Category: Health

In the ever-evolving landscape of the pharmaceutical industry, marketers are navigating a myriad of challenges and opportunities. The year 2023 marked a period of notable innovations and transformations within pharmaceutical marketing. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI), health data digitalization, widespread integration of marketing automation tools, and the introduction of various technologies have collectively and substantially reshaped pharma marketing landscape on a global scale. As we embark on the journey of 2024, the industry is poised to embrace and adapt to the possibilities that emerging and evolving technologies are unlocking. Let’s explore the top five trends that will capture the attention of pharma marketers worldwide.

Digital transformation and personalized marketing

The worldwide life sciences market is flourishing and this expansion goes beyond mere numerical growth in terms of market size; it revolves around the escalating complexity and abundance of data that organizations in this field need to handle and decipher. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) emerge as crucial assets in this scenario, presenting solutions to solve the challenge of data fragmentation and furnishing healthcare professionals with swift insights into their most intricate business questions.

Personalized and privacy-forward marketing campaigns too are gaining prominence, facilitating more targeted and relevant communication with healthcare professionals and patients. This digital-first approach not only enhances engagement but also deepens the understanding of end-users’ needs.

Patient-centric strategies

In 2022, a significant 61% of patients expressed a desire for improved engagement with their healthcare providers to take a more active role in their health management. This trend continued to escalate in 2023, underscoring the increasing importance patients place on being actively heard and involved in collaborative discussions with their physicians to identify optimal solutions.

Recognizing the paramount importance of coordinating holistic treatment communications to both patients and their healthcare professionals, pharma marketers gradually shifted their focus. Beyond promoting drugs relevant to a disease, there is now a growing emphasis on providing valuable resources, educational content, and support services to empower more educated discussions and ensure patients can take an active role in their journey to health. This patient-centric approach involves community building, fostering dialogue, and addressing patient concerns. Marketers now are more focused on providing tools that can help healthcare professionals improve the quality of care, understanding that an informed patient is more likely to adhere to their treatment and improve their health outcomes.

Targeted messaging using clinical data

The integration of triggered messages on Electronic Health Record (EHR) platforms, driven by real-time clinical data, has become an imperative for pharmaceutical marketers.  This new communication vehicle is a step towards solving some of the most complex problems in healthcare marketing.  For example, affordability is one of the biggest drivers of patients not adhering to their treatments, in fact 1 in 4 patients are not able to afford their medication.  Real-time message triggered by clinical data gives HCPs the ability to share qualified assistance program information directly to the pharmacy along with the prescription, ensuring patients can afford their medication, adhere to their treatment, and improve their health outcomes

Conversely, for life science brands, the ability to deliver trigger-based messages to HCP at critical moments of care has a direct impact in driving script growth, as shown in a comprehensive industry study that highlighted how trigger-based messaging targeting specific healthcare professionals can drive up to 32% script lift. The ability to trigger messages in real-time based on clinical data has the potential to revolutionize the quality of care and contribute to improved patient outcomes. For example, it can empower proactive disease management by delivering the right information at the exactly right time to healthcare professionals that identifies emerging patient needs, treatment trends, and care gaps, enabling the design of patient-centric, targeted and timely interventions that will improve overall quality of care.

Innovative content marketing

In 2024, content will continue to reign supreme, and pharma marketers need to concentrate on creating innovative and educational content. This involves utilizing multimedia formats, interactive content, and virtual experiences to engage their target audience effectively. A substantial 92.3% of individuals on the internet, including healthcare professionals, engage with videos on a weekly basis. To ensure the success of a marketing campaign, it is imperative to include at least some components of video content. Balancing compliance and creativity, marketers can employ storytelling techniques that humanize their brands and convey complex scientific information in a compelling and digestible manner.

Global collaboration and partnerships

Acknowledging the interconnected nature of the global pharmaceutical industry, marketers actively seek collaboration and partnerships. This entails working closely with stakeholders such as healthcare professionals, patient advocacy groups, and technology partners. Collaborative efforts foster innovation and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of diverse markets, ultimately enhancing the impact of marketing strategies on a global scale.

