Category: Health Tech

Batteries All Around

Jun 26, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

Quick question: how many batteries do you have? Chances are, the answer is way bigger than you think. They’re in your devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops, ear buds), they’re throughout your house (e.g., clocks, smoke detectors), they’re in your car (even if you don’t have an EV), and they may even be in you. We usually only think about them when they need recharging, or when they catch fire. They can be an environmental nightmare if not recycled, and recycling lithium-ion batteries is still problematic.

So I was intrigued to read about some efforts to rethink what a battery is.

Let’s start with some work done by Swedish tech company Sinonus, a spinout of Chalmers University of Technology and KTH Royal Institute of Technology. The company is all about carbon fiber; more specifically, integrating structural strength and storing energy.

It seeks to make things multipurpose: “Just think of your smartphone, today it seems farfetched to use a single purpose phone, camera and mp3 player when you can have them all in one. In the same way we can transform single purpose materials, such as structure materials and batteries, through our multipurpose carbon fiber composite solution.”

Or, as TechRadar put it, “how the laptop could become the battery.”

Artificial Intelligence Plus Data Democratization Requires New Health Care Framework

Jun 25, 2024

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

The latest draft government strategic plan for health information technology pledges to support health information sharing among individuals, health care providers and others “so that they can make informed decisions and create better health outcomes.”

Those good intentions notwithstanding, the current health data landscape is dramatically different from when the organizational author of the plan, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, formed two decades ago. As Price and Cohen have pointed out, entities subject to federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements represent just the tip of the informational iceberg. Looming larger are health information generated by non-HIPAA-covered entities, user-generated health information, and non-health information being used to generate inferences about treatment and health improvement.

Meanwhile, the content of health information, its capabilities, and, crucially, the loci of control are all undergoing radical shifts due to the combined effects of data democratization and artificial intelligence. The increasing sophistication of consumer-facing AI tools such as biometric monitoring and web-based analytics are being seen as a harbinger of “fundamental changes” in interactions between health care professionals and patients.

In that context, a framework of information sharing I’ve called “collaborative health” could help proactively create a therapeutic alliance designed to respond to the emerging new realities of the AI age.

The term (not be confused with the interprofessional coordination known as “collaborative care”) describes a shifting constellation of relationships for health maintenance and sickness care shaped by individuals based on their life circumstances. At a time when people can increasingly find, create, control, and act upon an unprecedented breadth and depth of personalized information, the traditional care system will often remain a part of these relationships, but not always. For example, a review of breast cancer apps found that about one-third now use individualized, patient-reported health data obtained outside traditional care settings.

Collaborative health has three core principles: shared information, shared engagement, and shared accountability. They are meant to enable a framework of mutual trust and obligation with which to address the clinical, ethical, and legal issues AI and data democratization are bringing to the fore. As the white paper AI Rights for Patients noted, digital technologies can be vital tools, but they can also expose patients to privacy breaches, illegal data sharing and other “cyber harms.” Involving patients “is not just a moral imperative; it is foundational to the responsible and effective deployment of AI in health and in care.” (While “responsible” is not defined, one plausible definition might be “defensible to a jury.”)

Below is a brief description of how collaborative health principles might apply in practice.

Shared information

While the OurNotes initiative represents a model for co-creation of information with clinicians, important non-traditional inputs that should be shared are still generally absent from the record. These might include not just patient-provided data from vetted wearables and sensors, but also information from important non-traditional providers, such as the online fertility companies often accessed through an employee benefit. Whatever is in the record, the 21^st Century Cures Act and subsequent regulations addressing interoperability through mechanisms such as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources more commonly known as FHIR have made much of that information available for patients to access and share electronically with whomever they choose.

Provider sharing of non-traditional information that comes from outside the EHR could be more problematic. So-called “commercially available information,” not protected by HIPAA, is being used to generate inferences about health improvement interventions. Individually identified data can include shopping habits, online searches, living arrangements and many other variables analyzed by proprietary AI algorithms that have undergone no public scrutiny for accuracy or bias. Since use by providers is often motivated by value-based payment incentives, voluntary disclosure will distance clinicians from a questionable form of surveillance capitalism.

Innovators: Avoid Health Care

Jun 18, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang has become quite the media darling lately, due to NVIDIA’s skyrocketing market value the past two years ($3.3 trillion now, thank you very much. A year ago it first hit $1 trillion). His company is now the world’s third largest company by market capitalization. Last week he gave the commencement speech at Caltech, and offered those graduates some interesting insights.

Which, of course, I’ll try to apply to healthcare.

Mr. Jensen founded NVIDIA in 1993, and took the company public in 1999, but for much of its existence it struggled to find its niche. Mr. Huang figured NVIDIA needed to go to a market where there were no customers yet – “because where there are no customers, there are no competitors.” He likes to call this “zero billion dollar markets” (a phrase I gather he did not invent).

