultimately over time becoming more of a system of record for things like scheduling and other administrative capabilities within the practice?

或者，你们如何看待自己在现有平台以及那些非常成熟、根深蒂固的系统中所扮演的角色？

Or, how do you see yourself playing a role vis-à-vis existing platforms and very incumbent, very entrenched, systems in that universe?

对，我觉得，你看，我们是以患者的需求为导向，什么对患者有效我们就做什么。

Yeah, I think, look, we're driven by what the patient wants and what works for the patient.

而且显然，我们把自己定位成一个非常以消费者为中心的机构，而这个领域通常不是这样的。

And obviously we think of ourselves as an entity that is very consumer oriented in a space that's generally not.

所以，在那些我们能替患者减少麻烦的地方，让他们更容易去看病，更容易搞清楚哪个医生适合他们，也让他们知道随时可以通过电话或其他方式联系到医生。

And so, areas where we can take friction out on behalf of the patient, make it easier to go be seen, to understand who's the right doctor for them, to understand that they can reach this doctor at any time over the phone, through other modalities.

这些都是我们现在在支持的。

These are all things that we are now supporting.

对我们来说，这也是一种思维上的转变，不再执着于所有事情都得在zocdoc.com上完成。

And again, for us, it's been also a bit of a mind shift away from, hey, everything has to happen on zocdoc.com.

我们现在有一些产品，比如可以放在医生自己的主页上。

We now have products, for example, that can live on the provider's own homepage.

我们还有产品可以用于他们的呼叫中心。

We have products that can live in their call center.

我们还有一些内部产品，帮助他们为患者减少麻烦。

We have products that are internal to them, to help them take friction out for the patient.

所以这是一个我们会持续走下去的旅程，真正驱动它的是实际使用场景，以及我们拥有独特能力和专长的领域，这样我们就能为患者的就医旅程，进而也为医生的诊疗过程增加价值。

And so this is a journey that we'll continue to be on, and it's really driven by the use cases and where we have unique capabilities and expertise so that we can add value to the journey of the patient and by extension of the doctor.

说到这个，你们最近也宣布了一些保险方面的合作。在某种程度上，这才是关键所在——就算我能以最快的速度约到最好的门诊，但如果最后不能报销，那一切都白搭了。

To that end, you have also recently announced some partnerships on the insurance side, and in some ways that's the tail that wags the dog on all of this is I could have the best appointments booked, in the most timely fashion, but if I'm not going to get reimbursed for it, then it's all moot.

那么你能谈谈这方面吗？这些支付方合作在改善患者和医生体验方面扮演了什么角色？

And so can you speak a little bit to that of what role do the payer partnerships play in making the experience better for the patients and providers?

随着你们扩展这个战略，又会解锁哪些新的可能性呢？

And what gets unlocked as you guys extend that strategy?

是的，我们一个典型的落地案例是和加州蓝盾的合作。在他们的会员目录里，现在可以直接预约医生的门诊，这背后就是由Zocdoc提供技术支持的。

Yeah, and so one of our classical implementations here is with, for example, Blue Shield of California, where on their own member directory, you can now book directly a doctor's appointment, and that's powered by Zocdoc ultimately.

这是一个非常自然的整合点，让他们能更好地服务患者。

And it is such a natural point of integration, where they can now serve their patients better.

当患者决定就医时，他们就能带着所有可用的信息出现在患者面前，提供帮助。

They can be there when a patient makes the decision to get care with all the insights that they can generate from that.

而且他们还能避免患者去急诊室这种高成本的就医方式，急诊的费用是门诊的10到12倍，而且治疗效果还更差。

And they can keep patients out of high cost modalities like the emergency room, that are 10 to 12 times as expensive as ambulatory care and have worse outcomes.

所以这真的是一个三赢的局面。

And so, it's really a win-win-win.

有意思的是，在这个过程中，我们发现保险公司那边的改动其实相对很小，对吧？

What was interesting for us on this journey is actually that the amount of change on the payer side is relatively minimal, right?

他们现在可以直接接入我们的医疗访问基础设施，开箱即用。

They can now plug into our healthcare access infrastructure, and it just works out of the box.

