Clinician burnout is a major problem. However, as I pointed out in a previous newsletter post, it is not a distinctly American problem.
A recent report from the Commonwealth Fund compared the satisfaction of primary care physicians in 10 high-income nations. Surprisingly, U.S. doctors ranked in the middle, reporting higher satisfaction rates than their counterparts in the U.K., Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A Surprising Insight About Burnout
In self-reported surveys, American doctors link their dissatisfaction to problems unique to the U.S. healthcare system: excessive bureaucratic tasks, clunky computer systems and for-profit health insurance. These problems need to be solved, but to reduce clinician burnout we also need to address another factor that negatively impacts doctors around the globe.
Though national healthcare systems may vary greatly in their structure and financing, clinicians in wealthy nations all struggle to meet the ever-growing demand for medical services. And that’s due to the mounting prevalence and complications of chronic disease.
At the heart of the burnout crisis lies a fundamental imbalance between the volume and complexity of patient health problems (demand) and the amount of time that clinicians have to care for them (supply). This article offers a way to reverse both the surge in chronic illnesses and the ongoing clinician burnout crisis.
Supply vs. Demand: Reframing Burnout
When demand for healthcare exceeds doctors’ capacity to provide it, one might assume the easiest solution is to increase the supply of clinicians. But that outcome remains unlikely so long as the cost increases of U.S. medicine continue to outpace Americans’ ability to afford care.
Whenever healthcare costs exceed available funds, policymakers and healthcare commentators look to rationing. The Oregon Medicaid experiment of the 1990s offers a profound reminder of why this approach fails. Starting in 1989, a government taskforce brought patients and providers together to rank medical services by necessity. The plan was to provide only as many as funding would allow. When the plan rolled out, public backlash forced the state to retreat. They expanded the total services covered, driving costs back up without any improvement in health or any relief for clinicians.
Consumer Culture Can Drive Medical Culture
Ultimately, to reduce burnout, we will have to find a way to decrease clinical demand without raising costs or rationing care.
The best—and perhaps only viable—solution is to embrace technologies that empower patients with the ability to better manage their own medical problems.
American consumers today expect and demanded greater control over their lives and daily decisions. Time and again, technology has made this possible.
Take stock trading, for example. Once the sole domain of professional brokers and financial advisors, today’s online trading platforms give individual investors direct access to the market and a wealth of information to make prudent financial decisions. Likewise, technology transformed the travel industry. Sites like Airbnb and Expedia empowered consumers to book accommodations, flights and travel experiences directly, bypassing traditional travel agents.
Technology will soon democratize medical expertise, as well, giving patients unprecedented access to healthcare tools and knowledge. Within the next five to 10 years, as ChatGPT and other generative AI applications become significantly more powerful and reliable, patients will gain the ability to self-diagnose, understand their diseases and make informed clinical decisions.
Today, clinicians are justifiably skeptical of outsized AI promises. But as technology proves itself worthy, clinicians who embrace and promote patient empowerment will not only improve medical outcomes, but also increase their own professional satisfaction.
Here’s how it can happen:
Empowering Patients With Generative AI
In the United States, health systems (i.e., large hospitals and medical groups) that heavily prioritize preventive medicine and chronic-disease management are home to healthier patients and more satisfied clinicians.
In these settings, patients are 30% to 50% less likely to die from heart attack, stroke and colon cancer than patients in the rest of the nation. That’s because their healthcare organizations provide effective chronic-disease prevention programs and assist patients in managing their diabetes, hypertension, obesity and asthma. As a result, patients experience fewer complications like heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.
Most primary care physicians, however, don’t have the time to accomplish this by themselves. According to one study, physicians would need to work 26.7 hours per day to provide all the recommended preventive, chronic and acute care to a typical panel of 2,500 adult patients.
GenAI technologies like ChatGPT can help lessen the load. Soon, they’ll be able to offer patients more than just general advice about their chronic illnesses. They will give personalized health guidance. By connecting to electronic health records (EHR)—even when those systems are spread across different doctors’ offices—GenAI will be able to analyze a patient’s specific health data to provide tailored prevention recommendations. It will be able to remind patients when they need a health screening, and help schedule it, and even sort out transportation. That’s not something Google or any other online platform can currently do.
Moreover, with new tools (like doctor-designed plugins expected in future ChatGPT updates) and data from fitness trackers and home health monitors, GenAI will be capable of not just displaying patient health data, but also interpreting it in the context of each person’s health history and treatment plans. These tools will be able to provide daily updates to patients with chronic conditions, telling them how they’re doing based on their doctor’s plan.
When the patient’s health data show they’re on the right track, there won’t be a need for an office visit, saving time for everyone. But if something seems off—say, blood pressure readings remain excessively high after the start of anti-hypertensive drugs—clinicians will be able to quickly adjust medications, often without the patient needing to come in. And when in-person visits are necessary, GenAI will summarize patient health information so the doctor can quickly understand and act, rather than starting from scratch.
ChatGPT is already helping people make better lifestyle choices, suggesting diets tailored to individual health needs, complete with shopping lists and recipes. It also offers personalized exercise routines and advice on mental well-being.
Another way generative AI can help is by diagnosing and treating common, non-life-threatening medical problems (e.g., musculoskeletal, allergic or viral issues). ChatGPT and Med-PaLM 2 have already demonstrated the capability in diagnosing a range of clinical issues as effectively and safely as most clinicians. Looking ahead, GenAI’s will offer even greater diagnostic accuracy. When symptoms are worrisome, GenAI will alert patients, speeding up definitive treatment. Its ability to thoroughly analyze symptoms and ask detailed questions without the time pressure doctors feel today will eradicate many of our nation’s 400,000 annual deaths from misdiagnosis.
The outcomes—fewer chronic diseases, fewer heart attacks and strokes and more medical problems solved without an office visit—will decrease demand, giving doctors more time with the patients they see. As a result, clinicians will leave the office feeling more fulfilled and less exhausted at the end of the day.
The goal of enhanced technology use isn’t to eliminate doctors. It’s to give them the time they desperately need in their daily practice, without further increasing already unaffordable medical costs. And rather than eroding the physician-patient bond, the AI-empowered patient will strengthen it, since clinicians will have the time to dive deeper into complex issues when people come to the office.
A More Empowered Patient Is Key To Reducing Burnout
AI startups are working hard to create tools that assist physicians with all sorts of tasks: EHR data entry, organizing office duties and submitting prior authorization requests to insurance companies.
These function will help clinicians in the short run. But any tool that fails to solve the imbalance between supply (of clinician time) and demand (for medical services), will be nothing more than a temporary fix.
Our nation is caught in a vicious cycle of rising healthcare demand, leading to more patient visits per day per doctor, producing higher rates of burnout, poorer clinical outcomes and ever-higher demand. By empowering patients with GenAI, we can start a virtuous cycle in which technology reduces the strain on doctors, allowing them to spend more time with patients who need it most. This will lead to better health outcomes, less burnout for clinicians and further decreases in overall healthcare demand.