About a decade ago the company bet on deep learning and A.I. “No one knew how far deep learning could scale, and if we didn’t build it, we’d never know,” Mr. Huang told the graduates. “Our logic is: If we don’t build it, they can’t come.”

NVIDIA did build it, and, boy, they did come.

He believes we all should try to do things that haven’t been done before, things that “are insanely hard to do,” because if you succeed you can make a real contribution to the world. Going into zero billion dollar markets allows a company to be a “market maker, not a market-taker.” He’s not interested in market share; he’s interested in developing new markets.

Accordingly, he told the Caltech graduates:

I hope you believe in something. Something unconventional, something unexplored. But let it be informed, and let it be reasoned, and dedicate yourself to making that happen. You may find your GPU. You may find your CUDA. You may find your generative AI. You may find your NVIDIA.

And in that group, some may very well.

He didn’t promise it would be easy, citing his company’s own experience, and stressing the need for resilience. “One setback after another, we shook it off and skated to the next opportunity. Each time, we gain skills and strengthen our character,” Mr. Huang said. “No setback that comes our way doesn’t look like an opportunity these days… The world can be unfair and deal you with tough cards. Swiftly shake it off. There’s another opportunity out there — or create one.”

He was quite pleased with the Taylor Swift reference; the crowd seemed somewhat less impressed.

Josh Reischer, Health Note

Jun 17, 2024

Health Note takes the patient history from the patient and includes it in the EMR. It’s another piece of the puzzle in trying to fix the patient/physician encounter. Health note also does the basic information for intake that companies like Phreesia does but it also gets the patient to answer questions about their health so that the physician has more time in the encounter to focus on what to do about it. But they also add their history into Epic in a very specific and complex way. CEO Josh Reischer showed me a detailed demo about what the patient and provider experience is. Quite the advance on asking and typing as happens in 95% of visits today!–Matthew Holt

Welldoc–Anand Iyer & Marina Dorotheo demo the latest!

Jun 10, 2024

Welldoc is a consumer facing tool that has been around a long, long time in the diabetes management space. It was the first company to be certified by the FDA as Software as a Medical Device, and it has moved into wide range of diseases as the consumer front-end for many organizations. Welldoc itself is hiding behind the scenes in most of these relationships but it has grown steadily and not had to raise money since 2016. A few weeks back I grabbed Anand Iyer, Chief Analytics Officer and & Marina Dorotheo, Chief Marketing Officer who also runs strategy. We had a long chat about the state of the market, the company and they showed me an extensive demo (9.40-32.00). If you haven’t caught up with this sector lately, this is well worth a detailed look.

Who Needs Humans, Anyway?

Jun 5, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

Imagine my excitement when I saw the headline: “Robot doctors at world’s first AI hospital can treat 3,000 a day.” Finally, I thought – now we’re getting somewhere. I must admit that my enthusiasm was somewhat tempered to find that the patients were virtual. But, still.

The article was in Interesting Engineering, and it largely covered the source story in Global Times, which interviewed the research team leader Yang Liu, a professor at China’s Tsinghua University, where he is executive dean of Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR) and associate dean of the Department of Computer Science and Technology. The professor and his team just published a paper detailing their efforts.

The paper describes what they did: “we introduce a simulacrum of hospital called Agent Hospital that simulates the entire process of treating illness. All patients, nurses, and doctors are autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs).” They modestly note: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first simulacrum of hospital, which comprehensively reflects the entire medical process with excellent scalability, making it a valuable platform for the study of medical LLMs/agents.”

In essence, “Resident Agents” randomly contract a disease, seek care at the Agent Hospital, where they are triaged and treated by Medical Professional Agents, who include 14 doctors and 4 nurses (that’s how you can tell this is only a simulacrum; in the real world, you’d be lucky to have 4 doctors and 14 nurses). The goal “is to enable a doctor agent to learn how to treat illness within the simulacrum.”

The Agent Hospital has been compared to the AI town developed at Stanford last year, which had 25 virtual residents living and socializing with each other. “We’ve demonstrated the ability to create general computational agents that can behave like humans in an open setting,” said Joon Sung Park, one of the creators. The Tsinghua researchers have created a “hospital town.”

Gosh, a healthcare system with no humans involved. It can’t be any worse than the human one. Then, again, let me know when the researchers include AI insurance company agents in the simulacrum; I want to see what bickering ensues.