所以一旦他们意识到这一点，你从一个保险公司的某个领域开始，然后突然其他人也会过来说：“我能不能也用这个？”

So once they realize that that's happening, you start with one area in a payer, and then suddenly other people come and say, "Can I use this also?"

还有，“我有这个用例，还有那个用例。”

And, "I have this use case and this other use case."

很快，你就在和整个组织合作了，这让我们非常兴奋，说实话，这是我一开始没想到的。

And pretty quickly, you're working with the entire organization, which is very exciting to us, and honestly, not something that I would've expected going into that.

但发现这一点让我非常乐观。

But I'm in a very positive state of mind here to find that.

所以我们认为，在未来一年里，我们能够为大量会员提供服务。

And so we think that we will be in a position to serve a large number of members in the coming year.

在这种情况下，你同时面对支付方、服务提供方和消费者，而且是以正式的合作关系直接参与其中。

Well, in a situation like that, you have the trifecta of payers, providers, and consumers now directly engaged with you, in a formal relationship fashion.

在这种背景下，你的商业模式是怎样的？随着你从只服务提供方扩展到支付方，这个模式有没有发生变化？

What is your business model in that context like, and has that changed as you've moved towards away from just providers and now getting involved with payers?

你如何看待盈利和激励机制？

How do you think about monetization, incentives?

我知道你在法律层面也做了很多工作，试图推动人们对像斯塔克法和反回扣法这类问题的看法。

And I know you've done a lot of work, even legally, to try to push the envelope on how people think about things like Stark and anti-kickback.

也许你可以分享一些这方面的实战经验，以及你如何一步步走到现在的商业模式。

Maybe you can share some of those war stories and- ... a little bit of the journey of how you got to your current business model.

当然可以。

Yeah, for sure.

我们最初是订阅制，每个医生支付相同的费用来使用平台。

And we started out as a subscription business where we charged every doctor the same amount of money just to be on the platform.

说实话，这个模式效果不如预期，因为有些医生看的病人多，有些看的少，但大家付的钱都一样。

That, quite frankly, didn't work as well as we hoped because some doctors saw a lot of patients, some doctors saw a lot fewer, and everyone paid the same amount of money.

最后，这个价格对有些人来说可能太贵了，对另一些人来说又太便宜了。

And ultimately it was maybe too expensive for some and too cheap for others.

我们很幸运，把这个情况向监管机构做了说明，也解释了为什么像Zocdoc这样的系统对患者、医生和支付方都非常有益。

We were very blessed by presenting this issue to the regulator and also laying out why a system like Zocdoc is really beneficial For the patient, for the provider, for the payers.

最终我们获得了许可，可以运营现在的模式，也就是我们向医生收取发现预约的费用，也就是说，患者进行一般搜索时，我们把他们连接到那个医生。

And we ultimately got permission to operate the model that we operate today, which is we charge a provider for a discovery booking, meaning a booking where the patient was doing a general search and we connected them to that doctor.

值得注意的是，如果患者一开始就是找某个特定的医生，我们只帮忙安排预约，这种情况我们不收费。

Notably, we do not charge for bookings where a patient is looking for a specific doctor to begin with, and all we do is facilitate the booking.

这种软件应该是免费的，我们也让它免费。

That's software that should be free, and we make it free.

这样一来，医生加入Zocdoc的门槛就非常低。

And as such, we have a very low financial bar for the doctor to come and join Zocdoc.

有很多方式可以免费使用我们，这就能消除整个关系建立过程中的初始障碍。

There are many ways how you can use us for free, and it just takes sort of the initial friction out of this entire relationship building.

这就是我们现在建立医生网络的方式，效果非常好。

So that's sort of how we're building our provider network today, and it works fantastically.

有一个数据我特别自豪，就是过去12个月里，我们签约的医疗服务提供者中有97%是主动找上门的。

One stat that I'm particularly proud of is that 97% of the providers we signed up in the last 12 months inbound to us.

这就是口碑效应。

That's word of mouth.

他们的朋友告诉他们：“这个系统真的很好用。

Their friends tell them, "This is a system that really works.

