Tag: Kim Bellard

Which Platform of Platforms (UDHP) is Right for your Health System? A Market Analysis

Aug 14, 2025

By NEIL JENNINGS & VINCE KURAITIS

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Platforming Healthcare — The Long View

In previous posts in this series, we have covered the definitions of Unified Digital Health platforms and whether “EHRs can become UDHPs.” In this follow-on post, we’ll talk through the requirements for success for a UDHP and which types of healthcare organizations are best suited for which types of UDHPs. This post will build on findings from the previous posts.

The Market Needs UDHPs: Key Takeaways from Previous Posts

Key Takeaway 1: The healthcare industry needs UDHPs to create a centralized, common architecture for healthcare organizations

Key Takeaway 2: The healthcare organizations leveraging UDHPs will achieve a myriad of benefits, from competitive advantages to clinical, financial, and operational gains

Key Takeaway 3: UDHPs are not all-or-nothing or mutually exclusive from EHRs. As we explored in our last post, EHRs could expand into UDHPs. These EHRs as UDHPs (or the relative platform of platforms) may be the optimal choice for some market segments. EHRs may also be accommodated into cloud-first UHDPs.

Key Takeaway 4 / Guiding Criterion: This post will focus on US regional and local health systems and outpatient groups of all sizes.

The Approach: Market -> Segments -> Options -> Fit

For this post, we will start from the top-down market perspective, analyzing the overall market landscape.
Once we have described the landscape, we will call out the key segments (organization types, sizes, and profiles) that we will be evaluating.
At this point, we will approximate IT budgets and IT team sizes by organization type to determine capabilities of building as opposed to depending on partners and vendors.
Then, we’ll review the constraints for implementation and ownership, outlining the drivers of UDHP fit.
Next, we’ll break down the different ways UDHPs can be developed and maintained.
- Leveraging an EHR as UDHP
- License from UDHP vendor
- “Home grown” cloud-first solution
Finally, we’ll crosswalk the segments and the optimal option for each segment, based on their specific needs and estimated IT and budgetary resources.

The Healthcare Market & Major Health System Segments

Starting with a compelling graphic from the Kaiser Family Foundation, we see a 2023 breakdown of the total US healthcare medical expenditure, totaling ~$4.9 trillion.

While the total healthcare spend that occurred in hospitals is an astounding ~$ 1.5 trillion, accounting for 31% of total healthcare spend, this leaves much of care outside the four walls of hospitals. This amount of care occurring outside of hospitals aligns with efforts to push patients into less acute care settings, emphasizing preventative, proactive medicine instead of acute, reactive medicine. As the need for UDHPs applies to more than inpatient hospitals, we will also review the other segments highlighted in the pie chart, including: outpatient clinics and practice groups, and “other health” containing services delivered at other contexts like PACs and SNFs, and Ambulatory surgical centers.

We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Boat

Jul 10, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

My friends, we are like explorers of yore standing at the edge of a known continent, looking out at the vast ocean in hopes of finding new, unspoiled, better lands across it. True, we may have despoiled the continent behind us, but certainly things will be better in the new lands.

In the metaphor I’m thinking of, the known continent is our shambles of a healthcare system. For all the protestations about the U.S. having the best health care in the world, that’s manifestly untrue. We don’t live as long, we have more chronic diseases, we kill each other and ourselves at alarming rates, we pay way more, we have too many people that can’t afford care and/or can’t obtain care, we have too much care that is ineffective, inappropriate, or even harmful, and we spend much too much on administration.

We don’t trust the healthcare system, we don’t think its quality of care is good, we have an unfavorable opinion of it, we think it fails us. The vast majority of us think it should be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. That’s what we want to flee, and it’s no wonder why.

Across that metaphorical ocean, in the distance, over the horizon, lies the 22^nd century healthcare system. It will, we hope, be like magic. It will be more equitable, more effective, more efficient, more proactive, less invasive, more affordable. We don’t know exactly what it will look like or how it will work, but we’ve seen what we have, and we know it can be better – much better. We just need to get there.

This leads me to the next part of the metaphor. I recently read a great quote from the late nature writer Barry Lopez, from his posthumous book of essays Embrace Fearlessly the Burning World. Mr. Lopez laments: “We are searching for the boats we never built.”

The boats aren’t coming to save us, to transport us to that idealized 22^nd century healthcare system. Because we never built them. Because we still don’t have the courage to build them.

