THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Digital Health: There is No Exit

By MATTHEW HOLT

All of a sudden we are back in 2021.

You digital health fans remember that halcyon time. In 2019 a few digital health companies went public, and then somehow got conflated in the pandemic meme stock boom, with the harbinger event being the August 2020 sale of Livongo to Teladoc that valued it at $19bn and early in 2021 rather more, as Teladoc itself got to a market cap of $44bn in February 2021

Venture money poured into digital health as a fin de siecle for the ZIRP, that had been going for a decade, combined with the idea that Covid meant we would never leave our houses. The vaccine that became generally available at the start of the Biden Administration in 2021 put paid to the idea that telehealth was the majority of the future of care delivery.

Nonetheless between mid 2021 and early 2022 Jess DaMassa and I were reporting on VC funding in a show called Health in 2 Point 00 (later Health Tech Deals) and every week there were several deals for $100m and up going into new health tech companies.

Things don’t look so pretty now. Even while venture money was flooding into digital health, those public companies, as exemplified by Teladoc, started to see their stock price fall. While it was actually a good year for the stock market overall, in 2021 the digital health sector fell by around 60%. It kept going down. 2022 was worse and although one or two individual companies have recovered (Hi Oscar!), nearly two years later the market cap of the entire sector remains in the toilet.

Of the list that I’ve been following for years there’s only 11 broadly defined digital health companies with a market cap of more than $1 billion–that is only 11 public unicorns

What’s worse is that only one company on that list is decently profitable, and that’s Doximity. It made over $170m profit on revenue of less than $500m last year and trades at 10 x revenue. But Doximity always was profitable, going way back to 2014 (long before its IPO), and although it’s doing cool stuff with AI and telehealth, it’s basically an advertising platform for pharma.

There is no such thing as a profitable public digital health company in the mainstream of care delivery or even insurance–unless of course you count Optum. Which means there’s almost certainly no profitable VC-backed private company either.

Which leads me to this month. You remember those huge rounds that Jess & I used to report on and make fun of? They’re back.

I get it. The stock market is hot and all those pension funds are trying to put their winnings from Nvidia somewhere. VC looks a reasonable bet and there have been a few tech IPOs. If you squint really hard, as STAT’s Mario Aguilar did, you can pretend that Waystar & Tempus are health tech IPOs, although a payments/RCM company and a diagnostics company which are both losing a ton of money wouldn’t give me confidence as an investor.

But the amounts being thrown around must give anyone pause. Let’s take a few examples from the last month. Now these aren’t a knock on these companies, which I’m sure are doing great work, but let’s look at the math.

Digital front door chatbot K-Health raised at a $900m valuation. This round was a $50m top-up but it has raised nearly $400m. It says it’ll be profitable in 2025, and has Elevance as its biggest client. Harmonycares is a housecall medical group, presumably pursuing the strategy that Signify and others followed. It raised $200m, so presumably has a $500m+ valuation–Centene bought an earlier version of the company for $200m a decade ago and sold it to some investors two years back. Headway is a mental health provider network that uses tools to get providers on their system and markets them to insurers. It raised $200m at a reported $2.3bn valuation.

You can look at that list of public companies, including ones taken private like Sharecare, and see that there are lots of telehealth chatbots, medical groups and mental health companies on the list. Any of which probably have similar technology buried inside them. I’m sure if you shook Sharecare hard enough all those technologies would fall out given the number of companies it acquired over its decade plus of expansion.

But let’s take mental health.

Amwell acquired a mental health company called Silvercloud, and a chatbot called Conversa. Its market cap is bouncing around between $250m & $350m and it has more than that in cash–which means the company itself is worth nothing! The VCs who put money into K-Health and Headway could literally could have bought Amwell for about what they invested for a fraction of those companies. Is Headway doing more than the $250m a year in revenue Amwell is putting up? Headway’s value is nearly 6 x the value of Talkspace which is bringing in about $150m a year in revenue. And if you consider BetterHelp to be 50% of Teladoc — which it roughly is — Headway is 3 x the value of BetterHelp which is doing $1bn a year in revenue. Is there any chance that Headway is doing close to those numbers? Maybe somone who saw the latest pitch deck can let me know, but I highly doubt it.

