THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Where “Little Flowers” Bloom – Two by Two

By MIKE MAGEE

What are the chances that citizens of New York, the largest city in the nation, would vote in a majority to oppose a formerly corrupt politician with a party machine behind him, and instead favor a little known candidate – the son of immigrant parents with “swarthy skin and belligerent independence,” from a suspect minority and religious heritage, who actively mixed music and politics, who seemed to come out of nowhere but be everywhere at once, and was ultra focused on “efficiency and honesty in municipal government?”

And what if that had occurred not once, but twice in the last century?

Certainly by now, the name Zohran Mamdani is already ringing in your ears. More on him in a moment. But let’s first travel back a century to introduce another candidate for mayor whose life and career presaged the modern day version.

His name was Fiorello La Guardia, and his remains were laid to rest on September 21, 1947 in Woodland Cemetery, a short distance from his home at 5020 Woodbridge Avenue in the Riverdale section of the Bronx. He died at age 64 from pancreatic cancer.

“The Little Flower” (a nickname that derived from his first name Fiore – Italian for flower) described his stature (5 foot 2 inches) but not necessarily his personality. The New York Times obituary described him “as much a part (of New York) as any of its public buildings” and “a little firebrand.”

By any measure, he was one of New York’s own, earning the morning of his death in 1947 the Fire Department’s 5-5-5-5 signal, a traditional bell code used to honor firefighters who have died in the line of duty.

An Italian immigrant, his father was raised a Catholic in Foggia, Italy, and his mother (from Trieste on the Italian/Croatian border) was Jewish.  Fiorello was born on the East Side of Manhattan on December 11, 1882, two years after his parents’ marriage in Italy. His father was a skilled musician and became the bandmaster for the U.S. Army. As a result, Fiorello was raised on multiple Army bases, and graduated from high school in Prescott, Arizona, a stone’s throw from Fort Whipple. Along the way, the father taught the son to play the banjo, cornet, and trumpet, and taught his sister, Gemma, to play violin, mandolin, and piano.

Skilled in languages (Yiddish, German, French, Italian), by the age of 20 Fiorello was employed by the US Consulate in Europe, and on return to the U.S. served as an interpreter on Ellis Island. Within a few years, he managed a Law Degree from NYU in 1910, and in 1914, at age 32 ran for U.S. Congress as a Republican, losing to the Tammany Hall’s Democratic candidate. Two years later, he won the seat even though Republicans initially supported another candidate. By 2018, he was re-elected but this time with Democratic support and declaring himself a “socialist.”

By 1933, Tammany Hall and its leader, NYC Mayor Jimmy Walker, were out, clearing the way for Fiorello. He ran with the support of a complex coalition of German American Republicans, Democratic reformers, Socialists, middle-class Jews, and Italians who in the past had aligned with Tammany Hall.

He came into the Mayor’s office in 1934 good to go. He had promised work relief for the unemployed, merit-based civil service, efficiency over corruption, and a focus on infrastructure including expanded housing, transportation and parks. Robert Moses was the head of his Parks department, a post he held until 1960. His vocal support during the election for FDR paid off handsomely. Fully 20% of the entire national Civil Works Administration (CPA) budget was allocated by FDR to New York City. In return, he delivered his Labor Party’s (which he helped organize) support to FDR in his Presidential elections in 1936, 1940 and 1944.

One of his main achievements was the maintenance of the Office of Price Administration which placed limits on pricing of food, rents, and other necessities. By the time he stepped down on December 31, 1945, “Tammany Hall had been reduced to a shadow.”

Eight decades later, an independent minded, gifted politician, also occasionally self-defined a “socialist” bucked his own political establishment and soundly defeated the modern version of a Democratic Tammany candidate, Andrew Cuomo, surprising many, but not all political pundits. His name is Zohran Mamdani.

Continue reading…

Ami Parekh & Ankoor Shah, Included Health

Ami Parekh is the Chief Health Officer & Ankoor Shah, is VP, Clinical Excellence at Included Health. I had a long conversation with them about the philosophy of how we are doing population health and how we fix the system that we have today. I’m arguing for more primary care, but Ami restated it and says, you need somone you trust who is an expert who can help you make decisions. And this might not be a human! How do we change the system, and how does telehealth work now and how will it change? Defining health from the person perspective, not the way the health system wants to define it! Matthew Holt

As Shared Decision-Making Ails, AI May Save This Human Interaction

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

Shared decision-making between doctors and patients may be “the pinnacle of patient-centered care,” but three new medical journal articles suggest it’s encountering more problems than peaks. Yet counterintuitively, it may be artificial intelligence that rescues this intimately human interaction.

