In the wake of last week’s human tragedy in Texas, it would be easy (and appropriate) to focus on the role played by Trump’s reckless recent dismantling of FEMA and related federal agencies. But to do so would be to accept that the event was an anomaly, or as Trump labeled it on Sunday on his way to a round of golf at Bedminster, “a hundred year catastrophe.”
In reality, tragedies like this are the direct result of global warming, and last week’s suffering and loss are destined to be followed by who knows how many others here and in communities around the world.
In 2009 President Obama joined global leaders in New York City for the Opening Session of the UN. One of the transboundary issues discussed was Global Warming. All agreed that the Kyoto Protocol had failed. It failed because the target to decrease emissions by some 5% was too low. It failed because large transitional nations like India and China were excluded. And it failed because US leadership opted out.
The global community today has a deeper hole out of which it must dig. In doing so we would do well to focus on health and safety as outcome measures, and define strategies to manage the obvious consequences of this ongoing crisis.
Two decades ago, the warnings were clear. Left unattended, we would soon not only need to plan mitigation, but also need to prepare and resource intervention to deal with inevitable human injury and disease fall-out. Of course, back then, we could not have predicted that wise disease interventions in climate ravaged hot spots around the globe, like expansion of USAID funding in the Bush and Obama administrations, would be X’d out under Trump/Musk. Who could have imagined such reckless and ultimately self-destructive moves?
Most of us know the story of the Model T – but what’s often overlooked is how it applies to other industries, especially digital health. Let’s revisit:
In the early 1900s cars were custom built. You’d meet with a consultant, design the car, place your order, and wait for months for delivery. Once your car was delivered, it was difficult to operate. Many owners hired chauffeurs because at the time, cars required technical know-how, constant maintenance, and a fair bit of strength (power steering wouldn’t arrive for decades).
Then came the Model T in 1908, which led to Ford developing his assembly line in 1913. He recognized a problem in the industry and saw an opportunity. He saw the opportunity for scale:
Standardization: “Any color, as long as it’s black“
Mass production = affordability: Prices dropped from $850 in 1908 to $300 within a decade
Accessible ownership: anyone could walk into a Ford dealership and drive away
Left: Early car assembly (pre-Ford) Right: A leading digital health interface, 2000
On the right side of the above image is a cutting-edge digital health program from August 2000. I know it well – because I helped build it. Since then, I’ve worked on well over 100 digital health interventions. Probably closer to 200. Here’s the thing: what’s inside hasn’t changed very much. Behavioral science doesn’t move that quickly (although my recent work in AI is changing that).
And yes – digital interventions look better, are easier to navigate, and coding languages have evolved – but practically, digital health is still building custom cars – not Model Ts. That’s why tens of millions can’t open a browser and get the help they need.
What’s Blocking Digital Health’s Model T Moment?
1. Enterprise Sales (Death by Pipeline): Most digital health tools are sold through enterprise channels: RFPs, procurement departments, tenders, security reviews, and legal teams. The average sales cycle is 6-18 months. That’s fine for a $5M contract, but it’s lethal for a $50,000 contract. The problem isn’t the product – it’s the process.
2. The Vanishing Champion: I’ve experienced this dozens of times, and I’ve taken deep breaths watching it unfold on webinars: a digital health company demos their solution alongside a client champion. Priorities shift. The champion leaves. The reference project dies. Most contracts aren’t lost on merit – they’re lost to turnover.
3. Healthcare Pricing ≠ Software Pricing: Most patient-facing tools are priced like services, not products. That’s a symptom of the enterprise sales trap. Vendors charge annual fees regardless of usage. Clients expect hand-holding for these custom products. Pricing needs to reflect modern SaaS models – freemium, tiered access, per-user billing.
4. Static Products in a Dynamic World: Consumer software updates weekly – sometimes daily. Digital health tools? They launch, then stall. Feedback loops are weak. There’s no culture of iteration, and no expectation of continuous improvement.