Jody Tropeano, HLTH

Jun 4, 2024

Jody Tropeano is the head of content at HLTH which has become an extraordinarily large conference in digital health (12,000 attendees last year!). I met with her recently in New York to talk about this year’s conference and HLTH’s role in setting the agenda for digital health and the rest of health care. You can find out more about HLTH at www.hlth.com/2024event—Matthew Holt

Blue Shield CA, CVS Caremark & the mystery of the extra $116, with 2 UPDATES (at the end)

Jun 3, 2024

By MATTHEW HOLT

Today we’re going to have fun with show and tell. I’m going to show you how a little corner of American health care is making my life as a consumer worse and more expensive–hopefully someone can tell me why.

The cast members are: me, my MD, the (sort of) independent pharmacy that delivers, Alto, and my insurer Blue Shield of California and its PBM CVS Caremark, which also owns a mail order pharmacy.

The brief backstory: For some years my doctor has been whining about my high cholesterol, and a few years back I went on a statin called Rosuvastatin Calcium. Older readers may remember Jean Luc Picard himself advertising the branded version Crestor, but it’s been off patent for about a decade. About 50 million Americans now take a statin, almost all of them a generic, including many 60 year old males like me. My cholesterol has come down, but my MD told me it could come down more, so a few months ago we boosted the dose to 40mg from 20mg.

Until recently I’d been insured by BCBS Massachusetts, and you might recall a little over a year ago I wrote a piece on THCB about the fun and games to be had trying to figure out what their PBM (CVS Caremark) was doing with the pricing of my kid’s ADHD medication. But they’d never messed with my medication as my statins are cheap. At least I thought they were. In fact as recently as April last year, they were free. You can see the price from the delivery from Alto Pharmacy below.

How BCBS Mass came up with $0.00 as the price I pay I don’t know, but presumably they think it’s a good thing to have me on statins in the hope I don’t have an (expensive) heart attack instead.

Then for some reason my price for the statin later the same year went up to $23. No longer $0 but at $8 a month not really worth making a fuss about.

At the end of the year, COBRA expired and I went to buy insurance on the California exchange. And in order to keep access to my family’s doctors at One Medical, I chose the only plan they were in, the Blue Shield of California HMO.

My next 90 day supply was the first one which went from 20mg to 40mg, but it’s still a common generic. Blue Shield of California also uses CVS Caremark (although it’s been talking a good game of ditching CVS Caremark and setting up its own PBM) and the cost at Alto barely budged. Now it was $28.

What happened next: So all was going normally until late last week when my next 90 supply was delivered. Except it wasn’t. Alto delivered me a 30 day supply and charged me $19.

What We Can Learn From the Change Healthcare Hack

May 30, 2024

By ZACHARY AMOS

The health care sector is no stranger to cyberattacks. Still, large incidents like the February 2024 ransomware attack on Change Healthcare are enough to shake up the industry. In the wake of such a massive breach, medical organizations of all types and sizes should take the opportunity to review their security postures.

What Happened in the Change Healthcare Cyberattack

On February 21, Change Healthcare — the largest medical clearinghouse in the U.S. — suffered a ransomware attack, forcing it to take over 100 systems offline. Many of its electronic services remained down for weeks, with full restoration taking until early April.

A week after the attack, the infamous ransomware-as-a-service gang BlackCat claimed responsibility. BlackCat was also responsible for 2021’s Colonial Pipeline shutdown and several attacks on health care organizations throughout 2023. This latest act against Change Healthcare, however, stands as one of its most disruptive yet.

Because Change and its parent company — UnitedHealth Group (UHG) — are such central industry players, the hack had industry-wide ripple effects. A staggering 94% of U.S. hospitals suffered financial consequences from the incident and 74% experienced a direct impact on patient care. Change’s services affect one in every three patient records, so the massive outage created a snowball effect of disruptions, delays and losses.

Most of Change’s pharmacy and electronic payment services came back online by March 15. As of early April, nearly everything is running again, but the financial fallout continues for many enterprises reliant on UHG, thanks to substantial backlogs.

What It Means for the Broader Health Care Sector

Considering the Change Healthcare cyberattack affected almost the entire medical sector, it has significant implications. Even the few medical groups untouched by the hack should consider what it means for the future of health care security.

1. No Organization Is an Island

It’s difficult to ignore that an attack on a single entity impacted almost all hospitals in the U.S. This massive ripple effect highlights how no business in this industry is a self-contained unit. Third-party vulnerabilities affect everyone, so due diligence and thoughtful access restrictions are essential.

While the Change Healthcare hack is an extreme example, it’s not the first time the medical sector has seen large third-party breaches. In 2021, the Red Cross experienced a breach of over 515,000 patient records when attackers targeted its data storage partner.

Health care enterprises rely on multiple external services and each of these connections represents another vulnerability the company has little control over. In light of that risk, it must be more selective about who it does business with. Even with trusted partners like UHG, brands must restrict data access privileges as much as possible and demand high security standards.

