THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Software Living in an Enterprise World: Why Digital Behavioral Health Can’t Gain Traction

By TREVOR VAN MIERLO

Let’s face it: for the past 25 years, digital behavioral health has struggled. Yet, we keep reinventing (and funding) the same models over and over again.

How It All Started

In the beginning (mid-1990s), a handful of developers, researchers, and investors envisioned high reach, lower-cost, highly tailored, anonymous interventions reaching millions of people with limited healthcare access.

The initial focus was never healthcare providers and insurers. These organizations were seen as too slow to adopt new technologies, and there was a general distrust of integrated care and insurers. Many digital health companies feared these organizations (and pharma) would leverage their power to learn from smaller companies, and then redevelop interventions internally.

Instead, the focus was on partnerships and B2C sales. Funding was easier to obtain from granting agencies, and there was ample development support flowing from sources like the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The primary concern was 1) whether the population could access these revolutionary tools and, 2) who would pay for them.

The Digital Divide

Back then, funders were often short-sightedly obsessed with the digital divide – the gap between people who had access to digital technology (mostly educated, higher-income earners in large cities) and everyone else. The argument was, “Why should we fund digital tools that will only benefit those who already have access to healthcare?”

Data was available, so academics armed themselves with ANOVA and relentlessly examined variables such as hardware costs, processing speed, age, gender, race, ethnicity, geography, income, and education. If you check Google Scholar, you can see the prevailing sentiment was that it would take decades for the digital divide to narrow, and new policy was desperately required to fix the problem (see: here, here, here, and here).

No More Excuses

Fast forward to 2024. According to a recent article in Forbes, there are 5.4 billion internet users worldwide (66% of the global population). In the U.S., 94.6% of Americans have internet access. Most US households have multiple devices, and according to Pew Research Center Research, 97% own a cellphone, of which 90% are smartphones.

As a Gen X’er who used a typewriter in college before upgrading to a Compaq Deskpro 286 from Future Shop (for about $400), my adult life has been a witness to the rapid progression of digital. Now, my 9-year-old daughter is teaching me how to play Fortnite (Epic Games), my 11-year-old is the only kid on his hockey team without a smartphone (this won’t last), and STARLINK allows me to chat face-to-face with my parents in rural Northern Ontario.

All aspects of technology are pervasive and accessible – but if you search Google or Bing for immediate, evidence-based behavioral help, you can’t get it. If you can find access it’s behind a paywall: through your employer (contact HR), health plan (call to see if you’re covered), or subscription ($19.99 per month).

That’s not meeting the original vision – and we have the technology. So, what’s the problem?

Continue reading…

The Art of Political Jiu-Jitsu: Project 2025 and Donald Trump

By MIKE MAGEE

Funny think about that Project 2025’s  “Mandate for Leadership.” Trump declared in this week’s  debate, “I know nothing about it.” But in addition to the vast majority of authors and editors of the document having served in the prior Trump administration, the former President’s name is mentioned in the 887 page document over 300 times.

Described by Pulitzer Prize winning economics columnist, Carlos Lozada, the work itself is an “off-the-shelf governing plan.” It’s packed with conservative fan favorites, not simply “militarizing the southern border” and reversing what they call “climate fanaticism”, but especially placing DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) efforts in the waste bin, banning abortion nationally, and pushing deregulation and tax cuts for the richy rich.

None of that is surprising if you’ve run into these characters on K street and beyond. This is who they are, and largely who they have always been. Over the years, I’ve bumped elbows with them in Washington and in corporate C-suites galore. What makes this effort a bit unique is, of course, the presence of a cooperative headliner who will clearly endorse “the elevation of religious beliefs in government affairs” and actively diminish “the powers of Congress and the Judiciary.”

This is political jiu-jitsu practiced at its highest level. Rather than dismantling the “deep state,” these operators are fast at work “capturing the administrative state” for their own self-serving purposes.

Understanding jiu-jitsu takes one a long way toward understanding the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Institute’s puppet masters. The word “Jū” means “gentle, soft, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding.” It’s companion, “jutsu” is the “art or technique.” Combine the two, and you have the ”yielding-art.” The intent in bodily (or political) combat is to harness an opponent’s power against himself, rather that confronting him directly.