In conclusion, 2024 presents an exciting yet challenging landscape for global pharma marketers. Prioritizing digital transformation, adopting patient-centric strategies, navigating regulatory complexities, investing in innovative content marketing, and fostering global collaboration position pharmaceutical marketers to make a lasting impact in an ever-evolving industry. As we progress, these strategic focuses will undoubtedly shape the future of pharmaceutical marketing and contribute to the overall advancement of healthcare worldwide.

Photo: MF3d, Getty Images

The term health equity has found its way into business plans, patient-facing documents, regulations, initiatives, and the news. A recent Deloitte report noted that over 80% of c-suite executives spanning healthcare organizations and the life sciences anticipate a 2024 focus on improved health equity, flagging it as a top 10 goal for the year. In particular, the CDC calls for addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) as a primary method to deliver on health equity goals.

With such emphasis on both terms and a drive to incorporate them into healthcare, organizations can benefit from support to ensure they steer clear of using SDoH as a buzzword, and instead hit the mark of health equity results. Ultimately, moving beyond mere talk about SDoH and into action matters for healthcare groups’ abilities to succeed in value-based care models and beyond.

Challenges of change

Change does not come easily, and not for a lack of effort. With regulations requiring Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (ACO REACH) groups to show the efficacy of their health equity plans starting this year, risk-bearing organizations face pressure to make the leap soon. However, well-intentioned groups can struggle to make the shift towards delivering on health equity. Even initiatives that seem promising on paper may not be successful in practice. The data might reveal that the adjustments did not have the intended impact, or only partially addressed the issue. To succeed in promoting health equity, organizations need to adopt new methods and a new mindset. This requires the implementation of innovative tools and a new way of thinking.

From buzzword to action 

As a step towards health equity, healthcare organizations can advocate for a proactive, preventive approach that integrates SDoH into healthcare delivery. To achieve this, organizations need to be able to answer the following questions:

• How does SDoH impact your patient population?
• Specifically, what health barriers are impacting your patients’ lives?
• How are you planning on addressing those barriers/risks?

To answer these questions, organizations need to incorporate new data sets and analytic tools. By analyzing clinical and financial data alongside new data sets on non-clinical factors, healthcare organizations can gain a more comprehensive understanding of their patient population. These insights will serve as the foundation of their equity plan and allow them to build effective intervention strategies tailored to their patients’ needs.

Further, for groups to shift from buzzword to action on health equity, they must implement new workflows that are specifically designed to address the challenges of collecting and analyzing data related to SDoH. By adopting new workflows and leveraging technology, ACO REACH groups can empower providers and care team members to make informed decisions based on a more holistic view of the patient and seamlessly connect them with personalized intervention services, ensuring SDoH becomes an integral part of the healthcare delivery model.

Obstacles and opportunities ahead

Advancing health equity through SDoH integration is a journey filled with both challenges and exciting opportunities. The initial hurdle lies in overcoming the complexity of collecting and analyzing data on SDoH, workflow changes, and cultural shifts that require careful planning and execution. By focusing on specific interventions – like food insecurity and building pilot programs – organizations can leverage data to measure impact and refine their approach. Taking a preventive approach to social risks, rather than waiting until a patient utilizes emergency services, pays out. Through such actions, healthcare organizations can move beyond the buzzword and address SDoH in a way that will improve the health outcomes of their patients.

Group effort proves key

Ultimately, collaboration and partnerships across sectors will pave the way for success in value-based care models. Addressing SDoH in a sustainable manner is a key part of that endeavor, though not the only aspect that needs attention. In the end, healthcare, government, and public health groups can see the greatest gains in successful value-based care models through working together. The proof will be in the data: they can measure the success of their efforts through improved patient health outcomes and return on investment in their value-based care numbers.

