There are a lot of nurse practitioners in the US–over 400,000 (compared to around 900,000 MDs & DOs), and we are training 40,000 a year. But how they are going to be used is not entirely clear. Lynn Rapsilber is an NP whose organization, the National Nurse Practitioner Entrepreneur Network, is working to help her fellow NPs with their professional and business development. She came on THCB to discuss how NPs are developing and how she thinks NPs will contribute in the future as we deal with the current crisis in primary care–Matthew Holt
Above the Fold
TytoCare–The Last Few Inches of Telehealth?
Tamir Gottfried, the Chief Commercial and Strategy Officer at TytoCare came on THCB to show us how their remote device works to deliver the last few inches of telehealth. Most telehealth is just a video call but with Tyto’s device, the patient can asynchronously (and/or synchronously) take their vital signs including videos and pictures of the skin, ears, mouth, heartbeat et al, and share it with their doctor. It actually amazes me that they haven’t been more popular but in the last few years Tyto has made significant inroads with health plans and providers delivering their devices, as well as adding chronic care management module, with a forthcoming smart clinic (AI) companion. Tamir explained who, how what and why to me, and gave a not too gruesome demo–Matthew Holt
Penguin–The Flightless Bird of Health AI
Fawad Butt and Missy Krasner started a new AI company which is building a big platform for both plans and providers in health care. Penguin Ai has a cute name, but is serious about trying to provide an underlying platform that is going enable agents across the enterprise. They are health care only, as opposed to the big LLMs. But does health care need a separate AI company? Are the big LLMs going to give up health? And what about that Epic company? Join us as we discuss how this AI thing is going to be deployed across health care, and how Penguin is going to play. Oh and they raised $30m series A to start getting it done–Matthew Holt
Teledoc Medication Abortions Under Attack
By MIKE MAGEE
For those prepared to take a deep breath and relax in the aftermath of the MAGA induced assault on the First Amendment that whipsawed Disney leadership last week as they abandoned and then rescued Jimmy Kimmel, be advised reproductive health access is at the top of the list when it comes to MAGA campaigns to “restrict liberties.”
Consider the ongoing campaign to federally restrict telemedicine enabled medication abortion.
A few facts:
- Medication abortion is a process that involves taking two medications (mifepristone and misoprostol) at specific intervals over one to three days. It is approved for use up to the first 70 days of a pregnancy and costs on average about $500.
- As defined by Yale Medicine, “Mifepristone is a medication that blocks progesterone activity in a female’s body. Progesterone is a critical hormone for supporting an early pregnancy. The second medication, misoprostol, causes contractions and expels the pregnancy tissue. It typically takes 12 to 24 hours to pass the tissue.”
- The overall number of abortions have risen since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. There were 1.1 million US abortions in 2023, that is 88,000 per month compared to 80,000 the year before.
- Medication abortions account for 2/3 of all abortions in the US. At least 1 in 4 of these last year involved telemedicine provision by mail order including to citizens from states with highly restrictive abortion laws.
- Success rate in terminating pregnancy is 99.6%. Major complications occur in .4% of cases and mortality is nearly non-existent.
- Anti-abortion advocates are currently focused on obstructing legal access to abortion pills.
Immediately following the Dobbs decision, 12 states banned abortion and 4 states imposed a 6-week gestational limit on access to abortion. Nine of these states now explicitly ban telehealth enabled medication abortion. Countering these measures, eight states where abortion remains legal have passed “shield laws” that protect health professionals from prosecution by other states for engaging in telehealth support of patients seeking self-care within states where abortion is illegal. By latest count, 1 in 7 telehealth assisted medication abortions involved practitioners from shield states.