Physicians and medical societies have the opportunity to take the lead. They’ll have to educate the public on how to use this technology effectively, assist in connecting it to existing data sources and ensure that the recommendations it makes are reliable and safe. The time to start this process is now.
Published this week in the Washington Post, this unsparing article packages a year of investigative reporting into a thorough accounting of why US life expectancy is undergoing a rapid decline.
After peaking in 2014, US life expectancy has declined each subsequent year, trending far worse than peer countries. In a quarter of US counties, working-age Americans are dying at the highest rates in 40 years, reversing decades of progress. While deaths from firearms and opioids play a role, chronic diseases remain our nation’s greatest killer, erasing more than double the years of life as all overdoses, homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined.
The drivers of this trend are too numerous to list, but experts suggest targeting “the causes of the causes”, namely social factors, as the death rate gap between the rich and poor has grown almost 15x faster than the income gap since 1980.
The Gist: This reporting is a sobering reminder of the responsibilities—and failures—borne by our nation’s healthcare system.
The massive death toll of chronic disease in this country is not an indictment of the care Americans receive, but of the care and other resources they cannot access or afford.
While it’s not the mandate of health systems to reduce systemic issues like poverty, there is no solution to the problem without health systems playing a key role in increasing access to care, while convening community resources in service of these larger goals.
The pandemic accelerated the outpatient shift, which had been progressing steadily for decades, into a new gear, as safety-minded consumers avoided inpatient settings.
Using the latest forecasting data from strategic healthcare consulting firm Sg2, the graphic above illustrates how the outpatient shift will continue to accelerate in the coming years. With each projected to grow by 20 percent or more, outpatient, virtual, and home-based care services will continue far outpace growth in hospital-based care over the next decade.
Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) will be at the center of this care shift, reflected by a projected 25 percent rise in ASC volumes by 2032.
The breadth of care available at home will also expand as care delivery technology improves. With the population becoming older and sicker, higher incidence of chronic disease will be met by a rapid expansion of home evaluation and management services (E&M),reflecting a shift away from hospitals and doctors’ offices as hubs for complex care management.
Instead, the patients still coming to hospitals will present with increasingly acute conditions, driving up demand for resource-intensive critical care, as broader inpatient volume remains relatively flat.
Value-based healthcare, the holy grail of American medicine, has three parts: excellent clinical quality, convenient access and affordability for all.
And as with the holy grail of medieval legend, the quest for value-based care has been filled with failure.
In the 20th century, U.S. medical groups and hospital systems could—at best—achieve two elements of value-based care, but always at the sacrifice of the third. Until recently, American medicine lacked the clinical knowhow, technology and operational excellence to accomplish all three, simultaneously. We now have the tools. The only thing missing is “system-ness.”
What Is System-ness?
System-ness is the effective and efficient coordination of healthcare’s many parts: outpatient and inpatient, primary and specialty care, financing and care delivery, prevention and treatment.
By bringing these disparate pieces together within a well-functioning system, healthcare providers have the opportunity to maximize clinical outcomes, weed out waste, lower overall costs and provide greater levels of convenience and access.
Who Are The Search Parties?
In the future, system-ness will be the variable that determines whether healthcare transformation is led by (a) incumbent health systems like Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger Health or (b) the retail giants like Amazon, CVS and Walmart. The latter group has become an ever-growing threat in the healthcare arms race, quickly amassing their own (though still modest) systems of care through billion-dollar acquisitions.
Although both the incumbents and new entrants will struggle to implement value-based care on a national scale, the victor stands to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue and tens of billions in profits.
To better understand the power of system-ness, and the challenges all organizations will face in providing it, here are three examples of value-based-care solutions implemented successfully by Kaiser Permanente.
1. Preventing Problems, Managing Disease
Research demonstrates that preventive medicine and early intervention reduce heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Yet our nation falls far short in these areas when compared to its global peers.
One example is hypertension, the leading cause of strokes and a major contributor to heart attacks. With help from doctors, nearly all patients can keep high blood pressure under control. Yet, nationally, hypertension is controlled only 60% of the time.
We see similarly poor rates of performance when it comes to prevention and screening for cancers of the colon, breast and lung.
Undoing these troubling trends requires system-ness. In Kaiser Permanente, 90% of patients had their blood pressure controlled and were screened for cancer. Getting there required a comprehensive electronic health record, a willingness for every doctor (regardless of specialty) to focus on prevention, leadership that communicated the value of prevention and a salary structure that rewarded group excellence.
2. Continuous Care, Without Interruption
Most doctors’ offices are open Monday to Friday during normal business hours—only one-fourth of the time that a medical problem might occur.
At night and on weekends, patients have no choice but to visit ERs. There, they often wait hours for care, surrounded by people with communicable diseases. Their non-emergent problems generate bills 12-times higher than if they’d waited to be seen in a doctor’s office.
There’s a better way. In large-enough medical groups, hundreds of clinicians can provide round-the-clock care on a rotating, virtual basis—using video to assess patients and make evidence-based recommendations.
This approach, pioneered by physicians in the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical group, solved the patient’s problem immediately 70% of the time without a trip to the ER and, for the other 30%, enabled coordination of medical care with the ER staff.
3. Specialized Medicine, Immediate Attention
When a primary care physician needs added expertise (from a dermatologist, urologist or orthopedist), it’s usually the responsibility of the patient to make their own specialty appointments, check with insurance for coverage and provide their medical records.
This takes hours or days to coordinate and can delay care by weeks, resulting in avoidable complications.
But in a well-structured system, there’s no need to wait. Using telehealth tools at Kaiser Permanente, primary care doctors can connect instantly with dozens of different specialists—often while the patient is still in the exam room. Once connected, the specialist evaluates the patient and provides immediate expertise.
This way, care is not only faster and less expensive, but also better coordinated. Data from within Kaiser Permanente show that these virtual consultations resolve the patient’s problem 40% of the time without having to schedule another appointment. For the other 60%, the diagnostic process can begin immediately.
The Foundations For System-ness
Few organizations in the U.S. can or do offer these system-based improvements. Doing so requires skilled physician leadership, a shift in the financial model and a willingness to accept risk.
In fact, most organizations across the U.S. that claim to operate “value-based” systems actually rely on doctors who are scattered across the community, disconnected from each other and paid on the basis of volume (fee-for-service) rather than value (capitation).
As a result, patient care is fragmented and uncoordinated, leading to repeated tests and ineffective treatments, thus increasing medical costs and compromising medical outcomes.
Value-based care (superior quality, access and affordability) requires teams of clinicians working together as one—all paid on a capitated basis.
Without capitation, dermatologists will insist on seeing every patient in their office where they can bill insurance five-times more than with a tele-dermatology visit. And gastroenterology specialists will insist that all patients have colonoscopy rather than recommending low-risk patients do a safe, convenient, at-home colon cancer screening (called a fecal immunochemical test or “FIT”) at 5% of the cost.
In these cases, individual doctors don’t consciously make care inconvenient for patients. Rather, it is the only choice they have when working in a fee-for-service payment model. Ultimately, system-ness is best achieved when health systems are integrated, prepaid, tech-enabled and physician-led.