We’ve never built a system to ensure universal coverage. We rely on a hodgepodge of coverage mechanisms, each of which is struggling with its own problems and still leaving some 25 million people without insurance – and that’s before the 10-20 million who are predicted to lose coverage due to the “Big, Beautiful Bill” – plus the tens of millions who are “underinsured.

We’ve never built a system that was remotely equitable, just as we never did for housing, education, or employment. Money matters, ethnicity matters, geography matters. Discrepancies in availability of care and in outcomes show up clearly for each of those, and more.

We’ve never built a system that prizes patients above all. We deferred to doctors and hospitals, not calling them out when they gave us substandard care or when they charged us too much. Now health care has gone from a “noble calling” to a jobs and wealth creator. A recent New York Times analysis found (among other things):

Health care is the nation’s largest employer;
In 1990, health care wasn’t the largest employer in any state; now it is in 38 states;
We spend more on health care than on groceries or housing.

Pick your favorite target: private equity firms buying up health care entities, for-profit companies extracting profits from our care (or nominal “non-profits” doing the same), the steady corporatization of health care. Throw in favorite boogeymen like health insurers, PBMs, or Big Pharma. One way or another, it’s about the money, not us.

The adage about Big Tech comes to mind: we’re not the customer, we’re the product (or, as I’ve written before, we’re simply the NPCs.).

We’ve never built the systems to make administration easier. So many codes, so many rules, so many types of insurance, so many silos, so many administrators. By now you’ve no doubt seen the chart of the growth of administrators versus clinicians in our health care system, and are aware that around a quarter of our healthcare dollar goes to administration. It doesn’t have to be this way, it shouldn’t be this way, but administrative bloat is getting worse, not better.

We’ve never built the systems to properly track our health or risks to it.

Microplastics Are Here, There, Everywhere

Jun 25, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

Vaccine experts are going rogue in response to RFK Jr’s attacks on vaccine safety. Health insurers promise – honest…this time – to make prior authorizations less burdensome (although not, of course, to eliminate them). ChatGPT and other LLMs may be making us worse at learning. So many things to write about, but I find myself wanting to return to a now-familiar topic: microplastics.

I first wrote about microplastics in 2020, and subsequent findings caused me to write again about their dangers at least once a year since. Now there are, yet again, new findings, and, nope, the news is still not good.

A new study, from researchers at the Food Packaging Forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and published in npj Science of Food reviewed 103 previous studies about the impact food packaging and “food contact articles (FCAs)” can have on micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in our food. They found that even normal use — such as opening a plastic bottle, steeping a plastic tea bag, or chopping on a plastic cutting board – can contaminate foodstuffs.

“This is the first systematic evidence map to investigate the role of the normal and intended use of food contact articles in the contamination of foodstuffs with MNPs,” explains Dr. Lisa Zimmermann, lead author and Scientific Communication Officer at the Food Packaging Forum. “Food contact articles are a relevant source of MNPs in foodstuffs; however, their contribution to human MNP exposure is underappreciated.”

Their collected data are freely accessible through the FCMiNo dashboard., which allows users to filter included data by the type of FCA, the main food contact material, the medium analyzed, and whether MNPs were detected, and if so, for their size and polymer type.

Removing the plastic from items you purchase at the grocery store may contaminate it with microplastics, as might steeping a tea bag. Simply opening jars or bottles of milk can as well, and repeated opening and closing of either glass or plastic bottles sheds “untold amounts” of micro- and nanoplastics into the beverage, according to Dr. Zimmerman, who further noted: “The research shows the number of microplastics increases with each bottle opening, so therefore we can say it’s the usage of the food contact article which leads to micro- and nanoplastic release,”

Dr. Zimmerman told The Washington Post: “Plastic is present everywhere. We need to know what we can do.” Examples of what she suggests we can try to do include avoiding storing food in plastic whenever possible and avoiding heating plastic containers. She admitted, though: “We have not really understood all the factors that can lead to the release of micro and nanoplastics.”

Waste, Fraud and Abuse – Oh, My!

Jun 5, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

So the House has passed their “big, beautiful bill,” by the narrowest of margins. Crucial to the bill are large savings from Medicaid, which in past years Republicans would have taken some glee from but now they are careful to explain away as just cutting “waste, fraud and abuse,” having finally realized that many MAGA voters depend on Medicaid.