Photo: undefined undefined, Getty Images

The quest for effective weight-loss strategies that lower the risk of obesity-related disease has spanned decades, with health-care organizations tirelessly seeking solutions to better address the obesity epidemic. While weight-loss medications have been available for years, none have been as effective as the latest generation of GLP-1s, which have dominated headlines and social media, capturing the attention of medical professionals, payers, and especially consumers. This skyrocketing demand for GLP-1s has been the driving force for the launch of many weight-loss programs promising consumers easy access to prescriptions. For me, the line between provider and drug-manufacturer is getting blurry, with many programs offering only a few medications.

The question remains, can these providers make decisions based on what is best for the patient when treatment options are limited? As a medical professional, I challenge the idea of this one-size-fits-all approach where GLP-1s are the right treatment for everyone. When it comes to providing impartial patient care and improving health outcomes, we must consider all available tools, including behavioral support and different classes of medication besides GLP-1s.

A comprehensive approach to obesity management goes beyond prescribing medications for a quick fix. It uses expert clinicians to assess individual needs and to prescribe the right medication, when appropriate, combined with a proven approach to behavioral support for sustainable lifestyle change. For a better approach to a more pragmatic obesity-management strategy, here are my top five recommendations:

5-step comprehensive obesity care plan

• Address the person not just the scale Treating the person and not the disease makes for a better obesity-management plan. Period. The entire context of a person’s well-being, including their physical and mental health, must be taken into consideration. The relationship between weight and mental health is connected. Stress, anxiety, and depression are often associated with obesity and must also be addressed to treat the whole person. Additionally, everyone has a unique combination of needs, preferences, and characteristics. Because there is not a one-size-fits-all path to better health, personalized care that addresses the human, not the diseases is a cornerstone to long-term well-being.

• Tailored-medication management is a must Right person, right medication, right time. GLP-1s are not for everyone—whether it’s due to cost, side effects, eligibility, or where they are in their weight-loss journey. If indicated, it is best to leverage the full-range of medications, not just GLP-1s, to address each person’s unique weight-loss needs. Providers should meticulously assess eligibility criteria. This ensures prescriptions align with an individual’s overall health, considering co-morbidities, contraindications, and more cost-effective alternatives. This approach optimizes health outcomes, and controls costs by avoiding unnecessary medications.

• 1:1 treatment from experts is pivotal A critical element of obesity management is quality of care. Obesity is extremely complex with so many contributing factors such as lifestyle, diet, physical activity, mental health, genetics, medications, and more. One-on-one, individualized attention from a seamless network of providers, including dietitians, nurse practitioners, health coaches, and doctors certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine, is necessary to minimize complications and ensure individuals receive the right treatment at the right time based on what they need in the moment.

• Prioritize a proven behavioral-support program  Incorporating a proven behavioral-support program into an obesity-management plan empowers people to make informed choices, cultivate healthier habits, and improve their overall physical and mental health. The American Medical Association adds that while weight-loss medications help a person lose weight without exercise and diet, long-term health benefits come from incorporating lifestyle changes at the same time. The combination of weight-loss medication and lifestyle changes leads to greater weight loss than either one on its own.

• Reporting and monitoring are key Additionally, monitoring and reporting are crucial not only for ensuring the safety of an individual, but also for understanding what strategies are working best and for evaluating the sustained impact of weight-loss interventions over time. Tracking also increases engagement with behavioral-support programs, clinical and medication adherence, and improvements in various aspects of health such as musculoskeletal pain, stress, and sleep. In this new paradigm of managing obesity, integrating a diverse range of weight-loss medications, coupled with personalized behavioral support, holds the potential to significantly impact the management of obesity and its associated health concerns and costs.

When done the right way, weight-loss medications can be a powerful tool in obesity management. Strategic initiatives, such as the above, will allow you to better navigate this ever-evolving landscape. Obesity treatment that includes responsible use of these medications reduces chronic conditions, increases quality of life, and offers your people a straighter path to happier, healthier, and longer lives.