Now of course these new investments could be creating new technology or new business models which the previous generation of digital health companies couldn’t figure out. They might also have figured out how to grow profitably–although as far as I know Doximity stands alone as a profitable company that took VC funding it never needed and never used.

But isn’t it more likely that they are in the market competing with the public companies and those private companies that got funding in 2020-22, have similar pitches, similar tech and are similarly losing money?

I am a long time proponent of digital health and really hope that technology can change the sclerotic health care sector. I want all these companies to do well and change the world. Maybe those VCs investing in those mega rounds are more sensible than they were in 2022. But given the state of the digital health sector on the current stock market–which is otherwise at all time highs–I just don’t know what the exit can be, and it pains me to say it.

Pamela Stahl, Avalon Healthcare Solutions

Pamela Stahl is the President of Avalon Healthcare Solutions. You’ve heard of pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) but Avalon is a labs benefits management company. Working on behalf of health insurers Avalon ensures that patients are getting the right labs at the right price, . Why are they needed? There are 14 billion lab tests and they drive a lot of health care decisions (70%+!). As you might guess there’s a ton of variation in test price, lots of test are ordered in error, many are repeated, and many are unnecessary. Avalon’s job is to figure that all out!–Matthew Holt 

Health Care Needs a 21st Century Infrastructure

By KIM BELLARD

Matthew Holt is going to tell me I’ve been thinking about infrastructure too much lately (e.g., cybersecurity of them, backup plans for them), but if you don’t have infrastructure right, you don’t have anything right.

And healthcare most definitely does not have its infrastructure right.

We’re spending between 15-30% of our healthcare dollar on administration, and no one views our healthcare system as efficient or even particularly effective. We have numerous intermediaries like PBMs, billing services, revenue cycle management vendors, and all sorts of digital health solutions. There are layers upon layers upon layers, each adding its costs and complications.

In some ways, healthcare’s infrastructure has changed remarkably in the last two to three decades. Most transactions – e.g., claims or eligibility – are sent, and often processed, electronically. Most physicians, hospitals, and other health care clinicians/organizations have electronic health records. You can find out the expected cost for prescription drugs at point-of-sale. You can do a virtual visit with your doctor. There are vast amounts of health information available online. AI is coming to health care, and, in some cases, is already here.

But: we’re still sending faxes. We’re still filling out paper forms, repeatedly. We still make innumerable phone calls, usually spending long waits in queue. Everyone hates provider directories, which are never up-to-date and often inaccurate. Talk of interoperability notwithstanding, there are far too many data silos, leading to at best us lugging around disks with our downloaded records to at worst physicians acting with incomplete information for us. Healthcare has had far too many data breaches, and cyberattacks have held patient data hostage (e.g., Ascension) or put a halt to those electronic transaction (e.g., Change Healthcare). And we’re not at all sure how to govern AI.

The amount of medical literature has been growing exponentially for decades, and the volume of health care data is growing much, much faster. Physicians once guarded health information like the guild they are, but the Internet has democratized health information – while doing the same for misinformation. If anything, we have too much information; we just can’t use it as effectively as we should (e.g., it can take 17 years for evidence to change physician practice).

This is not an infrastructure that is not coping well with the 21st century.

Continue reading…

Don’t Limp. Crush the “Trump Reich.”

By MIKE MAGEE

I have always felt a kinship with EJ Dionne. We are both Boomers, though I am 4 years his senior. We share similar politics, religious origins, early Catholic school educations, fathers in health care and mothers who were teachers, deep New England roots, addiction to the written word, blessings with long marriages and children (they 3, we 4), and deep revulsion with Trump and his enablers and everything they represent.

Viewing him as measured and wise, I took special care in reading his Washington Post column yesterday, “The words about Joe Biden I never wanted to write.”

For twelve days since that first debate, I have worked to remain officially neutral on “what next to do,” and stayed focused on how to ensure a decisive (message-sending) defeat not only of Trump but Republicans up and down the ticket, so that there is no confusion that the whole cabal – Project 2025, Leonard Leo et al, the  Supreme Court’s “Doomed Crusade”, Bannon-led MAGA insurrectionists – is sufficiently devastated that it cannot remerge from the cinders.