5. Nobody Markets to the User: The best-designed tools fail if no one uses them. Lack of engagement is a systemic issue, yet many programs are launched without onboarding plans, email campaigns, or even prewritten content for TikTok or Instagram. Users don’t know what the tool is, why they received access to it, how they access it, or how it fits into their care. That’s not a product issue – it’s a marketing failure.
We Need to Build the Systems, Not Just the Tool
Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile, but he’s remembered because he built a system. He looked beyond the engine, the chassis, and the tires. He focused on standardization, distribution, and access.
Digital health needs the same. Right now, too many solutions are trapped in a loop – custom-built for small populations, sold through enterprise channels, with no realistic path to scale.
The Good News? We’re Close
Cloud infrastructure, AI, and behaviorally intelligent platforms are finally catching up. We can now personalize at scale, launch instantly, track engagement in real time, and iterate fast. But to get there, we have to let go of the custom-built carriage mindset and embrace the assembly line. That’s not a compromise in quality – it’s a commitment to reach.
We don’t need more pilots – we need platforms.
We don’t need more bespoke builds – we need scale.
Digital health doesn’t have a technology problem – it has a delivery problem.
Until we achieve that, we’re just making nicer carriages – while the world waits for its Model T.
Dr. Trevor van Mierlo has built mental health and patient support products for more than two decades and is the CEO of Evolution Health
As a DNA-based creature myself, I’m always fascinated by DNA’s remarkable capabilities. Not just all the ways that life has found to use it, but our ability to find new ways to take advantage of them. I’ve written about DNA as a storage medium, as a neural network, as a computer, in a robot, even mirror DNA. So when I read about the Synthetic Human Genome (SynHG) project, last month, I was thrilled.
The project was announced, and is being funded, by the Wellcome Trust, to the tune of £10 million pounds over five years. Its goal is “to develop the foundational tools, technology and methods to enable researchers to one day synthesise genomes.”
The project’s website elaborates:
Through programmable synthesis of genetic material we will unlock a deeper understanding of life, leading to profound impacts on biotechnology, potentially accelerating the development of safe, targeted, cell-based therapies, and opening entire new fields of research in human health. Achieving reliable genome design and synthesis – i.e. engineering cells to have specific functions – will be a major milestone in modern biology.
The goal of the current project isn’t to build a full synthetic genome, which they believe may take decades, but “to provide proof of concept for large genome synthesis by creating a fully synthetic human chromosome.”
That’s a bigger deal than you might realize.
“Our DNA determines who we are and how our bodies work,” says Michael Dunn, Director of Discovery Research at Wellcome. “With recent technological advances, the SynHG project is at the forefront of one of the most exciting areas of scientific research.”
The project is led by Professor Jason Chin from the Generative Biology Institute at Ellison Institute of Technology and the University of Oxford, who says: “The ability to synthesize large genomes, including genomes for human cells, may transform our understanding of genome biology and profoundly alter the horizons of biotechnology and medicine.”
He further told The Guardian: “The information gained from synthesising human genomes may be directly useful in generating treatments for almost any disease.”
Professor Patrick Yizhi Cai, Chair of Synthetic Genomics at the University of Manchester boasted: “We are leveraging cutting-edge generative AI and advanced robotic assembly technologies to revolutionize synthetic mammalian chromosome engineering. Our innovative approach aims to develop transformative solutions for the pressing societal challenges of our time, creating a more sustainable and healthier future for all.”
Project member Dr Julian Sale, of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, told BBC News the research was the next giant leap in biology: “The sky is the limit. We are looking at therapies that will improve people’s lives as they age, that will lead to healthier aging with less disease as they get older. We are looking to use this approach to generate disease-resistant cells we can use to repopulate damaged organs, for example in the liver and the heart, even the immune system.”