Photo: Peter Dazeley, Getty Images

Categories

Archives

Archives
Select Month February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 December 2016 November 2016 August 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 September 2014 July 2014 March 2014 February 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013

Employers are facing a mounting challenge to address chronic pain in the workplace. I am one of 50 million Americans who live in chronic pain, having experienced a rare nerve condition for nearly 10 years. New cases of chronic pain outpace diabetes, depression, and high blood pressure. Of those individuals, up to 40 percent of them are in the workforce.  As a small business owner with health policy expertise, I am using my own journey to raise attention to this challenge, because without increased focus, the employer pain problem will grow exponentially in the coming years, having profound negative impacts on the U.S. economy.

Employees suffering chronic pain miss on average 10.3 workdays per year compared to only 2.8 days for those not experiencing pain. This equates to lost wages of $79.9 billion. Annual productivity costs to employers reach a startling $216 billion. Fewer large employers are self-funding their health benefits as they continue to see their costs increase, and the rise in the number of workers in chronic pain is partially to blame. U.S. health care costs for pain medications alone has risen to $100 billion a year and approximately $300 billion is spent on alternative therapies to address pain. These numbers do not even account for rising premium levels, specialty care, and other related health costs.

Beyond lost workdays, the impact of chronic pain on presenteeism is immense. Forty-two percent of workers in pain say they regularly experience loneliness, 64% are less likely to view their job as rewarding, and 28% are more likely to perceive discrimination at work. Chronic pain is also associated with increased levels of anxiety and depression. These challenges create work-related stress and have a negative impact on performance, productivity, and employee retention.

There is some acknowledgment by employers of their pain problem, but this awareness is not universal. A 2021 study found that managers have little knowledge of employee pain challenges and do not perceive they have a pain problem among their employees. The study surmised that employers may not be able to effectively discriminate between serious chronic pain issues and minor, temporary pain challenges. Yet an analysis by the Business Group on Health found that over 75% of employers consider musculoskeletal conditions (commonly associated with pain)  one of their top three cost drivers and while many business leaders do recognize chronic pain is a concern, there is significant uncertainty in how to address it.  This demonstrates a clear need for solutions that tackle not only health care costs, but absenteeism, the impact to presenteeism, and overall productivity.

Pain is not easily understood and tackling it is complex. And the healthcare industry has fallen short in addressing the chronic pain needs of millions. Surgical interventions for chronic pain have generally been ineffective and opioids are associated with poor outcomes and significant risks for most chronic pain sufferers.

Employers must take action to improve the productivity and lives of their workforces. Employers should advocate for:

1. More employer-focused research. Limited chronic pain workforce studies exist in the U.S. yet understanding the overall social and economic costs are critical. Only with a greater understanding of the challenges can we start to chip away at them.
2. Health care system changes. We know holistic care that addresses the biopsychosocial nature of pain is the best hope for chronic pain sufferers and payment arrangements should incent these approaches. Without a greater push by purchasers, employers will continue to pay more and get less.
3. Catalog and replicate best practices. We need a central repository of information on how employers and their partners are innovating to address chronic pain in the workplace. Once cataloged, employers will be able to implement and test strategies that have been proven successful.
4. Greater partnership & solution-focused collaboration. Employers have long engaged in health care policy and advocacy. We need a movement by employers to identify policy opportunities to activate change.

These action steps can create a much-needed movement. Let’s get started.

Photo – boygovideo, Getty Images

About one in five adults in the U.S. experience mental illness each year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Yet, nearly a quarter of adults with a mental illness are unable to receive treatment, Mental Health America reported.

San Diego-based Headlight, which announced last week that it raised $18 million in Series A funding, aims to improve access to mental health services. The company also hired new leadership, including CEO Geoff Swindle, who was formerly chief business officer at PillPack and Amazon Pharmacy. 

Headlight — previously called Sokya Health — cares for patients both in-person and virtually in Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington. It offers talk therapy, medication and nasal esketamine treatment (which is derived from ketamine). It treats a variety of mental health conditions, including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, trauma and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Headlight is in network with most major insurers, such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. All of its clinicians are full-time, W-2 employees.

“I think, fundamentally, we’re in a mental health crisis in this country right now. Access is a problem. Affordability is a problem. The way we’re approaching the market and I think what differentiates us is we’re really leaning into our model of a full-time clinician who is a W-2 employee with benefits,” Swindle said in an interview.