Much of those savings come from proposed work requirements for Medicaid recipients, long a favored Republican tactic that the Biden Administration kept rejecting. Speaker Mike Johnson is very vocal about their importance. The people impacted by the work requirements, he insisted on Face the Nation:

If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You’re cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that’s right. So there’s a moral component to what we’re doing. And when you make young men work, it’s good for them, it’s good for their dignity, it’s good for their self-worth, and it’s good for the community that they live in.

He’s convinced that, instead of working, too many of them – especially young men – “playing video games all day.” He and other Republicans want to return Medicaid to what they see as its original purpose: “It’s intended for young, you know, single, pregnant women and the disabled and the elderly,” Speaker Johnsom said. “But what’s happening right now is you have a lot of people, for example, young men, able-bodied workers, who are on Medicaid. They’re not working when they can.”

He’s generally right that, for most of its existence, Medicaid was not truly a program for the poor so much as for certain kinds of poor people, especially low income pregnant women and children, and the medically impoverished. It took Obamacare to widen coverage to all people under the poverty line, although the Supreme Court allowed states to decide if they wanted to do so, and ten states still have not.

It is, indeed, a moral question, just not the kind that Speaker Johnson likes, about whether there is a moral imperative to give more people, especially poor people, health coverage.

The issue of these non-working Medicaid recipients is something of a shibboleth. Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found “that 92% of Medicaid adults are either working (64%) or have circumstances that may qualify them for an exemption.” A 2023 CBO analysis cast doubt that such work requirements wouldn’t have much impact on the number of Medicaid recipients working. Work requirements are a solution in search of a problem.

And Now for Some Fun Future

May 19, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

I feel like I’ve been writing a lot about futures I was pretty worried about, so I’m pleased to have a couple developments to talk about that help remind me that technology is cool and that healthcare can surely use more of it.

First up is a new AI algorithm called FaceAge, as published last week in The Lancet Digital Health by researchers at Mass General Brigham. What it does is to use photographs to determine biological age – as opposed to chronological age. We all know that different people seem to age at different rates – I mean, honestly, how old is Paul Rudd??? – but until now the link between how people look and their health status was intuitive at best.

Moreover, the algorithm can help determine survival outcomes for various types of cancer.

The researchers trained the algorithm on almost 59,000 photos from public databases, then tested against the photos of 6,200 cancer patients taken prior to the start of radiotherapy. Cancer patients appeared to FaceAge some five years older than their chronological age. “We can use artificial intelligence (AI) to estimate a person’s biological age from face pictures, and our study shows that information can be clinically meaningful,” said co-senior and corresponding author Hugo Aerts, PhD, director of the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) program at Mass General Brigham.

Curiously, the algorithm doesn’t seem to care about whether someone is bald or has grey hair, and may be using more subtle clues, such as muscle tone. It is unclear what difference makeup, lighting, or plastic surgery makes. “So this is something that we are actively investigating and researching,” Dr. Aerts told The Washington Post. “We’re now testing in various datasets [to see] how we can make the algorithm robust against this.”

Moreover, it was trained primarily on white faces, which the researchers acknowledge as a deficiency. “I’d be very worried about whether this tool works equally well for all populations, for example women, older adults, racial and ethnic minorities, those with various disabilities, pregnant women and the like,” Jennifer E. Miller, the co-director of the program for biomedical ethics at Yale University, told The New York Times.

The researchers believe FaceAge can be used to better estimate survival rates for cancer patients. It turns out that when physicians try to gauge them simply by looking, their guess is essentially like tossing a coin. When paired with FaceAge’s insights, the accuracy can go up to about 80%.

Dr. Aerts says: “This work demonstrates that a photo like a simple selfie contains important information that could help to inform clinical decision-making and care plans for patients and clinicians. How old someone looks compared to their chronological age really matters—individuals with FaceAges that are younger than their chronological ages do significantly better after cancer therapy.”

I’m especially thrilled about this because ten years ago I speculated about using selfies and facial recognition AI to determine if we had conditions that were prematurely aging us, or even we were just getting sick. It appears the Mass General Brigham researchers agree. “This opens the door to a whole new realm of biomarker discovery from photographs, and its potential goes far beyond cancer care or predicting age,” said co-senior author Ray Mak, MD, a faculty member in the AIM program at Mass General Brigham. “As we increasingly think of different chronic diseases as diseases of aging, it becomes even more important to be able to accurately predict an individual’s aging trajectory. I hope we can ultimately use this technology as an early detection system in a variety of applications, within a strong regulatory and ethical framework, to help save lives.”