Anmol Madan is CEO of RadiantGraph. He’s building an end to end solution that goes from data ingestion to applications to consumer connection via text/email and voice in order to let payers quickly roll out patient engagement plans. His idea is that plans/payers don’t need to fix their data, RadiantGraph’s AI can take the messy data and and then add an AI layer, and on that create specific applications–Anmol showed me a comprehensive demo. I also asked him if they are doing too much, or conversely if they need to do more!–Matthew Holt
So I thought I would try a little experiment. Following up on a recent primary care visit I got a couple of referrals. I went investigating as to what I could find out about the where to go and what the cost might be. And what the connection if any between my primary care group (One Medical), the facility & specialists I was referred to, and my health plan, Blue Shield. I hope you enjoy my little tour of this part of the online health system–Matthew Holt
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.”
H1 has raised over $200m to build out a very comprehensive data set of physicians internationally. Those products were primarily aimed at pharma. Now they are moving into the world of managing physician data for plans and providers, primarily via the 2025 acquisitions of Ribbon Health and Veda Health. I spoke with CEO Ariel Katz, and he took me through a demo of their system. I’ve had a nerdy interest in physician data for quite a while (I actually sketched out this product on a whiteboard at Microsoft in 2009!!)and what H1 has built is very impressive–Matthew Holt
Dr Kimmie Ng discusses cancer with Dr. George Beauregard. Dr Ng heads the Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, at the legendary Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and she treated George’s son who died age 32. Why are these cancers in younger people increasing so quickly? What can we do about it? What is connecting the environment, the immune system, mental health and cancer? What kind of early intervention can we advocate for? A fascinating conversation between two real leaders in this field.
They’re back and I’m an Executive Producer again (don’t ask what that means!). Entries are open now and close on July 31. Awards given out at HLTH on October 20. The team even made a spiffy video about it!–Matthew Holt
In our palliative medicine clinic in the working suburbs of Boston, my colleagues and I tend to some of the sickest patients in the city. Through the window, I can see the afflicted pull up to our squat building in family sedans, wheelchair vans, and subsidized municipal ride cars. Few drive themselves: most bear terrible illnesses that make them too frail or sedated. I watch as patients who are barely able to dress themselves, somehow arrive in their Sunday best for clinic.
Our job, as their doctors, is to manage their pain and provide moral support and practical help with things such as rent and transportation, sometimes spiritual support too. It’s important work, among the highest callings in medicine. Yet, as noble as this work might be, our clinic doesn’t begin to support itself financially. If there was ever a reason to spend graciously on patients and their needs, these visits, with their sick and vulnerable patients, would be exemplars. In fact, we don’t receive enough payment from insurers to cover the costs of the complicated work that’s needed. Practically, this translates to few staff to help with appointments, not enough follow-up calls, nobody to help with insurance headaches or pharmacy shortages, nobody answering the phone. Our facilities are tired. The simplest niceties—coffee in the waiting room, magazines, a comfortable chair—are long gone.
There is a feeling of “meagerness” in the air. It’s the feeling of being rationed. It’s an absence of all but the truly essential; no plenitude, a lack of graciousness. I see meagerness when my friend, an emergency physician at a major trauma center, shares pictures of his decomposing ER: desk chairs held together with medical tape, rooms without functioning equipment. Medical supplies that are so scarce that doctors keep stashes in their desks and coat pockets.
The administrators will say that these barren conditions are a consequence of financial scarcity. There isn’t enough money to pay for more than skeleton support and upkeep. Hospitals are running deficits and downsizing. Keeping the lights on is apparently a question of saving pennies at every opportunity. And, with every cut, meagerness grows. This all sounds, on its surface, understandable till you take a step back and realize it isn’t. We know that American healthcare consumes more money than any other country, per capita. Money is pouring, truly flooding, into our healthcare system. Family health insurance premiums rose 7% from 2023, after another 7% increase the year before. The average family policy now costs around $25,000 per year.
Which leaves me wanting to reconcile how there can be so much money entering the system, with so little left for essential front-line care. I know that this isn’t a complicated answer.
