The only thing single payer does is eliminate insurance company opportunism. It doesn't suddenly convert the entire healthcare system into a dystopian concrete monolith.
Although if it did it would make OP's job far easier, because if you could prove there were cost and health outcome benefits on a national scale you would be able to convert the idea into a viable business with a single corporate sales pitch, instead of trying to sell to every doctor individually.
In fact the real resistance would come from pharma. Single payer or not, evidence-based prescribing of empirically proven best-in-class drugs would undermine pharma's entire business model.
As someone who ran a healthcare business in Canada, I can tell you that this is absolutely not the case. Single payers are outrageously conservative buyers... sure, you may convince them in 5-10 years, but no startup can spend 5-10 years burning cash without making revenue. Particularly since, unlike with drug discovery, there's no guarantee that you'll be the only one selling this if the single payer eventually approves it.
What actually happens is that the single payer orients itself to big, slow companies that more closely resemble it, thus devastating small businesses and rewarding large, established players. It is damn near impossible to create a startup that sells to a single payer healthcare system.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have publicly funded providers? I'm all for single payer, but with a completely privatized provider network. Make the free market compete for the government's dollars. Technology should theoretically reduce costs because it more automation generally means higher profits.
provider != payer
Providers are actually in many cases like contractors... most family doctors, for example, bill for services rendered and are otherwise free agents (unlike in the UK).
And the same goes for drug prescriptions.