Political jiu-jitsu may be deceptive and confusing in the absence of visible weaponry, but it is anything but gentle. In the physical version, you are instructed in joint locks and chokeholds of course, but also biting, hair pulling, and gouging. Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation and editor of Project 2025, is a master of the political version. While he and Trump outwardly employed a “nothing to see here” stance, demographic realities were cued up in the document. The solution to the growing minority status for Republicans? “Voter efficiency” and a rigged census. Or in the Project’s words: “Strong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureau’s mission with conservative principles.”

Robert’s language is soft, but its impact hard indeed. In the introduction he suggests that the Declaration of Independence’s words “pursuit of happiness” were better understood to be “the pursuit of blessedness” while providing corporations a market free hand “to flourish.” Career civil servants are recast as “holdovers” without “moral legitimacy.” And the Justice Department suffers this put-down – “a bloated bureaucracy with a critical core of personnel who are infatuated with the perpetuation of a radical liberal agenda.”

Majority rules and demographic changes being what they may, alternative facts and voter suppression have been added to the tools of “political jiu-jitsu” artists. But Kelly Anne Conway was nowhere to be seen this week, and their headliner was long-winded, boring, and tired. As for voter integrity, the Democrats are fully funded and lawyered up. Finally, good Republicans everywhere have begun to recognize that towing the MAGA line much further puts their down-ballot hopes in the direct line of fire.  Those 300 mentions are beginning to look like a liability instead of an asset.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and a regular THCB contributor. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)

We Should Learn to Have More Fun (or Vice-Versa)

By KIM BELLARD

For several years now, my North Star for thinking about innovation has been Steven Johnson’s great quote (in his delightful Wonderland: How Play Made the Modern World): “You will find the future where people are having the most fun.” No, no, no, naysayers argue, inventing the future is serious business, and certainly fun is not the point of business.  Maybe they’re right, but I’m happier hoping for a future guided by a sense of fun than by one guided by P&Ls.

Well, I think I may have found an equally insightful point of view about fun, espoused by game designer Raph Koster in his 2004 book A Theory of Fun for Game Design: “Fun is just another word for learning.”

Wow.

That’s not how most of us think about learning. Learning is hard, learning is going to school, learning is taking tests, learning is something you have to do when you’re not having fun. So “fun is just another word for learning” is quite a different perspective – and one I’m very much attracted to.

I regret that it took me twenty years to discover Mr. Koster’s insight. I read it in a more current book: Kelly Clancy’s Playing With Reality: How Games Have Shaped Our World. Dr. Clancy is not a game designer; she is a neuroscientist and physicist, but she is all about play. Her book looks at games and game theory, especially how the latter has been misunderstood/misused.

We usually think of play as a waste of time, as something inherently unserious and unimportant, when, in fact, it is how our brains have evolved to learn. The problem is, we’ve turned learning into education, education into a requirement, teaching into a profession, and fun into something entirely separate. We’ve gotten it backwards.

“Play is a tool the brain uses to generate data on which to train itself, a way of building better models of the world to make better predictions,” she writes. “Games are more than an invention; they are an instinct.”  Indeed, she asserts: “Play is to intelligence as mutation is to evolution.”

Mr. Koster’s fuller quote about fun and learning is on target with this:

That’s what games are, in the end. Teachers. Fun is just another word for learning. Games teach you how aspects of reality work, how to understand yourself, how to understand the actions of others, and how to imagine.

We don’t look at our teachers as a source of fun (and many students barely look at them as a source of learning). We don’t look at schools as a place for games, except on the playground, and then only for the youngest students. We drive students to boredom, and, as Mr. Koster says, “boredom is the opposite of learning” (although, ironically, boredom may be important to creativity).  

Learning is actually fun, especially from a physiological standpoint.

Continue reading…

Why We Still Kill Patients (And What We Need to Stop Doing It)

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

This article is adapted from a talk given Sept. 7 at the 11th Annual World Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit in Irvine, California, sponsored by the Patient Safety Movement Foundation. World Patient Safety Day is Sept. 17, with a series of events in Washington, D.C. from Sept. 15-17 sponsored by Patients for Patient Safety (US). An agenda and registration, which is free, can be found here.

Since I started researching and writing about patient safety, one question has continually haunted me: given the grievous toll of death and injury from preventable medical harm that has been documented in the medical literature for at least 50 years, why have so many good and caring people – friends, family, colleagues – done so little to stop it?