“Shared decision-making is at a crossroads,” declares a Perspective in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Saving Shared Decision-Making.” Unfortunately, its more-research-and-education recommendations for “advancing the science of SDM implementation,” seem more crossing guard than crisis management.

Even a cursory historical perspective shows that SDM is suffering from a failure to flourish. Back in 1982, a report by a presidential commission on ethics in medicine declared SDM “the appropriate ideal for patient-professional relationships” and called on doctors “to respect and enhance their patients’ capacities for wise exercise of their autonomy.”

Yet 43 years later, the Perspective authors – 18 members of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Shared Decision-Making Learning Community – acknowledged that while some doctors respectfully ask patients, “What do you think you would like to do, given these options?” many others still believe that, “Let’s do this option, sound OK?” is a shared decision process.

That attitude reminded me of a tongue-in-cheek comment by comedian Stephen Colbert. “See what we can accomplish when we work together by you doing what I say?” he told a 2015 Colbert Nation audience. “It’s called a partnership.”

Cancer Communication Curtailed

In cancer, where patient-doctor interactions have the highest stakes, shared decision-making was named one of the central components of quality care in a 1999 report, Ensuring Quality Cancer Care, by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine). Nonetheless, a review of SDM among cancer patients in the journal Psycho-Oncology found that for physicians, “making decisions and taking responsibility for the decisions remain an important part of the physicians’ professional identity.” The fear of losing this identity, the authors wrote, “tends to hinder the patient involvement and implementation of SDM.”

Not surprisingly, cancer patients who want to speak up feel as if they won’t be listened to or can’t really refuse whatever their oncologist considers clinically “optimal.” And, it turns out, oncologists are actually less open to SDM if a patient does speak up and resists the recommendations they feel are in the patient’s best interest.

Continue reading…

Are the MA(HT)GA crowd going to be proud of themselves?

By MATTHEW HOLT

I have been trying hard to suppress this line of thought but when I woke up in the middle of the night with this piece basically fully formed in my head I couldn’t not write it. Yes I might lose some friends, but someone in health tech has to say this.

Last week a bunch of health tech companies, providers, plans and others went to the White House to an event remarkably called “Make American Health Technology Great Again”. The main organizer Amy Gleason is someone I consider an industry friend. No one can doubt her credentials in wanting to help patients, especially given her daughter Morgan’s medical condition and her awful experience in the health system. The initiatives spelled out–while they are voluntary and based on actions and regulations that are already on the books–will be net net good for American health care, and good for patients. 

Now, almost everything proposed is happening anyway. Anyone in health tech knows that it’s much easier to get health data and to run AI on it than it was in 2020, and it was way easier to get health data in 2020 than it was in 2016. Yes, of course it should be better and easier than it currently is. Yes, it should have happened quicker. Yes, the big provider systems and their main EMR Epic have not exactly bent over backwards to make data access more convenient for patients and innovators. Yes, of course there are too many demands to “send us a fax”. I personally had great fun with a UCSF-affiliated hospital last week, speaking to 5 different people and ending up both emailing and faxing them a referral to get an appointment. I’m pretty sure I’ll be doing the same thing in 2028. 

You can read tons more about the plans, the event and the voluntary agreement from luminaries like Lisa Bari and new dad Brendan Keeler.

But none of that is what is troubling me. What is deeply disturbing is the normalization of the people allegedly in charge of the nation’s health and health tech and the nonchalance and even knee-bending of those who went to the event last week.

Now I wasn’t there, even if several industry friends and clients were. I was at several similar events back in the Obama administration, but what we have seen from this Trump administration is a radical and toxic departure from America’s leadership in health and democracy, and it is not acceptable.

This is encapsulated by the people on the dias, and the actions they have taken.