Amazon, CVS, Walmart Know About Systems
These three companies are global leaders in “system-ness,” at least in retail. Combined, they have a market cap of $1.88 trillion, employ 3.4 million Americans and are looking to take a slice of U.S. healthcare’s $4.3 trillion annual expenditures.
Already, they manage complex order-entry and fulfillment systems. They use technology to streamline everything from customer service to supply-chain management. They are led through a clear and effective reporting structure.
In terms of competing for healthcare’s holy grail, these are huge competitive advantages compared to today’s uncoordinated, individualized, leaderless healthcare industry.
As retailers vie to bring their system knowhow to American medicine, they are acquiring the pieces needed to compete with the healthcare incumbents. They’ve spent tens of billions of dollars on medical groups that are committed to value-based care (One Medical, Oak Street Health, etc.). They’ve also spent massive sums on home-health companies (Signify) and on pharmacies (PillPak), along with expanding their in-store, at-home and online care options. Many of these care-delivery subsidiaries are focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated half of Medicare where financial success is dependent on high quality medical care provided at lower cost.
What’s more, all these retailers have a national presence with brick-and mortar facilities in nearly every community in the country—a leg up on nearly every existing health system.
Who Will Win—And Why?
Trying to pick the victor in the battle to transform American medicine at this point is like selecting the winner of a heavy-weight championship boxing match after three evenly matched rounds. Intangibles like stamina, courage and willingness to absorb pain have yet to be tested.
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, the late Clayton Christensen examined historical battles between incumbent organizations and new entrants. After analyzing dozens of industries, he concluded new entrants routinely become the victors because the incumbents move too slowly and fail to embrace the need for major change.
And from that perspective, if I had to wager, I’d put my money on the retail giants.
But there’s an even more worrisome potential outcome: neither those inside nor outside of healthcare will make the necessary investments or accept the risk of leading systemic change. As a result, the movement toward value-based healthcare will stall and die.
In that context, purchasers of healthcare (businesses, the government and patients) will encounter a difficult reality: over the next eight years, medical costs will nearly double, creating an unaffordable and unsustainable scenario. As a result, our nation will likely experience reduced medical coverage, increased rationing, ever-longer delays for care and a growth in health disparities.
If that day arrives, our country will regret its inaction.
At a recent meeting of physician leaders, we sat next to the head of the health system’s bariatric surgery program. Given the recent and rapid uptake of GLP-1 inhibitors like Ozempic and Wegovy, we asked how he thought these drugs, which can generate dramatic weight loss, would affect his practice.
He chuckled, “they’re really good drugs…they could put me out of business!
It’s too early to say if they’ll be effective over a lifetime, but there’s no doubt they’re going to have a huge impact on our work.” It got us thinking about the other reverberations this class of drugs could have on care needs, if a majority of obese Americans had access to them.
Some effects are obvious.
We could see significant declines in treatment needs for chronic diseases like obesity and heart failure, for which obesity is a strong risk factor. Given that obese patients are much more likely to need joint replacement surgery, we could see a big hit to that demand—although some patients who are poor candidates for surgery because of weight-related complications could become eligible.
Even longer-term, if American’s aren’t dying of chronic disease, we’ll still die of something, so expect diseases of advanced age, like Alzheimer’s and many cancers, to increase. Other pharmaceutical innovations, like the growth of immunotherapy and more targeted cancer treatments, also have the potential to radically alter how disease is managed.
We may be at the beginning of another wave of disruptive medical innovation on the order of the introduction of statins in the 1990s, which combined with minimally invasive catheterization, slashed the need for bypass surgery.
Given their sky-high prices, it’s too soon to tell how quickly the use of these new obesity drugs will grow, but innovations like these will serve to pull more care out of hospitals and into less invasive outpatient medical management.
The executives featured in this article are all speaking at the Becker’s Healthcare 13th Annual Meeting April 3-6, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago.
Question: What will hospitals and health systems look like in 10 years? What will be different and what will be the same?
Michael A. Slubowski. President and CEO of Trinity Health (Livonia, Mich.): In 10 years, inpatient hospitals will be more focused on emergency care, intensive/complex care following surgery or complex medical conditions, and short-stay/observation units. Only the most complex surgical cases and complex medical cases will be inpatient status. Most elective surgery and diagnostic services will be done in freestanding surgery, procedural and imaging centers. Many patients with chronic medical conditions will be managed at home using digital monitoring. More seniors will be cared for in homes and/or in PACE programs versus skilled nursing facilities.
Mark A. Schuster, MD, PhD. Founding Dean and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine (Pasadena, Calif.): The future of hospitals might not actually unfold in hospitals. I expect that more and more of what we now do in hospitals will move into the home. The technology that makes this transition possible is already out there: Remote monitoring of vital signs and lab tests, remote visual exams, and videoconferencing with patients. And all of this technology will improve even more over the next 10 years — turning at-home care from a dream into a reality.
Imagine no longer being kept awake all night by beeps and alarms coming from other patients’ rooms or kept away from family by limited visiting hours. The benefits are especially welcome for people who live in rural places and other areas with limited medical facilities. Who knows? Maybe robotics will make some in-home surgeries not so far off!
Of course, not all patients have a safe or stable home environment where they could receive care, so hospitals aren’t going away anytime soon. I’m not suggesting that most current patients could be cared for remotely in a decade — but I do think we’re moving in that direction. So those of us who work in education will need to train medical, nursing, and other students for a healthcare future that looks quite different from the healthcare present and takes place in settings we couldn’t imagine 10 years ago.
Shireen Ahmad. System Director, Operations and Finance of CommonSpirit Health (Chicago): The biggest change I anticipate is a continuation in the decentralization of health services delivery that has typically been provided by hospitals. This will result in a reduction of hospitals with fewer services performed in acute settings and with more services provided in non-acute ones.
With recent reimbursement changes, CMS is helping to set the tone of where care is delivered. Hospitals are beginning to rationalize services, including who and where care is delivered. For example, pharmacies often carry clinics that provide vaccinations, but in France, one can go to a pharmacy for care and sterilization of minor wounds while only paying for bandages, medication and other supplies used in the visit. I would not be surprised if, in 10 years, one could get an MRI at their local Walmart or schedule routine screenings and tests at the grocery store with faster, more accurate results as they check out their produce.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, there will always be a need for acute care and our society will always need hospitals to provide care to sick patients. This is not something I would anticipate changing. However, the need to provide most care in a hospital will change with the result leading to fewer hospitals in total. Far from being a bleak outlook, however, I believe that healthier, sustainable health systems will prevail if they are able to provide a greater spectrum of care in broader settings focussing on quality and convenience.
Gerard Brogan. Senior Vice President and Chief Revenue Officer of Northwell Health (New Hyde Park, N.Y.): Operationally, hospitals and health systems will be more designed around the patient experience rather than the patient accommodating to the hospital design and operations. Specifically, more geared toward patient choice, shopping for services, and price competition for out-of-pocket expenses. In order to bring costs down, rational control of utilization will be more important than ever. Hopefully, we will be able to shrink the administrative costs of delivering care. Structurally, more care will continue to be done ambulatory, with hospitals having a greater proportion of beds having critical care capability and single rooms for infection control, putting pressure on the cost per square foot to operate. Sustainable funding strategies for safety net hospitals will be needed.