There is no doubt that Biden’s physical and mental decline was on full view for over 50 million Americans two weeks ago. And you don’t have to be a medical historian or a prize winning journalist to recognize that the degenerative processes that are responsible for his decline are progressive (albeit possibly slowly progressive). That is to say, his decline will continue, as predictably as did Ronald Reagan’s.

But as E.J. makes clear in his opinion piece this week, “Biden’s capacity to do a ‘good job’ is not ‘what this is about.’ Donald Trump’s threat to democracy is the overriding question before the country…”

While Dionne is right that this is not “about Biden,” he understates the problem when he suggests instead that it is about Trump alone. That is no more true than to suggest that WWII was only about Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, when in fact the challenge was far greater than that.

Stated simply, the human species in the Axis societies had gone off the rails, and channeled themselves into a death spiral. “Breaking the spell” required unprecedented force and ultimately the use of atomic bombs, followed by multi-decade investments through the Marshall Plan to reestablish civilized human societies.

President Biden limping to the finish line and repeating slight margin victories in seven swing states will not solve America’s current problem. We are too far along. As with Hitler’s Germany in the 30’s, the enemy’s course trajectory is by now visible for all to see, and it will achieve its’ Project 2025 goals and objectives if allowed. These determined radicalized leaders are more than halfway there, fueled with a religious fervor that cannot be modified by honest debate or calm logic.

Success breeds success as well for evil as for good. So far, with Biden still in power, political arsonists have achieved an immune Executive branch; a biased Judiciary with no Code of Ethics; a House of Representatives directed from Mar-a-Lago; and 14 state houses with absolute control over their citizens reproductive rights.

Clearly the problem is bigger than Trump. Project 2025’s declaration leaves little room for confusion. It states: “It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.”

There will be no Pearl Harbor to wake us from our sleep, or galvanize our clear majorities that know in their hearts that something has gone very, very wrong. That Presidential debate was our final warning.  Time’s up. As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said this weekend “This is a really critical week. I do think the clock is ticking.”

What then is the formula for an overwhelming defeat of the Trump Reich? Three pillars: Energy, Enthusiasm, Women-Led.

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

The Doctors Who’ve Helped Patients Declare Their Independence

By MICHAEL MILLENSON

“A reform,” wrote a 19th-century British parliamentarian, “is a correction of abuses. A revolution is a transfer of power.”

As we celebrate the American Revolution, catalyzed by men who broke ranks with their peers to overthrow a power structure that seemed immutable, let’s also celebrate those physicians who broke with their peers and declared independence for American patients.

The British Empire believed it was exercising “benign colonialism.” Physicians, similarly, traditionally believed “that patients are only in need of caring custody,” observed psychiatrist Jay Katz in his 1984 book, The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. As a result, doctors thought it their moral duty to act as “rational agents” on the patient’s behalf.

The first spark to set that notion on fire came immediately after World War II with the publication of a book, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, that became a surprise best-seller. Dr. Benjamin McLane Spock, author and pediatrician, told parents that their common sense was often as reliable a guide as any doctor’s advice.

At the time, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics advised physicians that “reasonable indulgence should be granted to the caprices of the sick.” Even though new moms were not ill, many pediatricians nonetheless deemed it entirely unreasonable for them to decide when to feed their babies. Instead, the doctors gave them given feeding schedules.

Spock, in contrast, reassured moms that centuries of human history showed they could decide for themselves when to feed their infant, doing so “when he seems hungry, irrespective of the hour.”

As I wrote in a history of participatory medicine, as those babies grew into adulthood, they “would use legal, economic and political pressure to undermine a medical culture that genuinely believed sharing too much information could be harmful.”

Along that journey, however, patients would acquire crucial help from doctors with the imagination and courage to think and to act outside the existing paradigm.

