The Platform

HARP Wellness is the wellness brand that lives inside the pharmacy. It is built from five components:

• A membership, sold at the counter and online
• A wellness plan, built from the member’s own biomarkers
• On-demand access to pharmacists, dietitians, and wellness advisors
• In-house prescribing for hormones and metabolic health
• A product line (supplements, compounded topicals, protocols) at member pricing
• One app holding labs, medications, wearable data, and the plan

It is deployable across four channels off one licensed base: pharmacies we own, pharmacies we partner with, HARP Clinics inside host facilities, and at-home nationally.

Each pillar scores 0–100. One composite HARP score. Quarterly movement is the product.

Two design principles make the score credible:

• The data source is labeled on every pillar. Competitors launder self-reported and wearable data into one authoritative-looking number. Showing what rests on blood versus wearable versus assessment is a differentiator, and it is what lets a physician refer without feeling he is endorsing a horoscope.
• The engine can say “change nothing.” We sell both the measurement and the remedy. Published methodology, external clinical review, and a meaningful share of assessments that recommend no purchase are what separate a clinical instrument from a sales funnel.

Because Recovery, Performance, and Hormones share inputs, a single correction (ferritin, vitamin D, thyroid, sleep) moves three or four scores at once. That is the most satisfying possible quarterly experience for a member, and it drives protocol expansion naturally.

The app is not a member perk. It is the labor-leverage engine, the switching cost, and the vehicle for every market we enter without buying a pharmacy.

Layer 1, Member app

Biomarker history and trend lines. Medication list, interactions, refill status. Wearable integration (Oura, Whoop, Ultrahuman). The plan, updated quarterly. Booking and messaging with pharmacist, dietitian, and prescriber. Member pricing and reorder.

Layer 2, Clinician workspace

The layer nobody puts in a deck and the one that decides whether the model works: panel review queue, protocol engine, CPA titration documentation, adherence flags, escalation rules. This determines how many members one pharmacist can serve, which is contribution margin per member. Without it, a store caps out at a few hundred members and the unit economics never reach a platform multiple.

Layer 3, Prescriber portal

Local physicians see their own patients' HARP data, refer in, and get results back. Nobody in this category has built it, and it does two jobs at once: our lowest-cost acquisition channel, and the thing that makes us a partner to medicine rather than a competitor.

Layer 4, Partner platform

The full stack, licensable to pharmacies and clinics we do not own. This is the SaaS re-rating layer and the engine of Stage 2 expansion.

Why it matters, in one line each:

• Switching cost. Longitudinal HARP history doesn’t transfer anywhere. Whoop’s moat isn’t the strap, it’s four years of your Recovery data.
• Labor leverage. Layer 2 is the difference between a pharmacist serving 200 members and 2,000.
• Asset-light reach. Layers 3 and 4 let us enter markets with zero acquisition capital.

The member never gets referred out. Evaluation, prescription, dispensing, and ongoing titration all happen under our roof: hormones, metabolic health, compounded topicals.

How it is structured, and it must be structured:

• An affiliated physician-owned professional corporation (PC) contracts with HARP’s MSO. Colorado enforces a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: C.R.S. 12-36-117(m) makes it unprofessional conduct for a physician to be employed by an unlicensed entity, so non-physician entities cannot employ prescribers or control clinical decisions directly. The PC/MSO separation is mandatory, not optional.
• NP full practice authority is the scaling unlock. Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington grant nurse practitioners full practice authority with no collaborative agreement required for routine practice, a real reason the Mountain West is the right first region.
• Pharmacists carry the ongoing management under a Colorado Rule 17 collaborative practice agreement, which permits collaborative drug therapy management, the labor-efficiency layer: prescriber for evaluation and initiation, pharmacist for titration and monitoring.
• In-person evaluation is our structural advantage. Testosterone is Schedule III, and DEA remote-prescribing waivers expired December 2025. We have licensed physical locations; telehealth-only competitors do not.

Two constraints stated plainly rather than discovered:

1. A pharmacist cannot prescribe testosterone. A CPA cannot grant authority that controlled-substance law withholds. We need a licensed prescriber; the point is that the prescriber is ours, on site, not a third-party referral.
2. CPOM enforcement is tightening specifically around PE-backed structures. Colorado DORA investigations are up ~35% since 2023. MSO fees must be flat or fair-market-value, never a percentage of patient revenues, designed for at formation, since retrofitting is expensive.