Mike Gentry. Executive Vice President and COO of Sentara Healthcare (Norfolk, Va.): During the next 10 years, more rural hospitals will become critical assessment facilities. The legislation will be passed to facilitate this transition. Relationships with larger sponsoring health systems will support easy transitions to higher acuity services as required. In urban areas, fewer hospitals with greater acuity and market share will often match the 50 percent plus market share of health plans. The ambulatory transition will have moved beyond only surgical procedures into outpatient but expanded historical medical inpatient status in ED/observation hubs.
The consumer/patient experience will be vastly improved. Investments in mobile digital applications will provide greatly enhanced communication, transparency of clinical status, timelines, the likelihood of expected outcomes and cost. Patients will proactively select from a menu of treatment options provided by predictive AI. The largest 10 health systems will represent 25 percent of the total U.S. acute care market share, largely due to consumer-centric strategic investments that have outpaced their competitors. Health systems will have vastly larger pharma operations/footprints.
Ketul J. Patel. CEO of Virginia Mason Franciscan Health (Seattle) and Division President, Pacific Northwest of CommonSpirit Health (Chicago): This is a transformative time in the healthcare industry, as hospitals and healthcare systems are evolving and innovating to meet the growing and changing needs of the communities we serve. The pandemic accelerated the digital transformation of healthcare. We have seen the proliferation of new technologies — telemedicine, artificial intelligence, robotics, and precision medicine — becoming an integral part of everyday clinical care. Healthcare consumers have become empowered through technology, with greater control and access to care than ever before.
Against this backdrop, in the next decade we’ll see healthcare consumerism influencing how health systems transform their hospitals. We will continue incorporating new technologies to improve healthcare delivery, offering more convenient ways to access high-quality care, and lowering the overall cost of care.
SMART hospitals, including at Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, are utilizing AI to harness real-time data and analysis to revolutionize patient and provider experiences and improve the quality of care. VMFH was the first health system in the Pacific Northwest to introduce a virtual hospital nearly a decade ago, which provides virtual services in the hospital across the continuum of care to improve quality and safety through remote patient monitoring and care delivery.
As hospitals become more high-tech, more nimble, and more efficient over the next 10 years, there will be less emphasis on brick-and-mortar buildings as we continue to move care away from the hospital toward more convenient settings for the patient. We recently launched VMFH Home Recovery Care, which brings all the essential elements of hospital-level care into the comfort and convenience of patients’ homes, offering a safe and effective alternative to the traditional inpatient stay.
Health systems and hospitals must simplify the care experience while reducing the overall cost of care. VMFH is building Washington state’s first hybrid emergency room/urgent care center, which eliminates the guesswork for patients unsure of where to go for care. By offering emergent and urgent care in a single location, patients get the appropriate level of care, at the right price, in one convenient location.
As healthcare delivery becomes more sophisticated in this digital age, we must not lose sight of why we do this work: our patients. There is no device or innovation that can truly replace the care and human intelligence provided by our nurses, APPs and physicians. So, while hospitals and health systems might look and feel different in 2033, our mission will remain the same: to provide exceptional, compassionate care to all — especially the most vulnerable.
David Sylvan. President of University Hospitals Ventures (Cleveland): American healthcare is facing an imperative. It’s clear that incremental improvements alone won’t manifest the structural outcomes that are largely overdue. The good news is that the healthcare industry itself has already initiated the disruption and self-disintermediation. I would hope that in the next 10 years, our offerings in healthcare truly reflect our efforts to adopt consumerism and patient choice, alleviate equity barriers and harness efficiencies while reducing time waste.
We know that some of this will come about through technology design, build and adoption, especially in the areas of generative artificial intelligence. But we also know that some of this will require a process overhaul, with learnings gleaned from other industries that have already solved adjacent challenges. What won’t change in 10 years will be the empathy and quality of care that the nation’s clinicians provide to patients and their caregivers daily.
Joseph Webb. CEO of Nashville (Tenn.) General Hospital: The United States healthcare industry operates within a culture that embraces capitalism as an economic system. The practice of capitalism facilitates a framework that is supported by the theory of consumerism. This theory posits that the more goods and services are purchased and consumed, the stronger an economy will be. With that in mind, healthcare is clearly a driver in the U.S. economy, and therefore, major capital and technology are continuously infused into healthcare systems. Healthcare is currently approaching 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and will continue to escalate over the next 10 years.
Also, in 10 years, there will be major shifts in ownership structures, e.g., mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations. Many healthcare organizations/hospitals will be unable to sustain operations due to shrinking profit margins. This will lead to a higher likelihood of increasing closures among rural hospitals due to a lack of adequate reimbursement and rising costs associated with salaries for nurses, respiratory therapists, etc., as well as purchasing pharmaceuticals.
Aging baby boomers with chronic medical conditions will continue to dominate healthcare demand as a cohort group. To mitigate the rising costs of care, healthcare systems and providers will begin to rely even more heavily on artificial intelligence and smart devices. Population health initiatives will become more prevalent as the cost to support fragmented care becomes cost-prohibitive and payers such as CMS will continue to lead the way toward value-based care.
Because of structural and social conditions that tend to drive social determinants of health, which are fundamental causes of health disparities, achieving health equity will continue to be a major challenge in the U.S. Health equity is an elusive goal that can only be achieved when there is a more equitable distribution of SDOH.
Gary Baker. CEO, Hospital Division of HonorHealth (Scottsdale, Ariz.): In 10 years, I would expect hospitals in health systems to become more specialized for higher acuity service lines. Providing similar acute services at multiple locations will become difficult to maintain. Recruiting and retaining specialty clinical talent and adopting new technologies will require some redistribution of services to improve clinical quality and efficiency. Your local hospital may not provide a service and will be a navigator to the specialty facilities. Many services will be provided in ambulatory settings as technology and reimbursement allow/require. Investment in ambulatory services will continue for the next 10 years.
Michael Connelly. CEO Emeritus of Bon Secours Mercy Health (Cincinnati): Our society will be forced to embrace economic limits on healthcare services. The exploding elderly population, in combination with a shrinking workforce to fund Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, will force our health system to ration care in new ways. These realities will increase the role of primary care as the needed coordinator of health services for patients. Diminishing fragmented healthcare and redundant care will become an increasing focus for health policy.
David Rahija. President of Skokie Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem (Evanston, Ill.): Health systems will evolve from being just a collection of hospitals, providers, and services to providing and coordinating care across a longitudinal care continuum. Health systems that are indispensable health partners to patients and communities by providing excellent outcomes through seamless, coordinated, and personalized care across a disease episode and a life span will thrive. Providers that only provide transactional care without a holistic, longitudinal relationship will either close or be consolidated. Care tailored to the personalized needs of patients and communities using team care models, technology, genomics, and analytics will be key to executing a personalized, seamless, and coordinated model of care.