The $18 million Series A funding round was led by Matrix and EPIC Ventures. In total, the mental health company has raised about $24 million, Swindle stated.

With the financing, Headlight will expand into new markets and hire “hundreds” of therapists by 2025, according to a news release. The company will also invest in its technology and product, Swindle added. He said he plans to take some of the lessons he learned from the pharmacy space at PillPack and Amazon Pharmacy and bring it into the mental health space.

“I think it goes back to developing a customer experience that really does simplify access in the mental healthcare landscape,” Swindle said. “Navigating that journey is very complicated. People struggle, number one, with just getting access, and number two, knowing where to go and how they approach it. Do they pay cash or can they bill through their insurance? I think as we leverage our product, our customer experience, and our technology to really simplify the interactions with our customers and our clients, that solves a huge chunk of the need that exists out in the marketplace.”

He added that the company’s goal is to develop a brand that is “very consumer-focused” and to follow outcome measures.

“There are many players in this space, but I fundamentally don’t believe that many of the big problems in mental healthcare are being solved,” Swindle said. “And I think it’s going to take a creative mindset to think through clinical protocols and processes on the continuum of care for us to really solve that. I think that’s going to require us to lean deeply into our clinicians and also lean deeply into how we build the best customer experiences for people trying to navigate that journey.”

While Swindle did not name any competitors, other companies in the mental health space include Headspace, Spring Health, Talkiatry and Talkspace.

Photo: SIphotography, Getty Images

Networking at INVEST 2023

Join MedCity News and more than 300 healthcare investors, startups, and innovative-minded executives in Chicago at the Ritz Carlton on May 21-22 for MedCity INVEST 2024. The conference is the premier boutique healthcare investment event in the U.S.  Equal parts networking and curated panels covering the latest trends in healthcare investment, MedCity INVEST 2024 is the ideal event to discuss healthcare funding with investors looking for investment opportunities.

Space is limited. Secure your spot today to attend!!

Photo: CuffLink Media

Exscientia founder and CEO Andrew Hopkins is out of a job after an investigation found the CEO engaged in relationships with two employees, the artificial intelligence drug discovery company announced Tuesday.

The termination is for cause and effective immediately. In a regulatory filing, Oxford, U.K.-based Exscientia said this decision follows an investigation that found the relationships were “inappropriate and inconsistent with the Company’s standards and values.” No other details were provided about the employees or the relationships, but the filing does not indicate any financial impropriety.

“Dr. Hopkins’ conduct did not impact the Company’s consolidated financial statements or its internal controls over financial reporting, and his termination is unrelated to the Company’s operational or financial performance,” Exscientia said in the filing. “The Company remains committed to advancing its internal oncology pipeline and broad partnership portfolio through AI-based drug design and laboratory technologies.”

Exscientia said the board of directors is searching for a successor to Hopkins. In the meantime, Chief Science Officer Dave Hallet has been appointed interim CEO and interim principal executive officer, effective immediately. Hallet will also serve as an executive director on the Exscientia board.

According to Hopkins’ employment agreement signed when Exscientia went public in 2021, he must disclose to the board “full details of any wrongdoing by the Executive or any other employee of any Group Company where that wrongdoing is material to that employee’s employment by the relevant company or to the interests or reputation of any Group Company.” The agreement goes on to state that grounds for termination include being “guilty of any gross misconduct or behavior which tends to bring himself or the Company or any Group Company into disrepute.”

If the company terminates employment for cause, Hopkins is not entitled to any payment, nor can he make any claim against the company for damages stemming from the termination, the document states.

The fallout extends beyond Hopkins. A special committee of the board engaged outside counsel to investigate the executive’s alleged conduct. The inquiry found that David Nicholson, board chairman, had prior knowledge of the existence of the earlier of Hopkins’ relationships and addressed the matter—but with outside counsel rather than in consultation with the board. The filing states that after discussions with other board members, Nicholson resigned from his board positions on Monday.

A search for Nicholson’s replacement is underway. In the meantime, Elizabeth Crain, a non-executive director, was appointed Nicholson’s interim replacement.