2. Centralization Makes the Industry Vulnerable

Relatedly, this attack reveals how centralized the industry has become. Not only are third-party dependencies common, but many organizations depend on the same third parties. That centralization makes these vulnerabilities exponentially more dangerous, as one attack can affect the whole sector.

The health care industry must move past these single points of failure. Some external dependencies are inevitable, but medical groups should avoid them wherever possible. Splitting tasks between multiple vendors may be necessary to reduce the impact of a single breach.

Regulatory changes may support this shift. During a Congressional hearing on the incident, some lawmakers expressed concerns over consolidation in the health care industry and the cyber risks it poses. This growing sentiment could lead to a sector-wide reorganization, but in the meantime, private companies should take the initiative to move away from large centralized dependencies where they can.

AI Cognition – The Next Nut To Crack

May 29, 2024

By MIKE MAGEE

OpenAI says its new GPT-4o is “a step towards much more natural human-computer interaction,” and is capable of responding to your inquiry “with an average 320 millisecond (delay) which is similar to a human response time.” So it can speak human, but can it think human?

The “concept of cognition” has been a scholarly football for the past two decades, centered primarily on “Darwin’s claim that other species share the same ‘mental powers’ as humans, but to different degrees.” But how about genAI powered machines? Do they think?

The first academician to attempt to define the word “cognition” was Ulric Neisser in the first ever textbook of cognitive psychology in 1967. He wrote that “the term ‘cognition’ refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used. It is concerned with these processes even when they operate in the absence of relevant stimulation…”

The word cognition is derived from “Latin cognoscere ‘to get to know, recognize,’ from assimilated form of com ‘together’ + gnoscere ‘to know’ …”

Knowledge and recognition would not seem to be highly charged terms. And yet, in the years following Neisser’s publication there has been a progressively intense, and sometimes heated debate between psychologists and neuroscientists over the definition of cognition.

The focal point of the disagreement has (until recently) revolved around whether the behaviors observed in non-human species are “cognitive” in the human sense of the word. The discourse in recent years had bled over into the fringes to include the belief by some that plants “think” even though they are not in possession of a nervous system, or the belief that ants communicating with each other in a colony are an example of “distributed cognition.”

What scholars in the field do seem to agree on is that no suitable definition for cognition exists that will satisfy all. But most agree that the term encompasses “thinking, reasoning, perceiving, imagining, and remembering.” Tim Bayne PhD, a Melbourne based professor of Philosophy adds to this that these various qualities must be able to be “systematically recombined with each other,” and not be simply triggered by some provocative stimulus.

Allen Newell PhD, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon, sought to bridge the gap between human and machine when it came to cognition when he published a paper in 1958 that proposed “a description of a theory of problem-solving in terms of information processes amenable for use in a digital computer.”

Machines have a leg up in the company of some evolutionary biologists who believe that true cognition involves acquiring new information from various sources and combining it in new and unique ways.

Developmental psychologists carry their own unique insights from observing and studying the evolution of cognition in young children. What exactly is evolving in their young minds, and how does it differ, but eventually lead to adult cognition? And what about the explosion of screen time?

Pediatric researchers, confronted with AI obsessed youngsters and worried parents are coming at it from the opposite direction. With 95% of 13 to 17 year olds now using social media platforms, machines are a developmental force, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The machine has risen in status and influence from a side line assistant coach to an on-field teammate.

Scholars admit “It is unclear at what point a child may be developmentally ready to engage with these machines.” At the same time, they are forced to admit that the technological tidal waves leave few alternatives. “Conversely, it is likely that completely shielding children from these technologies may stunt their readiness for a technological world.”

Bence P Ölveczky, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard, is pretty certain what cognition is and is not. He says it “requires learning; isn’t a reflex; depends on internally generated brain dynamics; needs access to stored models and relationships; and relies on spatial maps.”

Thomas Suddendorf PhD, a research psychologist from New Zealand, who specializes in early childhood and animal cognition, takes a more fluid and nuanced approach. He says, “Cognitive psychology distinguishes intentional and unintentional, conscious and unconscious, effortful and automatic, slow and fast processes (for example), and humans deploy these in diverse domains from foresight to communication, and from theory-of-mind to morality.”

Perhaps the last word on this should go to Descartes. He believed that humans mastery of thoughts and feelings separated them from animals which he considered to be “mere machines.”

Were he with us today, and witnessing generative AI’s insatiable appetite for data, its’ hidden recesses of learning, the speed and power of its insurgency, and human uncertainty how to turn the thing off, perhaps his judgement of these machines would be less disparaging; more akin to Mira Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, who announced with some degree of understatement this month, “We are looking at the future of the interaction between ourselves and machines.”

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