Alexa Kimball, MD. President and CEO of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston): Ten years from now, hospitals will largely look the same — at least from the outside. Brick-and-mortar buildings aren’t going away anytime soon. What will differ is how care is delivered beyond the traditional four walls. Expect to see a more patient-centered and responsive system organized around what individuals need — when and where they need it.
Telehealth and remote patient monitoring will enable greater accessibility for patients in underserved areas and those who cannot get to a doctor’s office. Technology will not only enable doctors to deliver more personalized treatment plans but will also dramatically reshape physician workflows and processes. These digital tools will streamline administrative tasks, integrate voice commands, and provide more conducive work environments. I also envision greater access to data for both providers and patients. New self-service solutions for care management, scheduling, pricing, shopping for services, etc., will deliver a more proactive patient experience and make it easier to navigate their healthcare journey.
Ronda Lehman, PharmD. President of Mercy Health – Lima (Ohio):
This is a highly challenging question to address as we continue to reevaluate how healthcare is being delivered following several difficult years and knowing that financial challenges still loom. That said, when I am asked what it will look like, I am keenly aware of the fact that it only will look that way if we can envision a better way to improve the health of our communities. So 10 years from now, we need to have easier and more patient-driven access to care.
We will need to stop doing ‘to people’ and start caring ‘with people.’ Artificial intelligence and proliferous information that is readily available to consumers will continue to pave the way to patients being more empowered and educated about their options. So what will differentiate healthcare of the future? Enabling patients to make informed decisions.
Undoubtedly, technology will continue to advance, and along with it, the associated costs of research and development, but healthcare can only truly change if providers fundamentally shift their approach to how we care for patients. It is imperative that we need to transform from being the gatekeepers of valuable resources and services to being partners with patients on their journey. If that is what needs to be different, then what needs to be the same? We need the same highly motivated, highly skilled and perhaps most importantly, highly compassionate caregivers selflessly caring for one another and their communities.
Mike Young. President and CEO of Temple University Health System (Philadelphia): Cell therapy, gene therapy, and immunotherapy will continue to rapidly improve and evolve, replacing many traditional procedures with precise therapies to restore normal human function — either through cell transfer, altering of genetic information, or harnessing the body’s natural immune system to attack a particular disease like cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, or diabetes. As a result, hospitals will decrease in footprint, while the labs dedicated to defining precision medicine will multiply in size to support individual- and disease-specific infusion, drug, and manipulative therapies.
Hospitals will continue to shepherd the patient journey through these therapies and also will continue to handle the most complex cases requiring high-tech medical and surgical procedures. Medical education will likely evolve in parallel, focusing more on genetic causation and treatment of disease, as well as proficiency with increasingly sophisticated AI diagnostic technologies to provide adaptive care on a patient-by-patient basis.
Tom Siemers. Chief Executive Officer of Wilbarger General Hospital (Vernon, Texas): My predictions include the national healthcare landscape will be dominated by a dozen or so large systems. ‘Consolidation’ will be the word that describes the healthcare industry over the next 10 years. Regional systems will merge into large, national systems. Independent and rural hospitals will become increasingly rare. They simply won’t be able to make the capital investments necessary to replace outdated facilities and equipment while vying with other organizations for scarce, licensed personnel.
Jim Heilsberg. CFO of Tri-State Memorial Hospital & Medical Campus (Clarkston, Wash.): Tri-State Hospital continues to expand services for outpatient services while maintaining traditionally needed inpatient services. In 10 years, there will be expanded outpatient services that include leveraged technology that will allow the patient to be cared for in a yet-to-be-seen care model, including traditional hospital settings and increasing home care setting solutions.
Jennifer Olson. COO of Children’s Minnesota (St. Paul, Minn.): I believe we will see more and better access to healthcare over the next 10 years. Advances in diagnostics, monitoring, and artificial intelligence will allow patients to access services at more convenient times and locations, including much more frequently at home, thereby extending health systems’ reach well beyond their walls.
What I don’t think will ever change is the heart our healthcare professionals bring with them to work every day. I see it here at Children’s Minnesota and across our industry: the unwavering commitment our caregivers have to help people live healthier lives.
If I had one wish for the future, it would be that we become better equipped to address the social determinants of health: all of the factors outside the walls of our hospitals and clinics that affect our patients’ well-being. Part of that means relaxing regulations to allow better communication and sharing of information among healthcare providers and public and private entities, so we can take a more holistic approach to improve health and decrease disparities. It also will require a fundamental shift in how health and healthcare are paid for.
Stonish Pierce. COO of Holy Cross Health, Trinity Health Florida: Over the next decade, many health systems will pivot from being ‘hospital’ systems to true ‘health’ systems. Based largely on responding to The Joint Commission’s New Requirements to Reduce Health Care Disparities, many health systems will place greater emphasis on reducing health disparities, enhanced attention to providing culturally competent care, addressing social determinants of health (including, but not limited to food, housing and transportation) and health equity. I’m proud to work for Trinity Health, a system that has already directed attention toward addressing health disparities, cultural competency and health equity.
Many systems will pivot from offering the full continuum of services at each hospital and instead focus on the core services for their respective communities, which enables long-term financial sustainability. At the same time, we will witness the proliferation of partnerships as adept health systems realize that they cannot fulfill every community’s needs alone. Depending upon the specialty and region of the country, we may see some transitioning away from the RVU physician compensation model to base salaries and value-based compensation to ensure health systems can serve their communities in the long term.
Driven largely by continued workforce supply shortages, we will also see innovation achieve its full potential. This will include, but not be limited to, virtual care models, robots to address functions currently performed by humans, and increased adoption of artificial intelligence and remote monitoring. Healthcare overall will achieve parity in technological adoption and innovation that we take for granted and have grown accustomed to in industries such as banking and the consumer service industries.
For what will remain the same, we can anticipate that government reimbursement will still not cover the cost of providing care, although systems will transition to offering care models and services that enable the best long-term financial sustainability. We will continue to see payers and retail pharmacies continue to evolve as consumer-friendly providers. We will continue to see systems make investments in ambulatory care and the most critically ill patients will remain in our hospitals.
Jamie Davis. Executive Director, Revenue Cycle Management of Banner Health (Phoenix): I think that we will see a continued shift in places of service to lower-cost delivery sources and unfavorable payer mix movement to Medicare Advantage and health exchange plans, degrading the value of gross revenue. The increased focus on cost containment, value-based care, inflation, and pricing transparency will hopefully push payers and providers to move to a more symbiotic relationship versus the adversarial one today. Additionally, we may see disruption in the technology space as the venture capital and private equity purchase boom that happened from 2019 to 2021 will mature and those entities come up for sale. If we want to continue to provide the best quality health outcomes to our patients and maintain profitability, we cannot look the same in 10 years as we do today.