It wasn’t a quick process. As with the American Revolution, the abuses had to accumulate and resistance had to build. In 1970, a group of Boston feminists frustrated by a system that told them to listen to their doctor and not ask questions published a booklet entitled Women and Their Bodies. One year later, a court decision resulting from a malpractice case required physicians for the first time to specifically disclose the full risks of a procedure in language the patient could understand. A year after that, in 1973, what had become the Boston Women’s Health Collective published Our Bodies, Ourselves. The book has sold millions of copies.

Also in 1973, the American Hospital Association, facing the threat of Congressional action, adopted a “patient bill of rights” that contained such guarantees as patients having the right to know the names of all the physicians treating them!

Meanwhile, a handful of doctors started chipping away at the medical pedestal, with research uncovering common abuses of power like unnecessary tonsillectomies and hysterectomies. John Wennberg, working with colleagues who deployed nascent computer capabilities, demonstrated enormous variation in even the everyday practice of doctors in the same area seeing the same kind of patients. The “caprices” of judgment, it seemed, were not just a patient problem.

Peer-reviewed medical journals rejected Wennberg’s first article. The university where he worked pushed him to find a different employer. Physician colleagues shunned him. But as policymakers’ concern over soaring medical costs grew, Wennberg’s work went mainstream.

“Inevitably, once you start down the variation path and ask which rate is right, you come up against who’s making the decision and whose preferences are being reflected,” Wennberg later said. “That’s where the revolutionary aspects of what we’re doing really are.”

Following that logic, Wennberg and a fellow physician, Albert G. Mulley, Jr. – who had experienced the impact of practice variation when trying to treat his severe back pain – in 1989 formed the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making. Its mission was to develop and disseminate video programs enabling patients to become partners in their care.

It was Wennberg who recommended Katz’s book to me, with its extraordinary statements about doctor “fantasies” of “authoritarian control” and its blunt accusation that doctor’s reluctance to involve patients in jointly thinking about care choices constitutes psychological “abandonment.”

Like Wennberg, Paul Ellwood, who’d coined the term “health maintenance organization,” also tried to put shared decision-making into practice. In 1988, he called for adoption of “a technology of patient experience.” In 1995, he founded the Foundation for Accountability (FACCT), with tools such as “CompareYourCare” to help patients play a more active role in medical decisions.

Meanwhile, Harvey Picker, a successful businessman who said he wanted the health care system to treat patients as persons, not as “imbeciles or inventory,” joined with the Commonwealth Fund to support a group of researchers who promised to promote what Tom Delbanco, the lead physician, called “patient-centered care.” The group’s 1993 book, Through the Patient’s Eyes, helped popularize the concept, which a 2001 report by Institute of Medicine formally designated as one of six aims for the health care system

It was Delbanco who with colleagues in the first decade of the 21st century founded the “open notes” movement to give patients the right to see the doctor’s notes that were still a hidden part of the electronic health record. That push eventually led to legislation and regulations giving patients full access to all their EHR information.

But, of course, by then there was another doctor the public was increasingly turning to: “Dr. Google,” also known as “the Internet.” In 1996, Dr. Tom Ferguson, who had been medical editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, wrote a book entitled, Health Online: How to Find Health information, Support Groups, and Self-Help Communities in Cyberspace. Three years after his death in 2006, a group of physicians and patients would found the Society for Participatory Medicine, following the principles of an individual CNN would call the “George Washington of the empowered patient movement.”

None of these physician revolutionaries acted in a vacuum. While all faced resistance, they also had support from colleagues, physicians and non-physicians alike. Eventually, they were reinforced by patient activism, public opinion, legal requirements and, at a glacial pace, changes in the culture of medicine. Those changes, in turn, came about because of the work of physicians like Donald Berwick, Paul Batalden, Leana Wen, Victor Montori, Danny Sands and many others.

Still, it is those physicians who over the years repeatedly acted to free patients from “authoritarian control” – even if their language was more diplomatic – that blazed the path.

Michael L. Millenson is president of Health Quality Advisors LLC, and author of the classic Demanding Medical Excellence. He can be reached at michael@healthqualityadvisors.

Where Are Health Care’s Value Meals?

