THCB

Categories

Tag: Mental Health

Beyond Stigma: Why Addressing Maternal Mental Health Means Confronting Systemic Failures

By EMILY JOHNSON

Imagine you’re an executive at a large health system in a major metropolitan area. One morning, you wake up to a missed call and a voicemail from your PR leader. It’s urgent: one of your employees–who was also a patient and a member of the organization–has unexpectedly died by suicide.  Their family is furious.

You follow up and learn that this wasn’t just any employee. It was a young leader you had worked with only a few months ago. You had regular meetings with them and had been serving as a mentor. You had been impressed by this young person’s drive, enthusiasm, analytical skills, and ability to build relationships. You believed they were on the path to being a strong leader in health care. But not anymore. Now, seemingly out of nowhere, they are gone.

You’re shocked. You’re devastated. You’re confused. You demand an immediate safety review to understand what happened and why.

The patient safety team moves quickly to investigate, and they discover that the patient was a young woman who had given birth to her first child just two weeks ago at one of your hospitals.

During her pregnancy she had disclosed to her primary OB that she was beginning to have panic attacks. The OB offered to start her on an antidepressant, but the patient declined. No referrals were placed. Red flag.

She delivered her baby after a 30+ hour labor culminating in postpartum hemorrhage. Anxiety was noted several times throughout her hospital stay. Her notes from labor say “patient acutely anxious and requesting “to be done.” Her discharge notes state “Difficulty coping with anxiety for past 1-2 weeks. Has been affecting her ability to bond with baby.” Red flag.

She was seen by a social worker, who shared with her a packet of information about postpartum depression. This person recalls the patient asking her “which of the numbers should I call if I need help immediately?” Red flag.

She presented back at the ED the day after her initial discharge with additional hemorrhage concerns. Her notes say “Patient is anxious, tearful, arriving in the ED hypertensive at 140/90, tachycardic in the 120s.” She was discharged with blood pressure medication. Red flag.

You learn that her husband tried calling the behavioral health department to make his wife an appointment, only to be told that the soonest they could get her in would be 6 weeks. He pressed and asked if there were exceptions for urgent OB patients and was told no. Red flag.

In the week leading up to her death this patient had been in contact with 3 OBs, a pediatrician, and a lactation consultant, saying things like “I am afraid of everything” and “I can’t eat or drink.” She had a positive EPDS flagging thoughts of self-harm. Big, bright, unmistakable red flag.

Phone records show that one night she tried calling the behavioral health appointment scheduling line, which was given to her by multiple providers as a 24/7 crisis line, at 2am. Red flag.

Her notes from the last time she was seen in the clinic state “she is not eating, vomits any food she eats and has diarrhea. She reports sleeping at most 4 hours a day.” She walked out of that appointment with only a prescription for hydroxyzine, which is similar to Benadryl. Red flag.

At 5:30am the next morning, her husband woke up and found that she was not in the bed. He looked over and saw that the baby was still sleeping peacefully in the bassinet. He panicked. He knew in his gut that something was wrong.

Continue reading…

Peter Yellowlees, AsyncHealth

Peter Yellowlees MD is CEO at AsyncHealth–this is a new company that is doing the intake interview for a psychiatrist or psychologist session. Peter demos how the AI agent asks questions, how a patient answers in real time. Then after submitting the answers, the AI creates both a full transcript in the back end, and then a summary which the clinician can use in advance of seeing the patient. You’ll see the real time transcript and patient summary. Very accurate and impressive. That saves a significant amount of time in the intake process and helps the patent get to the right type of treatment. It’s early days for Asynch Health, but you’ll quickly get the idea about how this use of AI might change one part of care–Matthew Holt

Robert Krayn & Georgia Gaveras, Talkiatry

Robert Krayn is the CEO and & Dr. Georgia Gaveras the CMO of Talkiatry. Robert and Georgia are quite the dynamic duo (she says, “He’s the money I’m the medicine!”). As a relative latecomer in the online mental health world, Talkiatry is trying to differentiate itself from the other big players like Lyra, Headspace, Brightside et al. It’s focusing on using psychiatrists as opposed to psychologists, counselors or coaches. This is both as an advertisement to patients but also they’ve set up a system that is much easier for psychiatrist themselves to join as employees and they showed me the way that patients get onboarded in their system, and how they get to that first appointment–in an average of 5 days!