To frame that question with brutal candor: Why do we still kill patients? And how do we change that? The answer, I believe, lies in addressing three key factors: Invisibility, inertia and income.”

When it comes to invisibility, we’ve all heard innumerable times the analogy with airline safety; i.e., plane crashes occur in public view, but the toll taken by medical error occurs in private. That’s true and important, but there are other factors that promote invisibility that we in the patient safety movement need to address.

For instance, while I’m not a physician, I can say with certainty that every patient harmed in the hospital had a diagnosis (right or wrong), and often more than one. Yet disease groups such as the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society have been uninvolved in efforts to eliminate the preventable harm that’s afflicting their presumed constituents.

Why have we let these influential groups sit on the sidelines rather than make them integral partners in raising public and policy visibility? For instance, there are a number of Congressional caucuses – bipartisan groups of legislators – focusing on cancer. While much attention is paid to the Biden administration’s cancer moonshot, what about the safety of cancer patients treated today, while we wait for an elusive cure?

In a similar vein about missed opportunities for visibility, the stories told by patient advocates about the harm a loved one has suffered are always powerful. However, the specific hospital where the harm took place is typically not mentioned, perhaps for legal reasons, perhaps because it’s become a habit. The effect, however, is to dilute the visibility of the danger. The public is not confronted with the uncomfortable reality that my reputable hospital and doctor in a nice, middle-class area could cause me the same awful harm.

Finally, one time-tested way to hide a problem is to use obscure language to describe it. Back in 1978, RAND Corporation published a paper provocatively entitled, “Iatrogenesis: Just What the Doctor Ordered.” It concluded: “In terms of volume alone, we are awash in iatrogenesis.”  

That would have been a compelling soundbite decades before the 1999 To Err is Human report if everyone in America studied ancient Greek. “Iatrogenesis” is a Greek term meaning “the production of disease by the manner, diagnosis or treatment of a physician.” In short, patient harm is “what the doctor ordered.” Although there was plain English in the paper, the technical focus allowed the stunning prevalence of patient harm to remain publicly invisible.

Of course, today we don’t need to use a foreign language to hide unpleasantness. We can use jargon and euphemism. We have “healthcare-acquired conditions” and “healthcare-associated infections.” At least the Greek term acknowledged causality and responsibility.

The invisibility of the scope and causes of patient harm leads inevitably to inertia and complacency.

Continue reading…

Moving the bar(rier) forward: the benefits of de-risking cytokine release syndrome

By SAMANTHA McCLENAHAN

Every breakthrough in cancer treatment brings hope, but it also comes with a staggering price, raising a critical question: how do we balance groundbreaking advances with the financial reality that could limit access for many patients? 

Developing new cancer medications involves extensive research, clinical trials, and regulatory approvals; a lengthy process that requires substantial financial investment. Within clinical trials, this includes maintaining stringent safety protocols and managing a variety of adverse events, from mild reactions requiring little to no care to extremely severe events with hefty hospital stays and life-saving medical intervention. Take Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS), for example. CRS is a common adverse event associated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy and other immunotherapies that presents across this spectrum with flu-like symptoms in mild cases of CRS to organ damage, and even death, in severe cases. The median cost of treating CRS following cancer-target immunotherapy is over half a million dollars in the United States. Tackling that large price tag – in addition to another $500,000 for CAR-T cell therapies – and reducing associated risks are necessary to break down barriers to care for many patients – especially those who are uninsured or with limited resources hindering the ability to travel, miss work, or secure a caregiver.

Unlocking Cost Efficiency in Clinical Trials with Digital Health Technologies

Integration of digital health technologies (DHTs) including telehealth, wearables such as smart watches, remote patient monitoring, and mobile applications in oncology care and clinical trials has shown immense value in improving patient outcomes, despite the slow uptake within the field. General benefits during clinical trials are captured through: 

  1. Reducing clinical visits and shortening trial length – Remote patient monitoring and virtual consultations minimize the need for physical visits, accelerating trial timelines. 
  2. Enhancing recruitment, diversity, and participant completion – Targeted outreach supported by big data analytics and machine learning algorithms helps to effectively identify and engage with eligible candidates, leading to faster recruitment and lower dropout rates. Digital technologies also overcome traditional barriers to participation, such as location, transportation, language barriers, and information access.  for a broader representation of patient demographics and more generalized findings and improved healthcare equity. 
  3. Increasing availability of evidentiary and safety requirements – Continuous data collection and monitoring in the setting most comfortable to patients – extending beyond clinical walls. This provides a pool of data to support clinical endpoints and enhances patient safety by enabling early detection of adverse events. 