The researchers acknowledge that much has to be accomplished before it is introduced for commercial purposes, and that strong oversight will be needed to ensure, as Dr. Aerts told WaPo, “these AI technologies are being used in the right way, really only for the benefit of the patients.” As Daniel Belsky, a Columbia University epidemiologist, told The New York Times: “There’s a long way between where we are today and actually using these tools in a clinical setting.”

The second development is even more out there. Let me break down the CalTech News headline: “3D Printing.” OK, you’ve got my attention. “In Vivo.” Color me highly intrigued. “Using Sound.” Mind. Blown.

That’s right. This team of researchers have “developed a method for 3D printing polymers at specific locations deep within living animals.”

Fair Warning: There Won’t Be Fair Warnings

Apr 23, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

Perhaps you are the kind of person who acts as though that the food in the grocery store somehow magically appears, with no supply chain vulnerabilities along the way. You trust that the water that you drink and the air you breathe are just fine, with no worries about what might have gotten into them before getting to you. You figure that the odds of a tornado or a hurricane hitting your location are low, so there’s no need for any early warning systems. You believe that you are healthy and don’t have to worry about any pesky outbreaks or outright epidemics.

Well, I worry about all those, and more. Say what you will about the federal government – and there’s plenty of things it doesn’t do well – it has, historically, served as the monitoring and warning system for these and other potential calamities. Now, under DOGE and the Trump Administration, many of those have been gutted or at least are at risk.

But, at the end of the day, the thing at risk is us.

Here is a not exhaustive list of examples:

FDA: Although HHS Secretary Kennedy has vowed he will keep the thousands of inspectors who oversee food and drug safety, it has already suspended a quality control program for its food testing laboratories, and has cut support staff that, among other things, make arrangements for those inspectors to, you know, go inspect. Even before recent cuts, a 2024 GAO report warned that the FDA was already critically short on inspectors.

The FDA has already laid off key personnel responsible for tracking bird flu, including virtually all of the leadership team in the Center for Veterinary Medicine’s office of the director. Plus: “The food compliance officers and animal drug reviewers survived, but they have no one at the comms office to put out a safety alert, no admin staff to pay external labs to test products,” one FDA official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, told CBS News.

Even worse, drafts of the Trump budget proposal would further slash FDA budget, in part by moving “routine” food inspections to states.

CDC: Oh, gosh, where to start? Cuts have shut down the labs that help track things like outbreaks of hepatis and antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea. We’re having a hard time tracking the current measles outbreak that started in Texas and has now spread to over half the states.

The White House wants to encourage more people to have babies, but has cut back on a national surveillance program that collects detailed information about maternal behaviors and experiences to help states improve outcomes for mothers and babies. It helped, among other things, compare IVF clinics. “We’ve been tracking this information for 38 years, and it’s improved mothers’ health and understanding of mothers’ experiences,” one of the statisticians let go told The Washington Post.

The Office on Smoking and Health was effectively shuttered, in what one expert called “the greatest gift to the tobacco industry in the last half century.” CDC cuts will force the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to stop collecting data on injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes, alcohol, adverse drug effects, aircraft incidents and work-related injuries.

And if you’re thinking of taking a cruise, you should know that the CDC’s cruise ship inspections have all been laid off – even though those positions are paid for by the cruise ship companies, not the federal government.

EPA: Even though EPA head Lee Zeldin “absolutely” guarantees Trump cuts won’t hurt either people or the environment, the EPA has already announced it will stop collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions, is shutting down all environmental justice offices and is ending related initiatives, “a move that will impact how waste and recycling industries measure and track their environmental impact on neighboring communities.”

The EPA has proposed rolling back 31 key regulations, including ones that limit limiting harmful air pollution from cars and power plants; restrictions on the emission of mercury, a neurotoxin; and clean water protections for rivers and streams. Mr. Zeldin called it the “greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen” and declared it a “dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” But, sure, it won’t hurt anything.

Home, Alone

Mar 25, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

News flash: America is not a very happy place these days.

No, I’m not talking about the current political divide (which is probably more accurately described as a chasm), at least not directly. I’m referring to the latest results from the World Happiness Report, which found that the U.S. has slid to 24^th place in the world, its lowest position ever. We were 11^th in 2011, the first such report.

Nordic countries scored the highest yet again, taking half of the top ten counties, with Finland repeating for the eighth year in a row as the happiest country. America’s nearest neighbors Mexico (10^th) and Canada (18^th) are happier places, tariffs or not.