President Trump’s campaign pledge to reinstate the dormant 1873 Comstock Act to cripple telehealth efforts in support of medication abortion has gone nowhere. In a similar vein, flawed science studies engineered by anti-abortion advocates attempting to challenge FDA clearances for safety and self management of the drugs involved have been exposed as unscientific, deceptive and biased. Multiple state suits, for and against imposing additional FDA hurdles to access in the absence of demonstrable medical benefit or risk mitigation are piling up in the courts. And Louisiana recently took a different tact, reclassifying misoprostol a “controlled substance” and inviting provider countersuits.
As Cornell legal experts remind us, the freedom of expression and the right to freedom of speech may be exercised “in direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way.” When first written, and adopted as the first of the original 10 entries in the Bill of Rights in 1791, the First Amendment said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowadays, the provision applies to the entire federal government and is reinforced by the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment which protects citizens from state government interference as well.
For better or worse, the actions leading up to the Dobbs decision were led, funded, organized and executed primarily by religious groups, primarily Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians, joining ranks on the issue five decades ago. Those very religions legitimacy and independence has long been protected by the First Amendment.
A simple listing of the opening salvo of our Bill of Rights reveals a complex tangle of protections that define not only our primary rights as citizens, but also our power and legitimacy as a healthy representative democracy.
What’s included? According to legal experts, our 1st Amendment “protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit people from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”
Religious leaders remain deeply divided. Opposing reproductive choice while protecting the religious freedom assured by the very same 1st Amendment is a difficult needle to thread. Consider the comment of Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, on June 24, 2022, the day of the Dobbs decision: “I recognize there are people on both sides of the question in the Catholic Church. What we are finding though is that when people become more aware of what the church is doing to assist women in difficult pregnancies … hearts and minds begin to change.”
Well, not exactly. A March, 2025 Pew Survey of Catholics nationwide revealed that 6 in 10 Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
It is ironic that, in attempting to usurp women’s rights to their own reproductive freedoms, that some religious leaders continue to attack the country’s foundational 1st Amendment that has assured the continued existence of their sponsoring organizations.
Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and regular contributor to THCB. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex.
Boulder Care: Stephanie Strong & Marianna Zaslavsky
Stephanie Strong, CEO & Marianna Zaslavsky, the (relatively new) Head of Growth at Boulder Care came on THCB to tell Matthew Holt about their service which delivers medication assisted treatment for those suffering from substance used disorder, via telehealth. Stephanie has been one of the leading advocates for getting patients, especially those on Medicaid, access to treatment. She led a campaign to get the DEA to continue to allow substance abuse treatment using medication via telehealth. Marianna joined this summer with the goal of helping patients get access via managed care plans. We discussed a lot about the potential for Boulder to continue its harm reduction strategy for patients, and also the potential limits that might be coming via Medicaid reductions as part of the BBB. Stephanie & Boulder are supporting a campaign called Majority for Medicaid which is raising awareness about the impact of Medicaid cuts on these patients. Some of those stories are here
You can also text MAJORITY to 50409 to urge your representative to protect the promise of Medicaid.
HHS’s Independence: If Not Now, When?
By DAVID INTROCASO
After having worked in DC for sixteen years, in 2013 I created The Healthcare Policy Podcast. The title was in part intended to be sarcastic because healthcare policymaking in DC is very narrowly drawn. Consequently, healthcare delivery is excessively commodified, reductionistic and financialized or in sum anachronistic and ironically lacking purchase. If the policy objective was health, we’d be healthier. We’re not. For example, though anthropogenic warming poses the greatest threat to human health, we’ve no related healthcare policy.
Among more conventional issues, there is no serious policy discussion regarding HHS’s mission “to enhance . . . the well-being of all Americans. That we treat the disease not the person means we define health as simply the absence thereof. The same for excess deaths, comparatively declining life expectancy and compressing morbidity among Medicare beneficiaries who will soon exceed 20% of the population. As for children, HHS’s recent “Make Our Children Healthy Again” report expressed concern about children’s aerobic fitness but was silent about the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse despite Jeffrey Epstein and the Congress’s own serial child molester former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Bizarrely, the AMA has yet to rescind Speaker Hastert’s 2006 Nathan Davis award for “outstanding contributions to the betterment of public health.” The HHS report was also silent about Medicaid reform even though the program provides healthcare for roughly half of US children. It is similarly remarkable how seldom if ever names like Arrow, Canguilhem, Farmer, Foucault, Illich, Marmot, Starfield and Virchow are discussed in healthcare policy circles.
