Last updated Nov 29, 2025
healthscience
The Becton Dickinson handheld COVID-19 antigen testing device, costing roughly $250, will have single-use test cartridges costing about $15–30 per test, and these rapid tests (with ~5-minute turnaround) will become available to buyers by roughly August 2020.
the handheld device that they use in hospitals and stuff today it's 250 bucks, and there's a little test kit that you buy. It'll probably cost 20 to 30 bucks. It'll be available next month per test... and it takes five minutes to get a result.View on YouTube
Explanation

What was predicted
Friedberg claimed that Becton Dickinson (BD) would have a handheld COVID-19 antigen test system where:

  1. The handheld analyzer costs about $250.
  2. Single‑use cartridges cost about $20–30 per test.
  3. Tests give a result in about 5 minutes.
  4. This rapid test system would be available by roughly August 2020.

What actually happened

  1. Handheld BD COVID-19 antigen device exists and is the main BD platform
    BD’s rapid COVID-19 antigen test runs on the BD Veritor Plus System, a small, handheld/portable analyzer used at the point of care. BD and multiple distributors describe the Veritor Plus as a compact, handheld instrument for rapid antigen testing, including SARS-CoV-2. (news.bd.com)
    → This matches the existence and form factor Friedberg described.

  2. Availability timing (by August 2020)

    • The FDA’s antigen EUA list shows the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS‑CoV‑2 received Emergency Use Authorization on July 2, 2020. (fda.gov)
    • BD’s own press release on July 6, 2020 announces the launch of its rapid point‑of‑care SARS‑CoV‑2 antigen test for the Veritor Plus and says BD “will begin shipping the new test this week”. (news.bd.com)
    • A July 15, 2020 BD release discusses supplying these point‑of‑care tests and analyzers to U.S. government efforts, indicating production and deployment were already underway by mid‑July. (news.bd.com)
      → The BD handheld antigen test and cartridges were on the market in July 2020, i.e., earlier than his “available next month / by August” timeline. That part of the prediction is fulfilled (and somewhat conservative).
  3. Per‑test cartridge price (~$15–30)
    Commercial distributors now price the standard SARS‑CoV‑2 Veritor kits (30 tests/box) in the low-to-high hundreds of dollars per box, implying roughly the mid‑teens to low‑20s per test:

    • Stat Technologies lists the Veritor SARS‑CoV‑2 kit (30 tests) at $336.50 → ≈ $11.22/test. (stat-technologies.com)
    • Wilburn Medical lists the same 30‑test kit at an online discounted price of $379.95 (with small volume discounts), or ≈$12.67/test. (wilburnmedicalusa.com)
    • Beck‑Lee lists a 30‑test SARS‑CoV‑2 kit with list price $592.99 and sale price $474.39, which is ≈ $15.81/test at the sale price. (becklee.com)
    • Combination SARS‑CoV‑2/Flu A+B Veritor kits (30 tests) are often priced higher (e.g., ~$674–$905 per kit), implying ≈$22–$30+ per test. (stat-technologies.com)

    While these are current and not 2020‑dated price sheets, rapid antigen kit prices for this type of professional point‑of‑care product historically have stayed in roughly the same order of magnitude (teens–twenties per test) rather than dropping from, say, $50 down to $15. The present pricing cluster—roughly $11–$22+ per test, with some combo assays approaching or exceeding $20—sits squarely in or just below Friedberg’s “$20–30 bucks” estimate.
    → His per‑test cartridge cost call (order‑of‑magnitude and range) was directionally correct.

  4. Analyzer price (~$250)
    Multiple distributors currently list the Veritor Plus Analyzer (catalog 256066) at prices significantly above $250:

    I was not able to find reliable 2020‑specific price sheets that show a standard analyzer price near $250. The consistent current range ($300–$600) suggests Friedberg’s $250 figure was optimistic/low. Note that BD sometimes runs promotions (e.g., “buy kits, get an analyzer at no cost”), which can make the effective incremental cost of the device near zero for some customers, but that’s different from its list or typical sale price. (bdveritor.bd.com)
    → His analyzer price estimate appears inaccurate on the low side.

  5. Turnaround time (~5 minutes vs. actual 15 minutes for COVID)
    BD’s own documentation for the SARS‑CoV‑2 Veritor assay consistently states a 15‑minute time to result:

    • BD’s COVID‑19 product page: Veritor SARS‑CoV‑2 test gives digital results in 15 minutes. (bdveritor.bd.com)
    • The July 6, 2020 BD press release likewise describes the assay as delivering results in 15 minutes. (news.bd.com)

    The Veritor Plus Analyzer does deliver faster results (5–10 minutes) for some other assays (e.g., Group A Strep), and several distributor pages quote “5 to 10 minute results” or “5‑minute results” for those non‑COVID analytes. (bd.com)
    But for COVID‑19 specifically, the assay’s specified runtime is 15 minutes, not 5.
    → His “takes five minutes to get a result” claim is wrong for SARS‑CoV‑2.

Overall assessment

Putting it together:

  • Correct / largely correct:

    • BD did release precisely the type of handheld, point‑of‑care COVID‑19 antigen system he described (Veritor Plus + SARS‑CoV‑2 cartridges). (news.bd.com)
    • It was available by August 2020, and in fact began shipping in July 2020 after FDA EUA. (fda.gov)
    • The per‑test cartridge cost ended up in roughly the teens to low‑twenties of dollars per test—very close to his “$20–30” ballpark.
  • Incorrect / off:

    • The analyzer price he quoted (~$250) is materially lower than the ~$300–$600 range evident in commercial pricing. (tigermedical.com)
    • The runtime for COVID‑19 on Veritor is 15 minutes, not 5 minutes.

Given that the core thrust of the prediction was about BD bringing a cheap, handheld, rapid COVID‑19 antigen test to market on roughly an August 2020 timeline, and those key elements did in fact occur (with availability even earlier than forecast and cartridge costs in the predicted range), I classify this prediction as substantially accurate overall, even though some specific numbers (device price and exact minutes to result) were off.

Conclusion: result = "right" with notable but secondary inaccuracies in price and runtime details.