James Lynn. System Vice President, Facilities and Support Services of Marshfield Clinic Health System (Wis.): There will be some aspects that will be different. For instance, there will be more players in the market and they will begin capturing a higher percentage of primary care patients. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Amazon, Google and others will begin to make inroads into primary care by utilizing VR and AI platforms. More and more procedures will be the same day. Fewer hospital stays will be needed for recovery as procedures become less invasive and faster. There will be increasing pressure on the federal government to make healthcare a right for all legal residents and it will be decoupled from employment status. On the other hand, what will stay the same is even though hospital stays will become shorter for some, we will also be experiencing an ever-aging population, so the same number of inpatient beds will likely be needed.
We expect 2023 to be a pivotal year for the industry, as the accelerated acceptance of virtual care and demographic trends, such as an aging population, increasing chronic illnesses and healthcare worker shortages, sustain demand for medtech-enabled solutions.
The combination of rapid developments in novel healthcare technology and heightened demand for integrated tech-enabled care has continued to fuel innovation in the medtech industry. At the same time, medtech innovators – whether in digital health, wearables and AI-driven offerings in healthcare, or diagnostics, telemedicine and health IT solutions – continue to face a patchwork of laws, rules and norms across the world. Life sciences and healthcare innovators and regulators are also looking to medtech to increase access to care and health equity. Here are ten global medtech themes we are tracking in the coming year:
Focus on digital tuck-in acquisitions in medtech M&A
Despite continued uncertainty in the overall financial market, medtech M&A activity continued at a steady pace in 2022. This year witnessed a rise in tuck-in acquisitions of smaller companies that can be easily integrated into buyers’ existing infrastructure and product offerings, as opposed to significantly sized takeovers of businesses that aren’t squarely aligned with buyers’ existing businesses lines. Medtech acquirers have been particularly focused on developing their digital capabilities to innovate and reach customers in new ways. As digitization continues to transform the industry, we expect acquirers to continue to prioritize the value of digital and data assets as they evaluate potential targets.
Continued interest by private equity and other financial sponsors
Private equity firms, healthcare-focused funds and other financial sponsors have continued to display a strong appetite for investing in Medtech companies, with top targets in subsectors such as diagnostics and healthcare IT solutions. Later-stage medtech companies in particular are gaining a larger share of venture capital funding, as later-stage investments allow financial sponsors to focus on businesses with higher yields, as well as less time to market and capital reimbursement. Demographic trends, including an aging population and the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, coupled with healthcare technology advancements have created robust demand for medtech-enabled solutions. Additionally, medtech offerings have broad applications that can extend beyond stakeholders in a specific therapy area, product category or care setting, offering the ability to satisfy unmet needs with large patient bases.
Strategic medtech collaborations as the new norm
Strategic medtech collaborations and partnerships have become the new norm in our increasingly connected digital healthcare ecosystem. In response to heightened consumer demand for tech-enabled care, pharmaceutical and medtech companies are collaborating to use digital technologies to engage with consumers, unlocking a vast range of treatments such as personalized medicine. Additionally, as the market rapidly evolves towards data-driven healthcare, we expect medtech companies to continue to work collaboratively to address existing barriers to data sharing and promote interoperability of healthcare data.
Continued scrutiny by antitrust and competition authorities
As expected, global antitrust and competition authorities continued to focus on the tech, life sciences and medtech sectors in 2022. The US, UK and EU authorities have stepped up efforts to investigate and challenge conduct by large pharma and technology companies pursuing mergers and acquisitions. We expect these authorities to assess similar concerns in the digital health context in an effort to account for the value of combined datasets and the interoperability of various offerings that could be derived from digital health mergers and acquisitions. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions have resulted in new and expanded foreign investment regimes to improve the resilience of domestic healthcare systems. Notably this year, the UK government implemented the National Security and Investment Act that allows it to restrict transactions that may threaten national security, including in the AI and data infrastructure sectors. Sensitive data continues to be a recurring theme for foreign investment review for Committee on Foreign Investment in the US and that of the EU as well.
Growing importance of data privacy and security
Increasing regulatory attention to sensitive health data and the escalating rise of ransomware attacks has made data privacy and security more important than ever for medtech innovators. The Federal Trade Commission has issued several statements about its willingness to “fully” enforce the law against the illegal use and sharing of highly sensitive data. Additionally, several state privacy laws coming into effect in 2023 create new categories of sensitive personal data, including health data, and impose novel obligations on innovators to obtain data-related consents. As ransomware continues to pose security-related threats, the US Department of Health and Human Services renewed calls for all covered entities and business associates to prioritize cybersecurity. New standards, such as cybersecurity label rating programs for connected devices, aim to address security risks. In the EU, medtech providers will need to consider how the launch of the European Health Data Space and newly proposed data regulation, such as the Data Act and AI Act, could impact their data use and sharing practices.
More active engagement with FDA/EMA/MHRA
We expect companies active in the medtech sector, particularly those that make use of AI and other advanced technologies, to continue their conversations with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and other regulators as such companies grow their medtech business lines and establish their associated regulatory compliance infrastructure. Given the unique regulatory issues arising from the implementation of digital health technologies, we expect the FDA, EMA and MHRA to provide additional guidance on AI/ML-based software-as-a-medical device and the remote management of clinical trials. 2022 saw stakeholders in the life sciences and medtech industries collaborate with regulatory authorities to push forward the acceptance of digital endpoints that rely on sensor-generated data collected outside of a clinical setting. As the industry shifts to decentralized clinical trials, we expect both innovators and regulators to work together to evaluate the associated clinical, privacy and safety risks in the development and use of such digital endpoints.
Increasing medtech localization in the Asia Pacific region
2022 saw multinational companies (“MNCs”), including American pharma/device makers make an active effort to expand their medtech business lines in the Asia Pacific region. At the same time, government authorities in the region have been increasingly focused on incentivizing local innovation, approving government grants and prohibiting the importation of non-approved medical equipment. In light of MNCs’ market share of the medical device market in the Asia Pacific region, especially in China, we expect the emergence of the domestic medtech industry to prompt discussions among MNCs, local innovators and government authorities over the long-term development of the global market for medical technology.
Long-term adoption of telehealth and remote patient monitoring technologies
The Covid-19 pandemic saw the rise of telehealth and remote patient monitoring technologies as key modes of healthcare delivery. The telehealth industry remains focused on enabling remote consultations and long-term patient management for patients with chronic conditions. Looking forward, we expect to see increased innovation in non-invasive technologies that can provide early diagnostics and ongoing disease management in a low-friction manner. At the same time, we anticipate telehealth companies to face increasing scrutiny from regulatory authorities around the world for fraud and abuse by patients and providers. Consumer and patient data privacy and security in connection with telehealth and remote patient monitoring continue to remain top of mind for regulators as well.
Women’s health and privacy concerns for medtech
We expect to see increased consumer health tech adoption for reproductive care, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Following the Dobbs decision, a number of states introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or restricts access to reproductive health services beyond abortion. In response, women’s health-focused companies are expanding their virtual fertility and pregnancy, telemedicine and other services to patients. At the same time, such companies need to assess the legal risks stemming from the collection and storage of their customers’ personal health information, which could then be used as evidence to prosecute customers for obtaining illegal reproductive health services. We expect companies active in this space to take steps to navigate the patchwork of data privacy and security laws across jurisdictions while establishing clear digital health governance mechanisms to safeguard their customers’ data privacy and security.