Trump and his administration have committed so many egregious authoritarian acts that there’s no way to list them all. Just because people voted for him and the Congress and Judiciary is neutered does not obviate the fact that he was – deep breath – convicted of rape and separately found to be lying about mortgages in a civil court; convicted of 34 felonies for essentially tampering with the 2016 election; and impeached twice–once for politicizing America’s foreign policy and once for starting a violent coup. Don’t forget that at the time of the 2024 election he was being–another deep breath–prosecuted for stealing (and presumably selling) state secrets; being prosecuted for vote tampering in Georgia; and being prosecuted for planning the coup on Jan 6. It’s worth pointing out that two countries that have recent experience of dictatorships (Korea and Brazil) have both prosecuted and banned from office the leaders who attempted similar crimes there. (Incidentally I highly recommend you watch I’m Still Here, the Oscar-winning story of one family whose father was “disappeared” under Brazil’s military dictatorship in the 1970s).

Since his return to office, Trump has overseen the greatest direct political corruption ever in this country – you can bribe him directly via his memecoin. He has also overseen the transformation of ICE into an American-style Gestapo. Masked unidentified ICE agents are now snatching people, including both citizens and legal immigrants, off the streets and burying them in concentration camps here and abroad. Don’t forget that many immigrants or first generation immigrants are heading up those health tech companies at the meeting last week, not to mention how many poor, and perhaps undocumented, immigrants are working in our health care system. 

I haven’t even mentioned the impending cuts to Medicaid, the program for the poorest Americans, which will be the result of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”. That is sure to have a terrible effect on patients and on much of the health system, including many health tech companies trying to support Medicaid patients.

I didn’t even mention Epstein! And this is the guy America’s health care community wants to go and politely applaud just because he reads a speech about interoperability?

And it doesn’t stop there.

Continue reading…

Emily & Me–Money Remaking Medicine

The super connector and super intelligent Emily Peters, (who has quite her own patient adventure story–tl:dr GO GIVE BLOOD) and has written several books including Artists Remaking Medicine, is working on another one called Money Remaking Medicine. She invited me on a show called the Positive Deviants Detectives which is kind of a book club called the Health Care Reinvention Collaborative all hosted by the very wise Dawn Ellison. We talked and the audience joined in about the history of money, HMOs and more in health care and whether we can re-fangle it to make the money do the right things. Matthew Holt

Steve Brown, CureWise — AI for patients

Steve Brown is a genuine digital health OG. Starting with video games for kids with diabetes he eventually turned Health Hero into one of the first disease management companies. It was used in the VA to manage patients at home with CHF, diabetes and more and eventually sold to Bosch. Steve left health care for 15 years, but then at the start of this year had his own health issue. Which turned out to be cancer. He turned to AI and has built an amazing early stage patient facing AI doctor, called CureWise. It essentially has turned LLMs into multiple doctors. He gave me a full and fascinating demo. This is clearly the future but it’s also the present for Steve who is patient zero and the first user as well as the CEO. Amazing stuff. — Matthew Holt

Have Some Water – While You Can

By KIM BELLARD

We live on a water world (despite its name being “Earth”). We, like all life on earth, are water creatures, basically just sacks of water. We drink it, in its various forms (plain, sparking, carbonated, sweetened, flavored, even transformed by a mammal into milk). We use it to grow our crops, to flush our toilets, to water our lawns, to frack our oil, to name a few uses. Yet 97% of Earth’s water is salt water, which we can’t drink without expensive desalination efforts, and most of the 3% that is freshwater is locked up – in icebergs, glaciers, the ground and the atmosphere, etc. Our civilization survives on that sliver of freshwater that remains available to us.

Unfortunately, we’re rapidly diminishing even that sliver. And that has even worse implications than you probably realize.

A new study, published in Science Advances, utilizes satellite images (NASA GRACE/GRACE-FO) to map what’s been happening to the freshwater in the “terrestrial water storage” or TWS we blithely use. Their critical finding: “the continents have undergone unprecedented TWS loss since 2002.”

Indeed: “Areas experiencing drying increased by twice the size of California annually, creating “mega-drying” regions across the Northern Hemisphere…75% of the population lives in 101 countries that have been losing freshwater water.” The dry parts of the world are getting drier faster than the wet parts are getting wetter.

“It is striking how much nonrenewable water we are losing,” said Hrishikesh A. Chandanpurkar, lead author of the study and a research scientist for Arizona State University. “Glaciers and deep groundwater are sort of ancient trust funds. Instead of using them only in times of need, such as a prolonged drought, we are taking them for granted. Also, we are not trying to replenish the groundwater systems during wet years and thus edging towards an imminent freshwater bankruptcy.”