Now after OBBBA cuts to the Medicaid and Medicare programs, 500 rounds fired into six CDC buildings, one killing a police officer, and seven months of HHS moral obliquity we are confronted with the reality that healthcare policymaking is now unambiguously on the road to nowhere. This may be because, having failed to appreciate Richard Hofstadter, Humphrey Building leadership is busy fomenting a new chapter in anti-intellectualism. We’re left to ask if healthcare enshittification has now been achieved possibly because healthcare policymakers have adopted Mark Manson’s “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck.”
The good news is the storm and stress about HHS no longer being fit for purpose could be effectively cured if the Congress, along with support from MedPAC, MACPAC and others, would work to free the department from politicization or partisan influence by redefining it as an independent agency. If policymakers exercised more imagination such a simple and obvious reform would have already received serious attention.
The idea of an independent HHS has at least been recognized. Roughly twenty years ago Dr. Arnold Relman, the esteemed former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, argued healthcare be managed by a “National Health Care Agency” defined as a hybrid public-private entity like, he said, the Federal Reserve. Similarly, HHS would be governed by an independent board whose members would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for 14-year terms.
Continue reading…Lessons From The Medical Error That Orphaned A Cabinet Secretary
By MICHAEL MILLENSON
It was a small anecdote, buried in a lengthy profile in The New Yorker of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, “Donald Trump’s Tariff Dealmaker-in-Chief.” But as a patient safety activist, the stark depiction of the effect of medical error felt like a sudden shock.
Lutnick, the article related, knew tragedy early in life: “his mother died of lymphoma while he was in high school; in his first week of [Haverford] college, his father was accidentally administered a fatal dose of chemotherapy. Other relatives receded into the background, leaving Lutnick and his two siblings on their own.”
A medical error and, suddenly, three kids are abruptly orphaned and effectively abandoned. With World Patient Safety Day just past us on Sept. 17, I wanted to put that devastating event into the broader patient safety context.
As is frequently the case, The New York Times obituary of Sept. 15, 1979, for Solomon Lutnick gave no cause of death. There were a handful of personal and professional details (he was a history professor at Queens College) and that he died at age 51 at Syosset (Long Island) Hospital.
Invisible Harm
Unfortunately, treatment-caused harm has often been invisible, even where it occurred. The year before Solomon Lutnick died, the first study to examine adverse events at multiple hospitals concluded that given the benefits of modern medicine, the incidence was “remarkably low.” The 1978 study, commissioned by California hospital and medical associations worried about rising malpractice premiums, was overseen by physician-attorney Don Harper Mills, who assured the worried sponsors there were few “potentially compensable events.”
There’s no indication Solomon Lutnick’s death prompted a lawsuit; he was being treated for metastatic colon cancer when a nurse accidentally administered 100 times the recommended chemotherapy dose, according to accounts Howard Lutnick has shared elsewhere. It’s unclear how Syosset Hospital reacted, but the Mills study, reflecting the attitude of many at the time, didn’t count deaths of individuals who the research team assessed would have died anyway within a year.
Even with that methodology, when in my 1997 book I extrapolated Mills’ results nationally, his “remarkably low” incidence of harm amounted to 120,000 people killed each year by medical care. I wonder whether anyone told the three Lutnick children, “Your dad was going to die soon, anyway,” and whether they found that any sort of comfort.
In 2025, addressing patient harm was long ago supposed to have become part of hospital culture, but invisibility nonetheless continues. The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services Hospitals has repeatedly found that millions of Medicare patients every year are harmed by their medical care. Yet hospitals still fail to capture even half of harm events, while also failing to report two-thirds of events for which reporting is required, according to the most recent OIG report. Worse, few incidents of harm are even investigated “and even fewer led to hospitals making improvements for patient safety,” the OIG concluded.