While the exact cost of these digital interventions varies by study, there is significant evidence that cost-saving measures are emerging.

Continue reading…

Everything you ever want to know about birth control and much more — Sophia Yen, Pandia Health

Dr. Sophia Yen is the Chief Medical Officer (and Founder) of Pandia Health. She is about as expert as it comes on the topics contraception, emergency contraception, medication abortion, menopause and lots more. Her PR peeps asked if I’d interview her about Pandia Health, which is a fantastic online clinic & pharmacy for women at basically all ages. But I couldn’t have her on THCB without having her tell all about the world of contraception, menopause and of course reproductive health. I promise you that if you are a woman or somone who knows a woman, this is a fascinating interview. You will learn a lot, and there are lots of suggestions for how to manage many aspects of your health–Matthew Holt

The Fantastic Fungi — Biohybrid Bots Are Mushrooming

By KIM BELLARD

I hadn’t expected to write about a biology-related topic anytime soon after doing so last week, but, gosh darn it, then I saw a press release from Cornell about biohybrid robots – powered by mushrooms (aka fungi)! They had me at “biohybrid.”  

The release talks about a new paper — Sensorimotor Control of Robots Mediated by Electrophysiological Measurements of Fungal Mycelia – from the Cornell’s Organic Robotics Lab, led by Professor Rob Shepherd. As the release describes the work:

By harnessing mycelia’s innate electrical signals, the researchers discovered a new way of controlling “biohybrid” robots that can potentially react to their environment better than their purely synthetic counterparts.  

Or, in the researchers’ own words:

The paper highlights two key innovations: first, a vibration- and electromagnetic interference–shielded mycelium electrical interface that allows for stable, long-term electrophysiological bioelectric recordings during untethered, mobile operation; second, a control architecture for robots inspired by neural central pattern generators, incorporating rhythmic patterns of positive and negative spikes from the living mycelia.

Let’s simplify that: “This paper is the first of many that will use the fungal kingdom to provide environmental sensing and command signals to robots to improve their levels of autonomy,” Professor Shepherd said. “By growing mycelium into the electronics of a robot, we were able to allow the biohybrid machine to sense and respond to the environment.”

Lead author Anand Mishra, a research associate in the lab, explained: “If you think about a synthetic system – let’s say, any passive sensor – we just use it for one purpose. But living systems respond to touch, they respond to light, they respond to heat, they respond to even some unknowns, like signals. That’s why we think, OK, if you wanted to build future robots, how can they work in an unexpected environment? We can leverage these living systems, and any unknown input comes in, the robot will respond to that.”

The team build two robots: a soft one shaped like a spider, and a wheeled one. The researchers first used the natural spike in the mycelia to make them walk and roll, respectively, using the natural signals from the mycelia. Then researchers exposed them to ultraviolet light, which caused the mycelia to react and changed the robots’ gaits. Finally, the researchers were able to override the mycelia signals entirely.

“This kind of project is not just about controlling a robot,” Dr. Mishra said. “It is also about creating a true connection with the living system. Because once you hear the signal, you also understand what’s going on. Maybe that signal is coming from some kind of stresses. So you’re seeing the physical response, because those signals we can’t visualize, but the robot is making a visualization.”

Dr. Shepherd believes that instead of using light as the signal, they will use chemical signals. For example: “The potential for future robots could be to sense soil chemistry in row crops and decide when to add more fertilizer, for example, perhaps mitigating downstream effects of agriculture like harmful algal blooms.”

It turns out that biohybrid robots in general and fungal computing in particular are a thing. In last week’s article I quoted Professor Andrew Adamatzky, of the University of the West of England about his preference for fungal computing. He not only is the Professor in Unconventional Computing there, and is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal for Unconventional Computing, but also literally wrote the book about fungal computing.  He’s been working on fungal computing since 2018 (and before that on slime mold computing).

Professor Adamatzky notes that fungi have a wide array of sensory inputs: “They sense light, chemicals, gases, gravity, and electric fields,” which opens the door to a wide variety of inputs (and outputs). Accordingly, Ugnius Bajarunas, a member of Professor Adamatzy’s team, told an audience last year: “Our goal is real-time dialog between natural and artificial systems.”