By KIM BELLARD

If you’re anything like me, you’ve noticed that food costs have been increasing. Whether it is food from the grocery or at a restaurant, the bill can be eye-opening compared to a few years ago. Blame the pandemic, blame corporate greed, blame the President – take your pick. But the bottom line is, you have to eat. You can buy lower priced options, you can go out less often, you can skimp on non-food spending, but you’re going to buy food. The other thing you can do is to complain.

Well, the fast food industry, for one, is listening to those complaints, and many leading fast food companies have launched a variety of “value meals” to reduce the pain consumers feel. Evidently they are still capable of feeling shame, or at least of recognizing that consumers have choices.

I just wish the healthcare industry was capable of doing the same.

Let’s be clear: the fast food industry has brought this on themselves. The Wall Street Journal reports that prices of food eaten away from home rose 30% since 2019, according to labor Department statistics, and that prices for a Big Mac increased 21% over the same period. McNugget meals were up 28% over the same period.

McDonald’s recognized the problem. It announced a $5 meal bundle in mid-May, targeting a June 25 launch date. For those of you craving a McD’s fix, the deal includes McDouble or McChicken sandwich, small fries, small soft drink and a four-piece Chicken McNuggets. “I’ve been in our restaurants. I’ve sat in focus groups,” Erlinger said on the Today show, touting the new deals.

It didn’t take long for other fast food chains to offer their own version. KFC introduced its $4.99 value menu back in April, even before McDonald’s announcement. Wendy’s has a $3 breakfast deal, Burger King has a $5 Your Way Meal, Taco Bell has something it calls a Luxe Craving Box for $7, Starbucks has a new Pairing Menu priced between $5-$7, Jack in the Box has a $4 munchies Meal, and Sonic now offers a $1.99 menu it calls “Fun.99,” which it says will be permanent, not a time limited promotion. I’m sure there are others.

“It still holds true that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” Burger King North American president Tom Curtis said in a May email to restaurant operators. “We know the competition is doing that. So we will be in that game,” Jack in the Box Chief Executive Darin Harris said. 

Lest anyone be worried about hurting the fast food companies’ margins, R.J. Hottovy, head of analytical research at Placer.ai, told Yahoo Finance: “It really comes down to … repeat visits after the fact. You’re not making money on the value menu. You’re making menu money on the other products, the more premium products, the dessert products, the beverage products that go along with that.”

Health care is like food in that almost anywhere you go you can probably find it. There are fast food restaurants seemingly on every corner, but there also are drugstores and doctors’ offices somewhere near those fast food restaurants. Health care may not quite be omnipresent, but it’s pretty present.

Unlike food, you may not need health care every day — but you are going to need it at some point. It may be a simple visit, it may be a pill a day for a few days, but it could be a mind-boggling array of tests, medications and procedures you never imagined or lifelong care.

In a fast food restaurant, you look at the menu, pick what you want and how much you are willing to pay, but with health care you don’t have such a menu. Someone else is usually telling what you need and dictating how much you’ll pay for it. After numerous “price transparency” efforts in these last few years, you might be able to find some set of prices, but if anyone has ever successfully been able to use them for anything other than the simplest of interactions, I’d like to know about it.  

Continue reading…

The Real Red Wave: Why the Biden Presidency is in Peril

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

Democrats’ despair after Joe Biden’s pallid and halting debate performance stems from the realization  that the uphill climb needed to prevent the return of Donald Trump might be too steep. What is less obvious is the awareness of the urban intelligentsia of the root causes of the adverse political climate, which can be seen in this map, taken from the Economist’s April 20 feature on declining US population.

A map of the united states Description automatically generated

America’s economy is booming, and the gap between its economic performance and that of the rest of the world is widening. The on-the-ground political reality is very different depending crucially on where you live. People who live in the red parts of this map do not need convincing that all that wealth, and the power that goes with it, has eluded them. Many of them believe that it has been stolen from them by corrupt leaders and the oligarchs and corporate interests that finance their campaigns.

That is the underlying reality of MAGA.  Ninety percent of those red counties voted for Donald Trump in 2020. People in metro Austin, Manhattan or the suburbs of Houston do not resonate with the need to make America great again. It’s already great for many of them.