你也应该加入。”

You should join, too."

然后他们就来找我们，我们帮他们完成入驻。

And then they come to us, and we onboard them.

这个数字在过去几年一直在上升，我们很高兴看到这一点。

And that's been sort of a number that has been going up over the last few years, and we're very glad to see that.

这告诉我们，我们确实为医生们做了正确的事情。

That just tells us we're doing something right for the doctors.

在支付方这边，我们的盈利模式略有不同，具体取决于合作关系。

On the payer side, we are monetizing slightly differently, and it depends on the specific relationship.

他们可以访问整个医疗服务提供者网络。

They get access to the entire network of providers.

他们可以安排患者来我们这里就诊。

They can schedule their patients with us.

比如在眼科平台上，他们可以立即查看患者和医生的保险参与情况，确保在把患者转过去之前真的匹配。

They can, to the extent that they are, for example, in the eye platform, they can immediately check also the insurance participation of the patient, of the provider, make sure this is really a match before they send the patient on their way.

而且这一切都是通过一个合作关系一站式搞定的。

And it's all turnkey out of one relationship.

我们一直强调三赢，确保整个过程顺畅无阻，尽量减少合作伙伴的经济摩擦。

We always focus on it being a win-win-win to make sure that this is really seamless and that we minimize any financial friction for our partners.

奥利弗，你提到了几个指标。

You mentioned a few metrics, Oliver.

我很好奇。

I'm curious.

在Kairos的时候，我们过去常衡量候诊时间、一组医生之间的产能利用率分布，确保每个医生都能得到相对均衡的使用。

Back in the day at Kairos, we used to measure things like wait times, distribution of capacity utilization across a group of providers, and making sure that every provider is getting utilized in sort of relatively equal ways.

类似这样的指标。

Things of that sort.

你能分享一下你们产生了什么样的影响吗？

Can you share what kind of impact you've had?

你们有没有看到等待时间减少？

Are you seeing reductions in wait times?

我记得我离开Kairos的时候，在波士顿看初级保健医生平均要等45天。

And I think it was like 45 days was the average wait time for a primary care doctor's appointment in Boston at the time that I left Kairos.

现在情况好转了吗？

Has that gotten better?

影响的因素有哪些，不管是正面的还是负面的？

And what have been the drivers of impact in either direction?

某些地区是不是实际上变得更糟了？你觉得原因是什么？

Has it gotten worse, actually, in certain areas, and why do you think that's the case?

遗憾的是，总的来说，自从我们开始以来，情况变得更糟了。

So the sad story is, broadly, since we started, it's gotten worse.

我们刚开始的时候，全国平均等待看初级保健医生大约要17天。

When we got started, it was roughly 17 days, the average wait time nationwide to see a primary care doctor.

现在要31天了。

Now it's 31 days.

不过，用Zocdoc的话，通常三天以内就能看到医生。

However, using Zocdoc, you can see a doctor typically within three days or less.

也就是72小时。

So, 72 hours.

这在很多专科都适用，因为医生经常有临时取消的预约。

And that's true for a broad range of specialties, and it's true because doctors have last-minute cancellations.

有病人没来。

They have no-shows.

有改期的。

They have reschedules.

我们把这些临时的空档提供给患者，重新利用起来，这真是整个医疗体系里最了不起的事情之一。

This last-minute capacity that we're surfacing to the patient and recapture, and this is one of the most incredible things about the entire healthcare system.

如果我们拿这个和飞机比较一下。

If we compare that with airplanes.

比如飞机以前的上座率是60%，但那是在70年代。

Like airplanes used to fly 60% full, but that was in the '70s.

随着互联网的出现，有了Kayak、Expedia和Booking.com这些平台，现在飞机的上座率超过了90%。

With the advent of the internet, we had the Kayaks and the Expedias and the bookings.com, and now airplanes have a load factor of over 90%.

而在现实中，医生的利用率大概在70%左右，略低于70%。

In the wild, doctors have load factors around 70%, just under 70%.