With fungal computing, TechHQ predicts: “The future of computing could turn out to be one where we care for our devices in a way that’s closer to looking after a houseplant than it is to plugging in and switching on a laptop.”

But how would we reboot them?

Continue reading…

Convention Invisibility Teaches A Crucial Health Policy Lesson

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

It’s close to an iron rule: Politics drives policy. In that context, the health policy issues that were largely invisible at the Republican and Democratic conventions taught a crucial political lesson.

Start with access. According to KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), more than 25 million Americans have been disenrolled from Medicaid as of Aug. 23. Ten states, all dominated by Republican legislatures and/or governors, have declined to expand the program, leaving 2.8 million Americans unnecessarily uninsured.

Yet if you were looking to either convention to find protestors telling heart-rending personal stories to humanize those statistics, you’d search in vain. There were none.

The Poor People’s Army, a group advocating for economic justice, did invite reporters covering both conventions to focus on one of the most urgent issues facing the poor and near-poor – not medical care access, but the lack of basic housing.

Homelessness set a record in 2023, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, affecting one in 500 Americans, while the number of renters forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income has surged since 2015. The former is apparent on the streets of every big city, while the latter is felt by millions in every paycheck.

The political lesson is clear. While support for Medicaid expansion was buried deep in the Democratic platform, at the grassroots level there’s no sign of the kind of passionate involvement that could drive votes in a close election. Medicare, of course, is a separate issue, with both parties promising to protect the program dear to the hearts of the nation’s elderly, who have the highest percentage voting turnout of any age group.

Of course, even those with good health insurance often have to worry about medical costs, with KFF polling finding that a shocking 41% of U.S. adults have medical debt. However, although the phrase, “It’s the prices, stupid!” has become a bipartisan policy refrain, there are no swing state votes to be swung by harping on the alleged cupidity of the local hospital. So while denouncing “medical debt,” no one did.

On the other hand, Democrats spoke repeatedly about the depredations of “Big Pharma.” The GOP platform satisfied itself with a vague promise to “expand access to new…prescription drug options” to address prescription drug costs that “are out of control.” The responsibility for those prices was unspecified.

As for health insurers, articles about questionable denials of medical claims by giant insurers like United Healthcare and Humana have garnered headlines and expressions of outrage. Once again, however, the grassroots reaction is the key. There has been no outpouring of public indignation remotely comparable to the HMO backlash of the 1990s. As a result, health insurers have largely vacated the role of politically visible corporate villain.

Continue reading…

How’s Human Evolution Going? The Harris-Walz Health Policy team wants to know.

By MIKE MAGEE

Clearly the Harris-Walz ticket has been doing their homework. Last week, the book above was spotted on one prominent thought-leader’s pile: “Human Evolutionary Demography.” It’s a 780 page academic Tour de force read by veteran scientist Oskar Burger, leader of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the Laboratory of Evolutionary Biodemography.

That’s the Institute founded in 1917 in Berlin whose first director was Albert Einstein. These days, its researchers work (in an age of “alternate facts”) to separate justified belief from opinion. Their major focus is on “categories of thought, proof, and experience” at the crossroads of “science and ambient cultures.”

This is the field of Human Evolutionary Demography, a blending of natural science with social science. Demographers study populations and explore how humans behave, organize and thrive focusing heavily on birth, migration, and aging.

This has been a year of just that in American politics. First, the fallout of the Dobbs decision caught Republicans with their electoral pants down in reproductive freedom referendums in Kansas, Michigan, Kentucky and Vermont. Southern migration of Democrats to former red states like Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina have turned them various shades of purple. And this summer, octogenarian candidates from both parties have been all the rage, literally.

Up until July 21, 2024, the race for the Presidency was between two aging candidates with visible mental and physical disabilities. The victor was destined to a term of office that would extend into his 80’s.

The emergence of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee was a reflection of the electorates growing discomfort with turning a blind eye to the realities of aging. It also suggested that Americans, especially Gen X’ers, have grown tired of Boomer dominance in the lives of an increasingly multi-cultural America – tired as well of growing income disparity, attacks on reproductive freedom, and declining life expectancy in America.