As much as we worry about shrinking glaciers, the study found that 68% of the loss of TWS came from groundwater, and – this is the part you probably didn’t realize – this loss contributes more to rising sea levels than the melting of glaciers and ice caps.

This is not a blip. This is not a fluke. This is a long-term, accelerating trend. The paper concludes: “Combined, they [the findings] send perhaps the direst message on the impact of climate change to date. The continents are drying, freshwater availability is shrinking, and sea level rise is accelerating.”

Yikes.

“These findings send perhaps the most alarming message yet about the impact of climate change on our water resources,” said Jay Famiglietti, the study’s principal investigator and a professor with the ASU School of Sustainability. 

We’ve known for a long time that we were depleting our aquifers, and either ignored the problem or waved off the problem to future generations. The researchers have grim news: “In many places where groundwater is being depleted, it will not be replenished on human timescales.” Once they’re gone, we won’t see them replenished in our lifetimes, our children’s lifetimes, or our grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Professor Famiglietti is frank: “The consequences of continued groundwater overuse could undermine food and water security for billions of people around the world. This is an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ moment — we need immediate action on global water security.”

If all this still seems abstract to you, I’ll point out that much of Iran is facing severe water shortages, and may be forced to relocate its capital. Kabul is in similar straits. Mexico City almost ran out of water a year ago and remains in crisis. Water scarcity is a problem for as much as a third of the EU, such as in Spain and Greece. And the ongoing drought in America’s Southwest isn’t going any anytime soon.

Continue reading…

V Bento, Sword Health

I got to interview V Bento the CEO of Sword Health. We had been in a little back and forth on Linkedin but this was the first time we actually had talked. Almost all of their business is in the US in MSK but they have recently added mental health and V is not shy in talking about the other areas they are heading into. They have had some controversial moments. They just raised money at an amount ($4 Bn) higher than larger rival MSK health outfit Hinge Health is trading at on the public market. Then I used it a year ago via Blue Shield of CA, and found it effective but expensive. Finally, there’s a lawsuit from the folks at Aging 2.0 who claim that they are owed equity from an accelerator Sword was part of in the 2010s.

V talked about all of these, specifically about how they are now charging their clients, and why he thinks they are worth their valuation–which apparently has no special terms for general Catalyst which invested at that valuation. He wouldn’t talk about the lawsuit other than to say he was happy with his position. But we had a good discussion and got to hear about their new tech, including their use of AI, and why V is so bullish on the company moving beyond MSK. Matthew Holt

Gen Z Should Give Health Care a Stare

By KIM BELLARD

Last I knew, Gen Z showed its disdain for older generations with a dismissive “OK Boomer.” But that was a few years ago, and now, it appears, Gen Z doesn’t even bother with that; instead, there is what has become known as the “Gen Z stare.” You’ve probably seen it, and may have even experienced it. TikTok influence Janaye defines it thusly: “The Gen Z stare is specifically when somebody does not respond or just doesn’t have any reaction in a situation where a response is either required or just reasonable.”

It’s been blowing up on social media and the media over the last few days, so it apparently has tapped into the social zeitgeist. It’s often been attributed to customer service interactions, either as a worker receiving an inane request or as a customer facing an undue burden.

You can already see why I link it to healthcare.

It’s off-putting because, as Michael Poulin, an associate psychology professor at the University at Buffalo, told Vox: “People interpret it as social rejection. There is nothing that, as social beings, humans hate more. There’s nothing that stings more than rejection.”

Many attribute the Gen Z stare to Gen Z’s lack of social experience caused by isolation during the pandemic, exacerbated by too much screen time generally. Jess Rauchberg, an assistant professor of communication technologies at Seton Hall University, would tend to agree, telling NBC News: “I think we are starting to really see the long-term effects of constant digital media use, right?” 

Similarly, Tara Well, a professor at Bernard College, told Vox: “It’s sort of almost as though they’re looking at me as though they’re watching a TV show… We don’t see them as dynamic people who are interacting with us, who are full of thoughts and emotions and living, breathing people. If you see people as just ideas or images, you look at them like you’re paging through an old magazine or scrolling on your phone.”