Addressing inequities in the implementation of digital healthcare technologies
Medtech innovators and regulators have been increasingly focused on addressing inequities in the healthcare system and the data used to train AI and ML-based digital healthcare technologies. In 2022, a number of medtech companies collaborated to provide technologies that result in improved patient outcomes across all populations, as well as boost participation of diverse populations in clinical trials. In parallel, we are seeing increased interest from regulators to reduce bias in digital health technologies and the accompanying datasets, as evidenced by the EU’s proposed AI Act and the UK’s health data strategy. In the US, which currently lacks comprehensive government regulation of AI in healthcare, there have been increasing calls for institutional commitments in the area of algorithmovigilance. Because of the inaccurate conclusions that may result from biased technologies and data, MedTech companies must prioritize health equity in the implementation of digital healthcare technologies so that everyone can benefit from the latest scientific advances.
In conclusion, the medtech industry has remained resilient amidst the challenging macroeconomic environment. We expect 2023 to be a pivotal year for the industry, as the accelerated acceptance of virtual care and demographic trends, such as an aging population, increasing chronic illnesses and healthcare worker shortages, sustain demand for medtech-enabled solutions. At the same time, the rapidly changing legal and regulatory landscape will continue to be a key issue for medtech innovators moving forward. Adopting a global, forward-thinking regulatory compliance strategy can help MedTech companies stay competitive and ultimately, achieve better outcomes for patients.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, experts have been warning of the dangers of postponed health care services. In January, the American Cancer Society, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 73 other organizations, including many major health care systems, issued a statement stressing the urgency of preventive care. “We urge people across the country to talk with their health care provider to resume regular primary care checkups, recommended cancer screening, and evidence-based cancer treatment (PDF) to lessen the negative impact the pandemic is having on identifying and treating people with cancer,” the groups said.
That was sound advice not everyone could follow, as ProPublica’s Duaa Eldeib reported last week in a tragic story about Teresa Ruvalcaba. The 48-year-old single mother of three worked for 22 years at a candy factory on Chicago’s West Side. During the pandemic, disaster struck. “For more than six months, the 48-year-old factory worker had tried to ignore the pain and inflammation in her chest. She was afraid of visiting a doctor during the pandemic, afraid of missing work, afraid of losing her job, her home, her ability to take care of her three children,” Eldeib reported.
“Even though her chest felt as if it was on fire, she kept working. She didn’t want to get COVID-19 at a doctor’s office or the emergency room, and she was so busy she didn’t have much time to think about her symptoms,” Eldeib wrote.
Ruvalcaba’s pandemic fears were typical of patients across the nation, surveys revealed. A 2020 CHCF poll of 2,249 California adults revealed that even when people wanted to see a doctor for an urgent health problem, one-third did not receive care. Nearly half of those surveyed didn’t receive care for their nonurgent health problems.
Nationally, more than one in three people delayed or skipped care because they were worried about exposure to Covid-19, or because their doctor limited services, according to an Urban Institute analysis of a September 2020 survey.
The toll of this disruption in care — the forgone cancer screening, the chest pain that isn’t reported — will devastate some patients and families. Ruvalcaba had to face a diagnosis with a terrible prognosis, inflammatory breast cancer. “If she would have come six months earlier, it could have been just surgery, chemo and done,” Ruvalcaba’s doctor told Eldeib. “Now she’s incurable.”
“Unfortunately, we know we’re going to see some tragedies related to the delays,” Wiley Fowler, an oncologist at Dignity Health in Sacramento, told Ibarra.
Consequences of Delayed Care
Public health messages early in the pandemic urged people to avoid public places, including doctor’s offices. In April, as Hayley Smith noted in a Los Angeles Times story, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services “both published guidelines recommending the postponement of elective and nonurgent procedures, including ‘low-risk cancer’ screenings, amid the first wave of the pandemic.”
Patients and doctors listened. Appointments were canceled. “Nonurgent” procedures encompassing a wide array of treatments and operations, including cancer surgeries, were delayed.
Preventive cancer screenings dropped 94% over the first four months of 2020, Eldeib reported. The National Cancer Institute expects to see 10,000 preventable deaths over the next decade because of pandemic-related delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast and colorectal cancer. Screenings for these cancers, which account for about one in six cancer deaths, are routine features of preventive care.
I know I should get another check soon, but the anxiety of COVID feels like more of a priority than the anxiety of cervical cancer.
—Molly Codner, a Southern Californian who received an abnormal Pap smear last summer
In California, cancer deaths have remained roughly the same as prepandemic rates, but that stability is not expected to last. Based on the National Cancer Institute data, Ibarra calculates that an additional 1,200 Californians will die from breast and colon cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimate is conservative “because it only accounts for a six-month delay in care, and people are postponing care longer than that,” Ibarra reported.
Nationally, death rates from cancer are expected to increase in a year or two. Slow-growing cancers will remain treatable despite a delayed diagnosis, Norman Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, told Eldeib. Yet for conditions like Ruvalcaba’s inflammatory breast cancer, delayed care can be disastrous.
Women, People of Color Disproportionately Affected
For women across Southern California, appointments have been delayed, exams canceled, and screenings postponed during the pandemic, Smith reported in the Los Angeles Times. “Some are voluntarily opting out for fear of encountering the virus,” Smith wrote, “while others have had their appointments canceled by health care providers rerouting resources to COVID-19 patients.”
Before Pap smears became part of routine American health care, cervical cancer was one of the deadliest cancers for women. Today, as many as 93% of cervical cancer cases are preventable, according to the CDC, and screenings are a crucial component of preventive care. Yet during the first phase of California’s stay-at-home orders, cervical cancer screenings dropped 80% among the 1.5 million women in Kaiser Permanente’s regional network, Smith wrote.
The effects of the pandemic shutdown extended beyond delayed Pap smears. Women who spoke to Smith said that “mammograms, fertility treatments and even pain prevention procedures have been waylaid by the pandemic.”
Sometimes, obstacles other than the pandemic are continuing to interfere with access to care. One woman had an appointment delayed and then lost her job and her health insurance, Smith reported.
“Molly Codner, 30, has needed a checkup ever since she received an abnormal Pap smear last summer,” Smith wrote, “but like many Southern Californians, the trauma of the last year still weighs heavily on her mind: Nearly a dozen people she knows have had COVID-19.” Codner told Smith that “I know I should get another check soon, but the anxiety of COVID feels like more of a priority than the anxiety of cervical cancer.”
People who face disparities in treatment and care are most likely to be hard hit by pandemic delays. That includes Black people, who were already more likely to die from cancer than any other racial group. Cancer also is the leading cause of death among Latinx people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis for Latinx women. Overall, more Americans die of heart disease.
Black adults are more likely than White or Latinx adults to delay or forgo care, according to researchers from the Urban Institute.