Exscientia was founded in 2012 by Hopkins, who had previously spent nearly a decade at Pfizer and five years in academia. The company initially struck up partnerships in which it used its AI technology platform to discover drugs for pharmaceutical companies. Partners include Apeiron and Bristol Myers Squibb.

The IPO was part of a strategy to expand the application of the AI platform to the R&D of Exscientia’s own drugs. The company had reached early-stage clinical development with an internally discovered cancer therapy, but stopped work on that program last fall after peer data and internal research indicated challenges for safely and effectively drugging the intended target. With the discontinuation of this cancer drug, Exscientia’s most advanced wholly owned program is a molecule in preclinical development.

Photo: designer491, Getty Images

Data modernization is crucial to making public health more equitable. A robust, state-of-the-art data system can provide deeper insights into health disparities, guide targeted interventions, and improve how effectively resources are allocated among patients and their communities.

But to advance health equity, it’s essential to collect accurate, consistent data that provides deeper insights into marginalized, and often overlooked, populations. Such data sets include race and ethnicity; sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI); and the social determinants of health (SDOH), such as housing, food insecurity, or income levels. While more organizations and agencies are prioritizing these types of data, noteworthy gaps remain.

Certain health equity data – such as race and ethnicity – have long been collected, albeit with gaps. An analysis of 20 years of US clinical trial data found that race was indicated for only 43% of patients. Even when race and ethnicity are indicated, the data collected often are too limited, clumping together different communities under single headings. Take the race option “Black.” This category captures several distinct communities in a single category (e.g., US-born African American, Haitian, African immigrant), overlooking potentially key health-related differences between the sub-populations.

Data on SOGI and SDOH, on the other hand, are rarely collected. Most federal health reports do not examine the sexual orientation or gender identity of those being surveyed. However, when such information has been collected, it has frequently demonstrated poorer health outcomes for sexual and gender minorities, something the White House acknowledged and urged federal agencies to address. It is also still unusual for these reports to include information on SDOH, even though the CDC indicated SDOH has the strongest impact on health in its HI-5 program, an initiative that highlights non-clinical approaches to improving public health.

While more attention is being paid to improving equity-related data collection, including initiatives at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, more needs to be done. The current data gaps have serious implications, exacerbating existing health disparities and creating misleading, or even inaccurate, health guidance. While the stakes are high, these gaps can be addressed by investing in people – who need proper training and incentives to complete data accurately – and by technology – which needs to provide easy data collection, sharing and analysis. By bridging this data divide, public health professionals can build towards a more equitable and effective system.

Investing in people

Bridging data gaps and improving health equity means understanding how data are collected, analyzed, shared, and disseminated. This begins with the workforce that collects and inputs the data. These employees need proper training, reinforcement, and acknowledgement.

Knowing how to ask the right questions is vital to improving data equity. Staff should receive regular education and feedback on the importance and impact of data collection. Healthcare providers will be more likely to collect data if they are aware of how it helps their patients. Training should also explore how medical and public health professionals can create an environment where individuals feel more comfortable disclosing sensitive information, such as their sexual orientation.

Investing in technology

Once data are collected, utilizing the proper technology is essential for effectively sharing, analyzing, and leveraging insights to improve health outcomes. Sharing data between and across health systems can fill in some of the existing gaps mentioned above, and a strong cloud architecture is a crucial building block. For example, medical records, often collected in doctors’ offices or hospitals, contain key health equity data, like race or SOGI data. But this data often stays within the walls of a doctor’s office. Creating a robust cloud architecture that allows aggregate medical record data to be shared between healthcare providers and public health officials would provide critical insights into population health and disease trends and create more informed public health guidelines. Luckily, efforts to improve data sharing are already underway. California is one of several states exploring how best to identify and share equity-related data from multiple sources.

Increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI) is being leveraged to analyze health equity data. AI can help identify health patterns, pinpointing elevated risks within specific populations for potential illnesses and enhancing overall patient care. AI tools can also facilitate real-time monitoring of health trends, aiding decision-makers in implementing timely and evidence-based strategies to improve overall public health outcomes. For example, Washington state has already incorporated AI into its analysis of data in its Health Equity Atlas and other resources.