For folks living in the abandoned parts of the US, the on-the-ground reality is absurd gas prices, unaffordable mortgages, a mountain of forever debt, deteriorating public services, dreams cruelly out of reach and the despair that goes with all of it-alcohol and drug dependency, depression and anxiety, obesity, domestic violence. There is an almost perfect correspondence between the above map and that of the epidemic of “deaths of despair” suicide, drug overdoses and alcohol poisoning. This phenomenon is rooted in middle-aged whites, the overwhelming demographic of the red parts of this map, but affects all demographic segments including black and Hispanic folks who traditionally supported Democrats.     

After 2016, political analysts believed that the prevalence of non-college educated whites in a local electorate was the single best predictor of Donald Trump’s shocking victory. That was not the case. A post-election analysis by the Economist revealed that a better predictor of Trump’s victory was a composite measure of health/life expectancy, specifically “county-level data on life expectancy and the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, heavy drinking and regular physical activity (or lack thereof)”, the mapping of which again correlates remarkably with the map of population decline above.

The very same forces of outmigration and economic stagnation are destroying these communities’ local health systems, as well as their schools, commercial businesses and churches. The same red areas are also areas where local physicians have retired and were not replaced, and whose hospitals closed or merged with larger regional conglomerates. A recent scurrilous analysis by Yale and University of Chicago economists blamed the rising deaths of despair and  local business’s economic struggles on hospital mergers, an absolutely “from central casting” example of blaming the victim. 

The bitter irony of this political season is that the Biden Administration’s remarkable roster of Congressional achievements in 2021 and 2022- the American Rescue Plan, the American Infrastructure and Jobs Act, the Chips and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act showered many tens of billions in temporary relief spending and capital investment for manufacturing and infrastructure on these red areas. Because many of these investments take years to execute, credit for them will be claimed by future administrations.

Yet due to the arrogance and isolation of the progressive policy advocates that shaped this legislation, it was simply self-evidently obvious that the most ambitious domestic reconstruction program in the ninety years since Roosevelt will help many of the most economically challenged areas in the country. Proud and sparsely attended ribbon cutting ceremonies made the local newspaper, if there still is one. News of these investments never arrived via the partisan news channels and hyper-targeted social media venues on which most ordinary Americans rely these days. That attitude of “self-evident good works”  is of a piece with the “Why Bother Visiting Wisconsin” arrogance that let Trump into the White House in the first place. 

If post-debate polling is any guide, all these trillions of dollars of good works, funded with money borrowed from our grandchildren, will not be enough to turn the red tide, which could well leave the Republicans firmly in control of all three branches of the federal government. As they go to their cushy post-administration redoubts at the Brookings Institution, Yale, Hopkins and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and hobnob at Aspen Institute and Martha’s Vineyard cocktail parties, the executors of all these good works, for the unforgiveable political sin of failing to communicate effectively with the struggling working class they used to champion, will have fully earned their retirement. 

Jeff Goldsmith is a veteran health care futurist, President of Health Futures Inc and regular THCB Contributor. This comes from his personal substack

Batteries All Around

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.”

Continue reading…

Artificial Intelligence Plus Data Democratization Requires New Health Care Framework

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 21st 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.

Continue reading…

Jake and Dana: Please Ask This Question.

By MIKE MAGEE

In case you were trying to forget, the first Presidential Debate is this week.

Question: Would Healthy Women Create a Healthy Democracy?

When he assumed the role as the AMA’s 178th president on June 13, 2023, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH focused on inequities in health care as a top priority for his year in office. In a memorable opening that day in Chicago, the Wisconsin anesthesiologist shared a personal mission with 700 AMA delegates centered on his then 4 year old son. Ethan was born 10 weeks premature at 2 lbs 7 oz.

“Watching my son cling to life, I was struck by the painful reality that, even though I was a physician and now, a father, neither I, nor my husband, could donate blood simply because we are gay. Discriminatory policies—policies rooted in stigma, not science—barred us from doing the most humane of acts, donating our blood.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld used that story as a jumping off point to share his priorities as their new President. He pledged that day to seek justice and equity, highlighting:

“Black women are at least three times as likely as white women to die as a result of their pregnancy.