The researchers declare: “Belief in the kindness of others is much more closely tied to happiness than previously thought.” They specifically cite the belief that others would return a lost wallet is a strong predictor of a country’s happiness, while noting that such returns are twice as likely as people believe them to be.

John F. Helliwell, an economist at the University of British Columbia, a founding editor of the World Happiness Report, said:

The wallet data are so convincing because they confirm that people are much happier living where they think people care about each other. The wallet dropping experiments confirm the reality of these perceptions, even if they are everywhere too pessimistic.

The U.S., as it turned out, ranked only 52^nd in believing a stranger would return a lost wallet, and even only 25^th that the police would. We were slightly more optimistic (17^th) that our neighbors would.

Sharing meals with others is also strongly linked to happiness. “The extent to which you share meals is predictive of the social support you have, the pro-social behaviors you exhibit and the trust you have in others,” Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, a University of Oxford professor and an author of the report, told The New York Times.

Unfortunately, the number of people dining alone in the U.S. has increased 53% over the past two decades. According to the Ajinomoto Group, among American adults under 25, it has jumped 80%.

Young Americans are helped drive our dismal results generally. “The decline in the U.S. in 2024 was at least partly attributable to Americans younger than age 30 feeling worse about their lives,” Ilana Ron-Levey, managing director at Gallup, told CNN. “Today’s young people report feeling less supported by friends and family, less free to make life choices and less optimistic about their living standards.”

Eighteen percent (18%) of young U.S. adults (18-29) report not having anyone they feel close to, the highest of all the U.S. age groups, and those same young adults also have lower quality of connections than older U.S. respondents. The report speculates: “Although not definitive, this provides intriguing preliminary evidence that relatively low connection among young people might factor into low wellbeing among young Americans.”

In fact, if the U.S. was measured just by the happiness of our young adults, we wouldn’t even rank in the top 60 countries. “It is really disheartening to see this, and it links perfectly with the fact that it’s the well-being of youth in America that’s off a cliff, which is driving the drop in the rankings to a large extent,” Professor De Neve said.

Health Care in Abundance

Mar 11, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

A recent report from Moody’s Analytics, by chief economist Mark Zandi, had an eye-opening fact: the top 10% of earners in the U.S. – those who make $250,000 or more – now account for just shy (49.7%) of half of consumer spending. If that strikes you as unusual, you’re right. It is a record since at least 1989. Thirty years ago the comparable percentage was 36%.

“The finances of the well-to-do have never been better, their spending never stronger and the economy never more dependent on that group,” wrote Dr. Zandi. He added: “Wealthier households are financially more secure and thus more able and willing to spend their income. That is, they save less than they would otherwise.”

The rest of us are struggling to hold our own against inflation, not always successfully. It’s why companies like Costco and Walmart are trying to target upscale shoppers, while “value” oriented firms like Big Lots, Family Dollar, or Kohl’s are closing stores or even declaring bankruptcy.

This extreme bifurcation, of course, made me think of healthcare, where – as is famously known – half of all spending is attributable to only 5% of patients. In case you’d forgotten, in healthcare, half the population accounts for 97% of all spending, so the other half accounts for a measly 3%.

Now, you might say, neither of those is surprising: rich people spend more, and sicker people cost more. But somehow neither of those seems right to me.

I started thinking more about this after reading a recent New York Times op-ed from Ezra Klein. In it he makes the following assertion:

The answer to a politics ofscarcity is a politics of abundance, a politics that asks what it is that people really need and then organizes government to make sure there is enough of it.

Mr. Klein didn’t coin the phrase “politics of abundance,” but he and Derek Thompson did just write a book on the topic (Abundance) that discusses their thoughts at more length. I have not read the book, but I saw a quote from it that I quite liked: “What is scarce that should be abundant? What is hard to build that should be easy?”

And so we’re back to healthcare.

We seem to live in a country where healthcare is too scarce. A new analysis suggests that we have a looming shortage of hospital beds, and if you live in a rural area, it’s already here. If you believe the Association of American Medical Colleges, we have a looming physician shortage, and if you’re looking for primary care, it’s already here. We’re facing nursing storages, pharmacist shortages, nursing home worker shortages, home health worker shortages, to name a few. We even have shortages of many critical prescriptions, including some needed for cancer treatments.