现在有了Zocdoc，我们填补了这些临时取消的空缺，这就是为什么我们能实现平均三天内看诊。

Now, with Zocdoc, we fill that last-minute capacity, and this is how we can get to the three-day average time.

而且说实话，我们管理整个网络就是为了让患者能有这样的体验。

And then quite frankly, we manage our network for a patient to be able to have that experience.

所以当我们发现某个专科、某个邮编区域、某个保险组合的容量不足时，我们就会在那里增加医生。

So when we see that there's low capacity in one of our specialty ZIP code insurance quadrants, then we will add providers there.

我们更关注的是患者的体验和指标，而不是其他任何指标。

And we're really much more driven by the patient experience and patient metrics than we are by any other metric.

这是因为我们相信，当患者赢的时候，所有人都赢了。

And that's because we believe that when the patient wins, everyone wins.

这太不可思议了。

That's incredible.

对于你刚才描述的，有一种比较刻薄的看法是，如果你能在三天内通过Zocdoc或者其他任何方式约到医生，那这个医生肯定有问题。

And one of the cynical view about what you just described is that if you're able to book an appointment within three days on whether it's Zocdoc or any other mechanism, something's wrong with that doctor.

为什么他们有空档，而所有最好的医生都排到几个月后了？

Why do they have availability when all the best doctors are booked out for months?

你怎么看待这个问题？你对质量有什么看法？消费者应该如何判断系统里可用资源的水平？

What's your take on that and your philosophy around quality and how consumers should think about judging the caliber of whatever capacity is available in the system?

你有没有一些例子，说明你们在服务级别协议上是有实际约束力的？比如，如果医生在你们平台上没有达到某些结果，你们会把他们下架吗？

And do you have examples where you have teeth behind SLAs, for instance, or if providers do not demonstrate certain outcomes on your platform, you would pull them off?

这个想法有实际约束力吗？

Any teeth behind that concept?

所以，两边都有。

So, yes on both sides.

所以一个有点反直觉的点是，其实最好的医生往往利用率最低，因为他们经常治疗那些生活很忙的病人，这些病人更容易取消预约，而且他们不会超额预约。

So one kind of counterintuitive bit is that actually the best doctors tend to have the worst utilization because they frequently treat patients that have very busy lives and cancel on them more often, and they don't double book.

还有一个有趣的小故事，我们合作的一家纽约学术医疗中心的院长说：“嘿，我未来三个月都约满了。

And there's a funny anecdote where one of the deans of one of the academic medical centers we work with here in New York said, "Hey, I'm booked out three months in the future.

我觉得我不应该出现在Zocdoc上。”

I don't think I should be on Zocdoc."

我们说：“好的，没问题。

And we said, "Okay, fine.

我们会把你下架，但再给我们30天时间，看看实际上有多少病人会跟你预约。”

We'll take you off, but give us just another 30 days, and just let's see how many patients actually end up booking with you."

结果大约有40个病人，因为果然，他有临时取消的预约，这些空档本来会浪费掉。

And it was something in the order of magnitude of 40 patients because sure enough, he had last-minute cancellations that would have gone to waste.

但我们能够把一个病人介绍给他，这个病人显然很想在最后一刻见到他，但通过Zocdoc找到了他，所以他得到了更好的利用率，这些病人也见到了他。

But we were able to connect a patient with him who were Obviously keen to see him last minute, but found him through Zocdoc, and so he got better utilization and these patients got to see him.

据我所知，他现在还在系统上，因为这显然是好的医生想为病人提供的服务。

And to my knowledge, he's still on the system today because that's obviously the kinds of service that good doctors want to deliver to their patients.

至于谁能上Zocdoc，我们比你们当地的州委员会还要挑剔。

In terms of who gets to be on Zocdoc, we are more selective than your neighborhood state board.

我们有自己的一套资质审核标准和规则，确保所有在Zocdoc上的医生都符合要求。

We have our own qualification entities and rules, and we do make sure that the doctors that are on Zocdoc all pass that.

不符合的医生，我们也会移除。

And we do remove doctors that don't.