“Black men are 50% more likely to die following elective surgery.

“LGBTQ+ teens and young adults suffer higher rates of mental health challenges that often go undiagnosed.”

He also warned, in the shadow of the Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, of  “… discouraging trends related to health outcomes—maternal mortality rates in the U.S. are more than double those of other well-resourced nations, for instance—and are becoming more prevalent.”

But when it came to the politics of reproductive health access, he chose his words carefully and took a quieter tone with the audience of politically savvy doctors from red and blue states.

“Certain aspects of the country’s political climate have become dangerously polarized. Politicians and judges are making decisions about health care formerly reserved for patients and physicians and patients…” he said.

This statement, coming one year after Dobbs, clearly did not mirror, in intensity, the words of his predecessor, Jack Resneck Jr.,MD, who wrote on the day of the decision, “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care…In alignment with our long-held position that the early termination of a pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and physician, subject only to the physician’s clinical judgment and the patient’s informed consent, the AMA condemns the high court’s interpretation in this case.”

That sentiment was reinforced by the nation’s 25,000 OBGYNs, 60% of whom are women. Their association (ACOG) wrote, “Today’s decision is a direct blow to bodily autonomy, reproductive health, patient safety, and health equity in the United States. Reversing the constitutional protection for safe, legal abortion established by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago exposes pregnant people to arbitrary state-based restrictions, regulations, and bans that will leave many people unable to access needed medical care.”

Statements on behalf of the American Nurses Association, and the organizational arms for both physicians associates (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) were equally forthright.

There are 4.2 million nurses, over 1 million doctors, and over 1/2 million PAs and NPs in the US. And as the latest US Census Report headlined, “Your health care is in women’s hands. Women hold 76% of all health care jobs.” This includes 90% of all nursing positions, 66% of PAs, and 55% of all current Medical School slots.

Not surprisingly, as women numbers have risen, traditional oaths for the caring professions have reflected changing priorities. For example, the women majority 2022 entering class of Penn State’s College of Medicine for the first time gave top billing in their professional oath to patients, not to the gods: “By all that I hold highest, I promise my patients competence, integrity, candor, personal commitment to their best interest, compassion, and absolute discretion, and confidentiality within the law.”

Seven years earlier, the American Nurses Association (ANA), created a formal Code of Ethics, which largely supplanted the 1893 Nightingale Pledge, with a four pillared Code which celebrated Autonomy (patient self-determination), Beneficence (kindness and charity), Justice,(fairness) and Nonmaleficence (do no harm), as anchors to Nursing’s 9 Provisions (or Pledges) that commit to: compassion and respect, patient-focus, advocacy, active decision making, self-health, ethical environment, scholarly pursuit, collaborative teamwork, professional integrity and social justice.

During Dr. Ehrenfeld’s one-year tenure following the Dobbs decision women’s access to health care deteriorated in red state after red state, a point reflected in clear losses for Republicans on statewide initiatives supporting abortion access from Kansas to Kentucky, and Vermont to Michigan. But as the Kaiser Family Foundation reported this year, “As of April 2024, 14 states have implemented abortion bans, 11 states have placed gestational limits on abortion between 6 and 22 weeks…” Add to this that 1 in 5 current OB residents say they have decided to steer away from restrictive red states when they pursue practice opportunities on graduation.

And still, red states embracing MAGA’s marriage to White Nationalists seem to have doubled down on everything from restricting access to medication abortion and contraception, to book banning, to limiting  LBGTQ+ rights and promoting prayer in public schools in the hopes of achieving a Christian Nationalist society.

Which brings us to the fast approaching 2024 Presidential debate. Women’s reproductive autonomy will be well represented. It is arguably the premier equity and justice issue before us, central to both America’s patients and their caring health professionals. But let’s not forget it is also central to the health of our democracy.

John J. Patrick PhD, in his book Understanding Democracy, lists the ideals of democracy to include “civility, honesty, charity, compassion, courage, loyalty, patriotism, and self restraint.”

What other form of government is there that so closely aligns with the aspirational pledges and oaths of our doctors, nurses, and body politic?

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