Echoing Another Error
But it wasn’t only the way Solomon Lutnick’s avoidable death would have been minimized during that era that struck me. It also stood out for its eerie echo of a later death that became a patient safety milestone. On Dec. 3, 1994, an obituary in the Boston Globe for its personal health columnist, Betsy Lehman, related that the 39-year-old married mother of two young daughters had died at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute due to complications of breast cancer. However, it wasn’t until after a routine record review by Dana-Farber clerks found the error, which was relayed to her family and then to her Globe colleagues, that a page one story appeared on March 23, 1995, detailing how an accidental overdose of a powerful chemotherapy drug had actually caused Lehman’s death.
Continue reading…And Yet It Moves
By KIM BELLARD
Science buffs will recognize the title as the (possibly apocryphal) quote Galileo muttered after he was forced by the Catholic Church to recant his assertion that the earth moved around the sun, contrary to church dogma. We’re in an era where it is the Trump Administration, not the church, forcing people and organizations to accede to things they don’t really believe in, whether they are law firms, universities, media companies, or big corporations, to name a few.
That’s why I was so pleased when last week the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) not only didn’t take a knee about the Trump Administration’s dogma about climate change being a hoax, they also didn’t just mutter their objections. They issued a lengthy report outlining how climate change is very real, is largely due to human contributions, and is extremely bad for us and the planet.
And yet it moves indeed.
The NAS was spurred into action by an EPA announcement proposing to rescind an Endangerment Finding issued in 2009 by the Obama EPA. “With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” EPA Administrator Zeldin said.“In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.” He was practically giddy.
Not so fast, the NAS report says. Its overarching conclusion: “EPA’s 2009 finding that the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.”
The report lists five key conclusions:
- Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere.
- Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate.
- Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States.
- Changes in climate resulting from human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases harm the welfare of people in the United States.
- Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will lead to more climate changes in the United States, with the severity of expected change increasing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted.
Pulling no punches, it says:
In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is beyond scientific dispute. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified. These new threats and the areas of remaining uncertainty are under intensive investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.
i.e., “And yet we are endangering ourselves, and the planet.”
Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report, was more diplomatic: “This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”
Continue reading…New Bereavement Cost Calculator shows that grief is expensive
by EMMA PAYNE
Grief is expensive. In addition to the significant human impacts, research shows that bereavement leads to a 20%-30% increase in health care utilization.
Grief is also common. While we may not like to talk about it, 37% of Americans are grieving a recent death. The U.S. averaged 3.26 million deaths per year over the last five years and data suggests that an average of nine people grieve a single death. The CDC started measuring bereavement for the first time in 2021, but most health plans aren’t yet measuring the incidence or cost of grief.
So we decided to take a look. Here’s just some of what we found.
When a member is bereaved, health plans — especially those serving older adults — see significant jumps in utilization and costs across multiple claims categories. Examples include:
● 51% increase in Emergency Department visits and 43% increase in hospitalizations for bereaved spouses whose partners died in hospital
● 67% higher risk level for psychiatric hospitalization in the first year of bereavement for parents who have lost a child
● 74% of husbands and 67% of wives are hospitalized at least once in the nine years following the death of their spouse
● 463% higher odds of antidepressant use for people who have a prolonged grief disorder diagnosis
These increases lead to escalating claims costs that add up quickly, especially in populations 65+. But what are these costs? And what can insurers do to mitigate them?