Brad Kittredge, Brightside Health

Brad Kittredge is CEO of Brightside Health, which he co-founded with CMO Mimi Winsberg. They are a large online mental health group that aims a providing more access with higher quality. They have built their own technology stack and medical group, and are in network for about 135m lives. They also take patients from the emergency departments of health systems–as well as direct patient outreach for “standard” mental health conditions. Brad talked to me about measurement, quality and care improvement, including how they are using their algorithms to improve their clinicians’ prescribing accuracy. I also asked him where Brightside were in the process to, err, return at least some of the $150m they’ve raised back to their investors. Matthew Holt

Sara Ratner, Nomi Health

Sara Ratner is President of integrated Programs at Nomi Health. They work with employers and health plans to connect them to a network of providers (both telehealth and physical) who accept steep discounts in return for immediate payment. The employees in turn get no co-pay/no coinsurance. In addition they have an analytics company called Artemis which recommends care paths and a PBM to lower drug prices. Sara is trying hard to integrate mental health into their program too. Nomi raised $110m in 2022 and also made a decent amount in covid testing earlier in its life before pivoting.

Kris Engskov, Rippl

Kris Engskov is CEO of Rippl, a General Catalyst-funded company developing a wrap around care model around the primary care doctor for people with dementia. Their process is to help the family caregiver who is looking after the dementia patient and gives a ton of support to those caregivers which helps them be successful taking care of the patient at home. They start with diagnosis and use care navigators to build a care model face to face with patients. They’ve raised $52m and are nearly 2 years into serving a very neglected group of patients and caregivers–Matthew Holt

Mental Health’s Unfinished Digital Revolution

By TREVOR VAN MIERLO

In 2021, digital mental health and substance use startups attracted a record-breaking $5.1 billion in funding. Despite the surge, the promise of scalable, transformative digital health platforms remains unfulfilled.

Following the surge, investment plummeted. Unlike other industries that have been revolutionized by digital-first solutions, digital health struggles with models that fail to address cost, complexity, and access.

What we’re left with entering into 2025 are a smorgasbord of solutions clamoring to attach themselves to traditional enterprise incumbents (Health Insurance Providers, Electronic Health Records, Hospital Systems). These incumbents have achieved scale – but not the type of scale that digital health needs to flourish.

Investment in Digital Mental Health (2010-2023)
Digital Mental Health Investment (2010-2023)

Incumbents Build Deep, Startups Go Wide

Incumbent scale is infrastructure-heavy, slow, and linear, and focuses on deep integration within their established markets.

In contrast, startups aim for technology-driven, exponential, and global scale, leveraging digital platforms to serve millions of users quickly. While startups have the speed advantage, achieving scale similar to incumbents requires win-win partnerships and fundamental shifts away from established business models.

Incubent Scale vs. Startup Scale
Incumbent Scale vs. Startup Scale

The investment market does see the tremendous opportunity: a massive, growing global customer-base proactively demanding help as social stigma decreases. And as time passes, this customer-base grows exponentially with technology pervasiveness.

What investors see is unmet demand for mental health and substance use treatment, and a historic opportunity for digital health to step up and deliver solutions that are scalable, accessible, and affordable.

However, the delivery mechanism to these populations, though digital, is obfuscated through the blurred lens of incumbent purchasing power. We can’t get past incumbents’ size, their reach, and their connection to patients. In this common view, incumbents are the customer. This view is promoted by both industry and academia.

Continue reading…

Sean Bell, Spring Health

Sean Bell is head of new ventures at Spring Health, a very well-funded mental health company. They’ve built a tech platform that its providers (both contractors and FT employees) are on, and spend a lot of time using machine learning to match patients to therapists, to augment the care and also measure the impact of that care. Sean told me about both how Spring Health works and how much its grown, and what new specialized care is being introduced in 2025. He talks quick and we covered a lot of ground including the business of being a highly-valued private mental health company when there are some lower priced public companies out there. Interesting interview — Matthew Holt

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…

Take My Gun, I Mean, Phone, Please

By KIM BELLARD

I understand that states are “racing” to pass laws designed to help protect school-aged kids against something that has been a danger to their mental and physical health for a generation now, as well as adversely impacting their education. Certainly I’m talking about reasonable gun control laws, right?

Just kidding. This is America. We don’t do gun control laws, no matter how many innocent school children, or other bystanders, are massacred. No, what states are taking action on are cellphones in schools.