But why the sudden interest in “Human Evolutionary Demography?” The answer lies in the numbers. Back in 2012 Oskar Burger studied Swedes and noted that in 1800 their life expectancy was 32 years. They gained an additional 20 years in the century that followed, and 30 more years by 2000.

What stumped Burger was not the gains over these two hundred years. Instead he focused on the question, “Why did it take the human race so long to progress?” The bottom line is this, we left chimpanzees behind in the evolutionary dust some 6.6 million years ago. We limped along, not faring very well, for all but the last 200 years. In the past century, a moment in time spanning just 4 of our historic 8000 plus human generations, we took off.

This period coincided with rapid scientific and technologic advances, cleaner air and water, greater nutritional support, improved education and housing, expanded public health related governmental policy, and establishment of a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.

But in the past decade, growth in U.S. life expectancy has all but stalled. For the first time, we actually saw declines each year from 2014 to 2019. For the decade just past, the numbers improved overall by less than 1/2 of 1 %. When first studied, declines were blamed on losses in working age adults due to trauma, addiction, suicide or “deaths of despair.”

But recent studies reveal losses due to poor maternal/fetal care, especially in red states, and made worse by fallout of the Dobbs decision. A second complicator has been losses starting at age 65 from complications of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, made worse by obesity and poor health care follow-up.

This has led the Max Planck Institute to issue an alert to U.S. health experts: “Our findings suggest that the U.S. faces a ‘double jeopardy’ from both midlife and old-age mortality trends, with the latter being more severe.”

Women’s reproductive advocates say it’s really a “triple jeopardy” demanding grass roots advocacy focused on access today, and political victory up and down the ballot in November. In their words, “Today, and every day, we work to ensure that every patient who seeks sexual and reproductive health care can access it, and to build a just world that includes nationwide access to abortion for all — no matter what.”

If this is true, a careful read of “Human Evolutionary Demography” could direct a 3-prong approach for the health policy leaders in the Harris-Walz campaign:

  1. Expanded safety net to address “deaths of despair.”
  2. Expansion of the ACA toward Universal Health Insurance to address the chronic disease burden of older Americans.
  3. Federal guarantees of reproductive freedom and open access to reproductive care.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and a regular THCB contributor. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)

“Moral Distress” Has Arrived On Health Care’s Stoop

By MIKE MAGEE

When Andrew Jameton, a Nursing Professor at the Department of Mental Health and Community Nursing at UCSF in 1984 published “Nursing Practice: The Ethical Issues”, the term “Moral Distress” was a novel term in clinical health care. It focused primarily on “care that they were expected to provide but ethically opposed.”

Over the past four decades, the definition has expanded and now encompasses the “inability to provide the care that one feels morally compelled to provide.” Beyond its’ impact on individual health professionals, it has growing health policy implications, explosively reverberating in the wake of the recent Dobbs decision.

There are approximately 1600 health care facilities nationwide that provide abortion care in the U.S. In the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, 14 states have near complete bans on all abortions and this reproductive care is severely restricted in an additional 11 states “with few or no exceptions for maternal health or life endangerment.”

The impact of these rulings has created not only a moral dilemma for health professionals, but also intense legal jeopardy. As one Tennessee Obstetrician recently put it, “There are weeks when I commit multiple felonies.”

There now exists a validated psychometric tool to measure the mental health impact of the Supreme Court’s actions called the Moral Distress Thermometer(MDT). Experts recently surveyed 310 practicing clinicians involved in women’s reproductive health care, with a focus on comparing moral distress in those from restricted versus unrestricted states. What they reported in JAMA was that those in restricted vs. protected states had scores on the MDT that were more than double their comparators.

As one might expect, high scores on the MDT also correlate with higher rates of job burnout and attrition. This means lower rates of abortion care, but also a smaller maternal health workforce overall. This is in states that had already been lagging behind in access to obstetrical and reproductive health care in general. Clinical shortages are expected to rise in the months approaching an historic Presidential election.

Project 2025’s agenda for future women in America is much more expansive and aggressive than restriction of abortion alone. Trump’s denials aside, his selection of JD Vance as a running mate signals an intent to thoroughly engage in restriction of women’s reproductive rights in allegiance with a Supreme Court that appears equally committed.

With that in mind, the massive response to the Harris-Walz ticket appears to be offering a response that appears to be go well beyond simple “weird” labeling. Those words are a promise to each other, “We’re not going back.”

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and a regular THCB contributor. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)