展望未来，你们已经取得了这么多成就，扩大了产品覆盖面，拓展了销售市场，还调整了商业模式，并且积极拥抱AI。

Thinking ahead, what's next for-- You guys have accomplished so much and expanded the footprint of your product, expanded the number of markets that you sell into, evolved your business model, leaned into AI.

现在你们做的事情涉及面很广。

There's so much surface area now to what you do.

在公司的发展规划中，你们最期待的一两件大事是什么？

What is maybe one or two big things that you look forward to that is on the roadmap for your company?

又有什么让你们夜不能寐的？

And what keeps you up at night?

对于业务的未来，你们担心什么？

What are you fearful about in terms of the future for the business?

我的超能力就是睡觉。

Well, my superpower is sleeping.

我不知道是不是这个原因，所以我晚上其实不太失眠，但我要说的是，我们的目标是连接每一位医疗服务提供者，确保医疗保健的每一扇前门都敞开，对吧？

I don't know if it So, I don't really stay up at night that long, but I'll say that our goal is to connect every single provider and make sure that every single front door in healthcare opens, right?

这就是为什么我们开放了医疗保健接入基础设施，让每个支付方、每个人工智能平台、每个消费者平台、评论平台、搜索网站，都能把患者直接连接到医生，而且会运行得很好。

This is why we've opened up our healthcare access infrastructure so that every payer, every AI platform, every consumer platform, review platform, search site, they can connect their patients directly to a doctor, and it will work, and it will work well.

我认为这是对美国人民福祉和医疗保健的贡献，我们会为此感到非常自豪。

And I think that's a contribution to US welfare and healthcare that we would be very proud of.

太棒了。

Amazing.

奥利弗，还有什么我们没聊到的，你想补充的吗？

Anything that we didn't cover, Oliver, that you want to speak to?

我觉得这就是我们的愿景。

Well, I think that's really the aspiration.

我们正在招人。

We are hiring.

我坚信，通过AI，人们会变得不可或缺，而且效率会大大提高，但我们希望组建最强大的团队。

I strongly believe that people are going to be necessary and much more productive through AI, but we want the strongest possible team.

所以，如果你对让患者无论在哪里都能更容易地联系到医疗服务感到兴奋，我希望你能来找我们。

So if you're excited by making it easier for patients to connect to care wherever they are, I would like seek us out.

非常期待与大家见面。

Very much looking forward to meeting.

太棒了。

Amazing.

我想，如果你是在这个领域创业的初创公司，想要使用Zocdoc的API，这些在你们的网站上就能直接获取吗？

And I presume that if you're a startup building in this space and you want access to the Zocdoc APIs, is that something that's readily available on your website?

没错。

It is right.

只要在网站上找到相关信息，提交你的资料，我们就会回复你。

Just find it on the website, submit your information, we'll get back to you.

非常感谢你，Oliver。

Thank you so much, Oliver.

恭喜你在我们共同经历的这段漫长岁月里所取得的一切成就，我们期待Zocdoc未来的发展。

Congratulations on everything you've done over the long arc of time that you and I have been in this space, and we look forward to what's coming in the future for Zocdoc.

很高兴来到这里。

Good to be here.

非常感谢。

Thank you so much.

感谢收听本期a16z播客。

Thanks for listening to this episode of the "a16z" podcast.

如果你喜欢本期节目，请记得点赞、评论、订阅，给我们留下评分或评论，并与你的朋友和家人分享。

If you like this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe, leave us a rating or a review, and share it with your friends and family.

更多节目，请前往YouTube、Apple Podcasts和Spotify。

For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

在X上关注我们@a16z，并订阅我们的Substack：a16z.substack.com。

Follow us on X @a16z and subscribe to our Substack at a16z.substack.com.

再次感谢收听，我们下期再见。

Thanks again for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode.

提醒一下，这里的内容仅供参考，不应视为法律、商业、税务或投资建议，也不应用于评估任何投资或证券，并且不针对任何a16z基金的投资者或潜在投资者。

As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund.

请注意，a16z及其关联公司可能也持有本播客中讨论到的公司的投资。

Please note that a16z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.

更多详情，包括我们投资的链接，请访问a16z.com/disclosures。

For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a16z.com/disclosures.