Florida seems to have kicked it off, with a new last year banning cell phones and other wireless devices “during instructional times.” It also prohibits using TikTok on school grounds. Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina followed suit this year, although the new laws vary in specifics. Connecticut, Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, and Vermont have introduced their own versions. Delaware and Pennsylvania are giving money to schools to try lockable phone pouches.

It’s worth pointing out that school districts were not waiting around for states to act. According to a Pew Research survey earlier this year, 82% of teachers reported their district had policies regarding cellphones in classrooms. Those policies might not have been bans, but at least the districts were making efforts to control the use.

Surprisingly, high school teachers – whose students were most likely to have cellphones — were least likely to report such policies, but, not surprisingly, the most likely to report that such policies were difficult to enforce. Also not surprising, 72% of high school teachers say students being distracted by cellphones in the classroom is a major problem.

Russell Shaw, the head of school at Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., writes in The Atlantic that his parents were given free sample packs of cigarettes in school, and warns:

I believe that future generations will look back with the same incredulity at our acceptance of phones in schools. The research is clear: The dramatic rise in adolescent anxiety, depression, and suicide correlates closely with the widespread adoption of smartphones over the past 15 years. Although causation is debated, as a school head for 14 years, I know what I have seen: Unfettered phone usage at school hurts our kids. 

Similarly, last year Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU, urged emphatically: Get Phones Out of School Now. At the least, he writes, they’re a distraction, harming their learning and their ability to focus; at worst, they weaken social connections, are used for bullying, and can lead to mental health issues. “All children deserve schools that will help them learn, cultivate deep friendships, and develop into mentally healthy young adults,” Professor Haidt believes. “All children deserve phone-free schools.”

Mr. Shaw agrees. “For too long, children all over the world have been guinea pigs in a dangerous experiment. The results are in. We need to take phones out of schools.”

Believe it or not, not everyone agrees. Some argue that, like it or not, our world is filled with cellphones, and to try to pretend that is not true will just make it harder for kids once they become adults. Along those lines, skeptics note that classrooms are filled with other devices; if kids aren’t distracted by their cellphones, there’s usually a tablet, laptop, or other device handy. And the kids can argue, hey, the adults – the teachers, the administrators, the volunteers – all have cellphones; why shouldn’t we?

Some parents are opposed to the bans. They want to know where their kids are at all times, and to be able to track them in case of an emergency. Even more chilling, some parents argue that if there is a school shooting, they want their kids to be able to call for help, and to let them know their status. None of us can forget the heartbreaking calls that some of the Uvalde children made.  

Of course, even if cellphones are banned during class time or even on school grounds entirely, those phones are going to be there once they leave the school grounds, so their potential for adverse mental impacts will still be there. If distraction is the problem – and I can see where it would be – isn’t it a similar problem for adults?  How many meetings, conferences, or social situations have you been in where many of the adults are paying more attention to their phone than to whatever is being discussed?  

I wonder if the Supreme Court has a policy about cellphones during its deliberations.

All this brings me back to guns. According to the K-12 Shooting Database, there have already been 193 school shooting incidents already this year, with 152 victims (fatal and wounded). That compares to 349 and 249 respectively in 2023, and 308/273 in 2022. I needn’t point out – but I will – that no other nation has numbers anywhere close to those.

I recently read John Woodrow Cox’s searing Children Under Fire. He points out that, even beyond the fatalities, wounded kids need not just medical care but ongoing mental health treatment. Their families usually need it too. The trauma goes well beyond the direct victims. The victim’s classmates and families often need it as well, as do schoolchildren in other districts, even in other states. Even practicing lockdowns have an impact on mental health.

He estimates that there are millions, perhaps tens of millions, of impacted schoolchildren and their families. Yet states aren’t racing to ensure support for all those victims. 

Mr. Cox suggests that the least we could do, the very least, are to ensure more background checks, to hold adults more responsible for the guns in their homes, and to conduct more research on gun violence. Instead, states are rushing to “harden” schools and to get more people with guns guarding (and teaching in) those schools. 

Oh, and to ban cellphones. We must have priorities, after all.

Look, if I was a teacher, I’d hate seeing kids on their phones during class. If I was administrator, I’d be worried about kids hanging out on their phones instead of talking with each other. If I was a parent I’d be nagging my kids to study or read a book instead of being on a screen. I get all that; I understand the drive to better manage cellphone use.

But if people think cell phones are more of a danger to their kids than gun violence, I’m going to have to disagree.  

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor

assetto corsa mods