However, healthcare data are, of course, incredibly personal, and patient protections need to be a priority. Health systems must be equipped with proper cybersecurity measures in place to secure and protect sensitive data. Such action is needed to address the concerns of the public and policy makers that confidential information may be inappropriately used.

A future with equity data

There is a common misconception that a data problem can be fixed with a one-time investment in hardware or software development. But data modernization and the promotion of health equity require a continued investment. Leaders need to make sustained investments to keep their IT staff and technology updated and to support personnel on the ground – such as epidemiologists and clinical and laboratory staff – without whom accurate data cannot be collected and analyzed. While data modernization does require an investment in upfront planning, designing, and implementing the technology, the value of the investment will be short-lived without ongoing support.

Despite the remaining challenges, a public health system equipped with strong data, relevant training staffing support, and effective IT infrastructure is within reach. Proper data collection, analysis, and utilization has the potential to address long-standing health disparities and propel our healthcare system forward to serve all communities. While this transformation will not happen overnight, a continued commitment to equity data will undoubtedly improve public health outcomes for all.

Photo: eichinger julien, Getty Images

It is impossible for physicians to fully control our own destiny in today’s healthcare environment. All of us live within the broader ecosystem of organized healthcare. Scale is the name of the game for hospitals, payers and private practices alike—even if at various levels.

For context, in 2022, the three largest for-profit health systems in the U.S. reported combined revenues of more than $90 billion. United Healthcare, the largest health insurer, reported revenues north of $320 billion (which is greater than the gross domestic product of Finland). This creates challenges for the traditionally fragmented physician practice community. To achieve the clinical and operational benefits of scale, capital is required, and the use of outside capital in physician practices has prompted important questions about the risks, benefits and long-term impact.

Cutting to the chase, scale benefits radiology services, helping practices offer patients innovative healthcare solutions. These enhancements have been shown to improve physician satisfaction and practice performance, such as through IT deployment, AI deployment, process efficiencies, strategic relationships, and by allowing diversification across markets, health systems and payers. Most importantly, capital allows for scaled investments that benefit patients, including clinical programs and artificial intelligence.

Physician groups historically took on all the risk by pooling their own money—or taking out loans—to reinvest into their private practice. Practices now have greater access to capital channels, including private equity (PE). Critics may call this corporatization, but I view it as an opportunity for scaled investments in an increasingly complex environment. Are there risks? Of course. But there are also significant risks in standing still and letting the world change around you.

Do all PE firms seek a return on their investment? Of course. But PE firms are not homogenous, and behaviors differ from firm to firm. Some PE-backed practices are probably overly focused on economics. But let’s also agree that many academic and traditional private practices are also heavily focused on finances; it is why most private practices have radiologists work on initiatives like clinical program development in their free time or with limited dedicated hours demonstrating the prioritization of income distribution versus reinvestment of capital into the practice. Regardless of financial structure, practices should begin with the understanding that a “profits over patients” mentality is never acceptable, and that physicians need to be in leadership positions.

Scale is a strategy; private equity is just a tool. PE is a way to help achieve scale. PE investors are incredibly diverse. People often talk about 3–5-year investment horizons, investments but there is plenty of heterogeneity. For example, fund investments in my practice are more than a decade old by design. My practice specifically looked for investors with a long-term strategy who were aligned with the potential for radiology to improve, which meant reinvesting capital year after year into our practice. So, when it comes to investors for radiology practices, every situation and outlook is different and should be viewed as such. If you’re interested in an investor-backed model, pick the right investor partner, and make sure they’re aligned with your values, goals and mission.

Looking to the future, scale alone won’t protect radiology and radiologists from the many challenges we face, but groups that use scale to better serve the stakeholders that matter most, including radiologists, hospitals, referring physicians and—most importantly—patients, will be best positioned to not just survive, but thrive.

Photo: bayhayalet, Getty Images