Telehealth Solved Access Issues for Some, Not All
Telehealth was a boon for patients during the pandemic year. Yet, as Ibarra notes, “there’s only so much that doctors and nurses can do through a screen.” Dental visits, mammograms, and annual wellness checks were also put on hold by the pandemic.
Unequal access is another challenge for telehealth. The benefits of the telehealth boom were not shared equally, according to a statewide survey conducted last month by the University of Southern California and the California Emerging Technology Fund.
Latinx, Asian, and Black respondents did not use telehealth as often as White respondents. USC researchers attribute these differences to “disparities in income, education and access to any kind of health care.”
Researchers at the Urban Institute report similar findings: “Black and Latinx adults were more likely than White adults to report having wanted a telehealth visit but not receiving one since the pandemic began, and that difficulties getting a telehealth visit were also more common among adults who were in poorer health or had chronic health conditions.”
After controlling for socioeconomic factors and health status, patients with limited English were half as likely to use telehealth compared to fluent English-speaking patients, the Urban Institute said. “Much work remains to ensure all patients have equitable access to remote care during and after the pandemic,” the researchers wrote.
Whether telehealth is conducted by video or phone may be crucial to ensuring access to care. A study of telehealth use at Federally Qualified Health Centers in California in 2020 found that “more primary care visits among health centers in the study occurred via audio-only visits (49%) than in-person (48%) or via video (3%). Audio-only visits comprised more than 90% of all telemedicine visits.”
“For many Californians with low incomes, the ability to connect with a doctor or their care team by phone or video is much more than a convenience,” Chris Perrone, director of CHCF’s Improving Access team, explained on The CHCF Blog. “It’s really the difference between canceling a visit because the barriers are too great or getting the timely care that they or their child needs.”
Pandemic Health Effects Will Outlast COVID-19
Public health efforts might need to focus on two goals at the same time as the US recovers from the pandemic: increasing vaccine uptake to keep COVID-19 in check and proactively managing the fallout from delayed care.
“As we focus on recovery, we have to ensure that we get vaccinated,” Efrain Talamantes, a primary care physician in East Los Angeles, told Ibarra. “But also that we have a concerted effort to manage the chronic diseases that haven’t received the attention required to avoid complications.”
Virtual care company Doctor on Demand and clinical navigator Grand Rounds have announced plans to merge, creating a multibillion-dollar digital health firm.
The goal of combining the two venture-backed companies, which will continue to operate under their existing brands for the time being, is to integrate medical and behavioral healthcare with patient navigation and advocacy to try to better coordinate care in the fragmented U.S. medical system.
Financial terms of the deal, which is expected to close in the first half of this year, were not disclosed, but it is an all-stock deal with no capital from outside investors, company spokespeople told Healthcare Dive.
Dive Insight:
The digital health boom stemming from the coronavirus pandemic resulted in a flurry of high-profile deals last year, including the biggest U.S. digital health acquisition of all time: Teladoc Health’s $18.5 billion buy of chronic care management company Livongo. Such tie-ups in the virtual care space come as a slew of growing companies race to build out end-to-end offerings, making them more attractive to potential payer and employer clients and helping them snap up valuable market share.
Ten-year-old Grand Rounds peddles a clinical navigation platform and patient advocacy tools to businesses to help their workers navigate the complex and disjointed healthcare system, while nine-year-old Doctor on Demand is one of the major virtual care providers in the U.S.
Merging is meant to ameliorate the problem of uncoordinated care while accelerating telehealth utilization in previously niche areas like primary care, specialty care, behavioral health and chronic condition management, the two companies said in a Tuesday release.
Grand Rounds and Doctor on Demand first started discussing a potential deal in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, as both companies saw surging demand for their offerings. COVID-19 completely overhauled how healthcare is delivered as consumers sought safe digital access to doctors, resulting in massive tailwinds for digital health companies and unprecedented investor interest in the sector.
Equity funding in digital health globally hit an all-time high of $26.5 billion in 2020, according to CB Insights, with mental and women’s health services seeing particularly fast growth in investor interest.
Both companies reported strong funding rounds in the middle of last year, catapulting Grand Rounds and Doctor on Demand to enterprise valuations of $1.34 billion and $821 million respectively, according to private equity marketplace SharesPost. Doctor on Demand says its current valuation is $875 million.
The combined entity will operate in an increasingly competitive space against such market giants as Teladoc, which currently sits at a market cap of $31.3 billion, and Amwell, which went public in September last year and has a market cap of $5.1 billion.
Grand Rounds CEO Owen Tripp will serve as CEO of the combined business, while Doctor on Demand’s current CEO Hill Ferguson will continue to lead the Doctor on Demand business as the two companies integrate and will join the combined company’s board.
As happened with cars in the 1960s, price competition among brand-name drugs is hard to find.
Before 1973, when the Arab oil embargo upended the U.S. auto industry, Americans witnessed an annual ritual by carmakers. In the late summer, the Big Three — Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors — would release sticker prices for their products, always showing increases, of course.
Almost always, the increases from each company for similar models were nearly identical. If one company’s was out of line — substantially bigger or smaller than its erstwhile competitors’ — it quickly made an adjustment. Explicit collusion to fix prices was never proven, but the effect for consumers was the same.
Now, researchers report that something very similar seems to be occurring for big-market brand-name drugs, including anti-diabetic medications and blood thinners.
Average wholesale prices for products in five classes — direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), P2Y12 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, dipeptidyl dipeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and sodium-glucose transport protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors — increased in “lock-step” each year from 2015 to 2020, according to Joseph Ross, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues writing in JAMA Network Open.
These increases ranged from annual averages of 6.6% for DDP4 inhibitors to 13.5% for P2Y12 inhibitors — far outpacing not only inflation in general, but even the 2.1% average for all prescription drugs.
Within each class, Kendall τb correlation coefficients for average wholesale prices were as follows:
DOACs: 0.98
SGLT-2 inhibitors: 0.98
DPP-4 inhibitors: 0.96
GLP-1 agonists: 0.92
P2Y12 inhibitors: 0.75
“These results suggest there was little price competition among the sponsors of these products,” Ross and colleagues wrote.
Although the analysis came with significant limitations — it didn’t account for rebates or other discounts, for example — the researchers said some patients must suffer from these increases.
“Rebates, list prices, and net prices have been growing for brand-name medications, and rebate growth has been shown to positively correlate with list price growth, thereby impacting costs faced by patients paying a percentage of (or the full) list price,“ the group noted. “Therefore, the lock-step price increases of brand-name medications, without evidence of price competition, raise concerns and would be expected to adversely affect patient adherence to medications and thus clinical outcomes.”
For the car buyers, the solution to lock-step price increases was imposed from outside: soaring gas prices in the mid-1970s prompted demand for vehicles with better fuel economy than domestic makers were prepared to sell. That opened the market to Japanese cars that not only got better mileage, but were also more reliable and (in many cases) cheaper than Big Three products. Thus ended Detroit’s ability to set prices.
How to rein in Big Pharma is less clear. For their part, Ross and colleagues suggested policies to limit such lock-step price hikes, shortened patent exclusivity periods, and faster introduction of generic equivalents.
HENRY KOTULA 