Millennial Jarrod Benson told The Washington Post: “It’s like they’re always watching a video, and they don’t feel like the need to respond. Small talk is painful. We know this. But we do it because it’s socially acceptable and almost socially required, right? But they won’t do it.” Zoomer (as those of Gen Z are known) Jordan MacIsaac speculated to The New York Times: “It almost feels like a resurgence of stranger danger. Like, people just don’t know how to make small talk or interact with people they don’t know.”

On the other hand, TikTok creator Dametrius “Jet” Latham claims: “I don’t think it’s a lack of social skills. I just think we don’t care,” which might be more to the point.

ABC News cited some customer service examples that deserved a Gen Z stare: “I’ve been asked to make somebody’s iced tea less cold. I’ve been asked to give them a cheeseburger without the cheese, but keep the pepper jack of it all.” As Zoomer Efe Ahworegba put it: “The Gen Z stare is basically us saying the customer is not always right.”

Ms. Ahworegba doesn’t think a Gen Z stare doesn’t reflect Gen Z’s lack of social skills, but rather: “They just didn’t want to communicate with someone who’s not using their own brain cells.” As some Zoomers say, it is “the look they give people who are being stupid while waiting for them to realize they are being stupid.”

Still, as one commenter on TikTok wrote: “I think it’s hilarious that Gen Z thinks they’re the first generation to ever deal with stupidity or difficult customers, and that’s how they justify the fact that they just disassociate and mindlessly stare into space whenever they are confronted with a difficult or confusing situation, instead of immediately engaging in the situation like every other generation has ever done before them lol.”

Or perhaps this is much ado about nothing. Professor Poulin noted: “To some degree, it’s a comforting myth that all of us who are adults — who’ve gotten beyond the teens and 20s — that we tell ourselves that we were surely better than that.” When it comes to displaying socially acceptable behavior, he says: “This isn’t the first generation to fail.”

———

Interestingly, Gen Z is already skeptical of our traditional healthcare system, as well they might be.

Continue reading…

China Goes “Democratic” on Artificial General Intelligence

By MIKE MAGEE

Last week, following a visit to the White House, Jensen Huang instigated a wholesale reversal of policy from Trump who was blocking Nvidia sales of its H20 chip to China. What did Jensen say?

We can only guess of course. But he likely shared the results of a proprietary report from noted AI researchers at Digital Science that suggested an immediate policy course correction was critical. Beyond the fact that over 50% of all AI researchers are currently based in China, their study documented that “In 2000, China-based scholars produced just 671 AI papers, but in 2024 their 23,695 AI-related publications topped the combined output of the United States (6378), the United Kingdom (2747), and the European Union (10,055).”

David Hook, CEO of Digital Science was declarative in the opening of the report, stating “U.S. influence in AI research is declining, with China now dominating.”

China now supports about 30,000 AI researchers compared to only 10,000 in the US. And that number is shrinking thanks to US tariff and visa shenanigans, and overt attacks by the administration on our premier academic institutions.

Economics professors David Autor (MIT) and Gordon Hanson (Harvard), known for “their research into how globalization, and especially the rise of China, reshaped the American labor market,” famously described the elements of “China Shock 1.0.” in 2013. It was “a singular process—China’s late-1970s transition from Maoist central planning to a market economy, which rapidly moved the country’s labor and capital from collective rural farms to capitalist urban factories.”

As a result, a quarter of all US manufacturing jobs disappeared between 1999 and 2007. Today China’s manufacturing work force tops 100 million, dwarfing the US manufacturing job count of 13 million. Those numbers peaked a decade ago when China’s supply of low cost labor peaked. But these days China is clearly looking forward while this administration and its advisers are being left behind in the rear view mirror.

Welcome to “China Shock 2.0” wrote Autor and Hanson in a recent New York Times editorial. But this time, their leaders are focusing on “key technologies of the 21st century…(and it) will last for as long as China has the resources, patience and discipline to compete fiercely.”

The highly respected Australian Strategic Policy Institute, funded by their Defense Department, has been tracking the volume of published innovative technology research in the US and China for over a quarter century. They see this as a measure of experts opinion where the greatest innovations are originating. In 2007, we led China in the prior four years in 60 of 64 “frontier technologies.”

Two decades later, the table has flipped, with China well ahead of the US in 57 of 64 categories measured.

Continue reading…