Despite all these shortages or would-be shortages, of course, we manage to spend way more than other countries on healthcare. One can only imagine how much we might be spending if there were no shortages. I take that back: I’m not sure I can imagine.

In the category of things that are scarce that should be abundant, and/or things that are hard to build that should be easy, I’d probably put housing at the top but healthcare as a close second. The trouble is, when we pour more money into healthcare, as we are wont to do, we don’t seem to fill any of our many shortages, much less improve the quality of care or outcomes.

Goodbye, American Science

Feb 26, 2025

By KIM BELLARD

Many people don’t realize it, but a hundred years ago America was something of a scientific backwater. Oh, sure, we had the occasional Nobel laureate, but the center of science was in Europe, particularly Germany. Then in the early 1930’s the Nazis decided that “purity” – of political ideas, of blood – was more important than truth, making life uncomfortable at best and deadly at worst for their scientists. So hundreds of them fled, many of them ending up in the U.S. And – voila! – American science came of age and hasn’t looked back.

Until now. Now, I fear we’re going to suffer what Germany did, a brain drain that will bode well for some other country’s scientific fortunes.

Once of the first chilling announcements from the Trump Administration was that it was freezing NIH grants in order to ensure they were in compliance with Trump’s executive order banning DEI-related efforts. That froze some $1.5b in grant funding.

Piling on, the Administration announced that NIH grants would limit indirect costs to 15%. Sounds reasonable, you might say, but the vast machinery of U.S. biomedical research uses these “indirect” costs to fund the infrastructure that makes the research possible. Numerous state Attorney Generals immediately filed a lawsuit to block the cuts, claiming:

This research funding covers expenses that facilitate critical components of biomedical research, such as lab, faculty, infrastructure and utility costs. Without it, lifesaving and life-extending research, including clinical trials, would be significantly compromised. These cuts would have a devastating impact on universities around the country, many of which are at the forefront of groundbreaking research efforts – while also training future generations of researchers and innovators.

Oh, and on top of all this, as many as 1,500 NIH employees are in line to be laid-off.

Katie Witkiewitz, a professor at the University of New Mexico, lamented to The New York Times: “The N.I.H. just seems to be frozen. The people on the ground doing the work of the science are going to be the first to go, and that devastation may happen with just a delay of funding.”

Universities are similarly frozen, not sure when or how much money they can expect. The University of Pittsburgh has paused all Ph.D. admission, until it can better understand its funding future. One has to suspect it won’t be the only such program to do so, and we may never know how many would-be Ph.D. students will simply decide a future in U.S. science is too bleak to risk.

You Can’t Spell Fair Pay Without AI

Dec 5, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

Everything’s about AI these days. Everything is going to be about AI for a while. Everyone’s talking about it, and most of them know more about it than I do. But there is one thing about AI that I don’t think is getting enough attention. I’m old enough that the mantra “follow the money” resonates, and, when it comes to AI, I don’t like where I think the money is ending up.

I’ll talk about this both at a macro level and also specifically for healthcare.

On the macro side, one trend that I have become increasingly radicalized about over the past few year is income/wealth inequality. I wrote a couple weeks ago about how the economy is not working for many workers: executive to worker compensation ratios have skyrocketed over the past few decades, resulting in wage stagnation for many workers; income and wealthy inequality are at levels that make the Gilded Age look positively progressive; intergenerational mobility in the United States is moribund.

That’s not the American Dream many of us grew up believing in.

We’ve got a winner-take-all economy, and it’s leaving behind more and more people. If you are a tech CEO, a hedge fund manager, or a highly skilled knowledge worker, things are looking pretty good. If you don’t have a college degree, or even if you have a college degree but with the wrong major or have the wrong skills, not so much.

All that was happening before AI, and the question for us is whether AI will exacerbate those trends, or ameliorate them. If you are in doubt about the answer to that question, follow the money. Who is funding AI research, and what might they be expecting in return?

It seems like every day I read about how AI is impacting white collar jobs. It can help traders! It can help lawyers! It can help coders! It can help doctors! For many white collar workers, AI may be a valuable tool that will enhance their productivity and make their jobs easier – in the short term. In the long term, of course, AI may simply come for their jobs, as it is starting to do for blue collar workers.

Automation has already cost more blue collar jobs than outsourcing, and that was before anything we’d now consider AI. With AI, that trend is going to happen on steroids; jobs will disappear in droves. That’s great if you are an executive looking to cut costs, but terrible if you are one of those costs.