To make these hidden costs visible, my team at Help Texts created a tool that health plans can use to model bereavement’s financial impacts. With just member numbers, the Bereavement Cost Calculator from Help Texts will estimate a health plan’s:
● Projected Per Member Per Month (PMPM) cost increase after bereavement
● Total cost impact of grief when no intervention is provided
● Estimated savings when plans provide Help Texts’ clinically sound, scalable, grief support for bereaved members
Consider a Medicare Advantage Plan with 250K members ages 65+. It should expect:
● 11,500 members to be grieving the death of a partner or child
● 81,500 members to be grieving other losses (eg. parent, sibling, friend)
● Average PMPM increase (without intervention): $110
● Total estimated year one cost impact (without intervention): $123M
● Estimated year one savings with Help Texts: $1.3M
What can a health plan do to save money and improve care and outcomes for its members? The numbers are powerful, showing that grief is expensive, but also that bereavement presents a clear opportunity to provide an impactful upstream intervention that can save millions, while also caring for people during what is often the loneliest time in their lives.
Help Texts is a clinically sound, scalable, bereavement intervention. With subscribers in 59 countries and all 50 states, Help Texts delivers affordable, multilingual grief support via text message. With extraordinary acceptability (95%) and 6-month retention (90%) rates, Help Texts’ light-weight solution makes it easy for health plans and others to improve health and community outcomes, while also realizing significant cost savings for those in their care.
Health Plans, particularly Medicare Advantage plans, can use the new bereavement cost calculator from Help Texts to estimate the true cost of bereavement and their cost savings when grief support is provided. The Bereavement Cost Calculator from Help Texts uncovers the savings potential when caring for grieving members. In less than a minute, you can start to see how much bereavement is costing, and how much could be saved by supporting members grieving the loss of a loved one.
Because the true cost of bereavement isn’t only emotional, it’s also financial. And for health plans, addressing both is the smartest investment you can make.
Emma Payne is the CEO of Help Texts
Does American Health Care Violate the ICJ’s Recent Climate Advisory Opinion?
By DAVID INTROCASO
In late July the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its long-awaited and highly-anticipated climate advisory opinion. The ICJ ruling represents an historic moment in climate accountability.
“Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change”
In a rare unanimous decision, the ICJ opinion concluded “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is in part a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights including the right to life and the right to health. Consequently, the ICJ ruled states including their private actors are obligated to ensure the climate is protected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and can be held legally culpable by other harmed or unharmed states, groups and individuals for failing to protect the climate.
The 140-page opinion is the result of a 2023 UN resolution that requested the ICJ produce an advisory opinion answering two questions: what are states’ obligations under international law to ensure protecting the climate and what are the legal consequences for causing significant climate harm? In a failed attempt the US State Department opposed the resolution arguing the ICJ can only consider applicable climate treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and to the exclusion of other rules of international law.
In sum, the ICJ found states have substantive, urgent and enforceable obligations under UN climate treaties and international laws to prevent significant harm to the environment from GHG emissions that includes those resulting from fossil fuel use. The court broadly defined fossil fuel use as the adoption of laws, regulatory policies and programs that promote fossil fuel production and consumption via leases, licenses and subsidies.
States must act using “all means at their disposal” that includes adopting appropriate legal and regulatory measures, acquiring and analyzing scientific and technological information and risk and impact assessments, meeting a duty of cessation and acting in good faith that includes a duty to cooperate and collaborate internationally. The ruling also allows for legal action to protect future generations. The court rejected the argument attributing harm on a case-by-case basis is unachievable stating it is “scientifically possible” to determine each state’s current and historical emissions. Without naming the US, the ICJ affirmed states not party to UN treaties must still meet their equivalent responsibilities under international law. (Columbia’s Sabin Center Climate Change Law Blog has examined at length the ICJ opinion.)
US Healthcare’s Contribution to Anthropogenic Warming
Because the ICJ recognizes an inherent link between anthropogenic warming and human rights, the opinion implies the right to health cannot be secured without addressing US health care’s own climate obligations. Meeting these pose a substantial challenge for the industry for several reasons.
US health care significantly contributes to anthropogenic warming. Per Northeastern Professor Matthew Eckelman, the industry accounts for a growing amount GHG emissions currently at over 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), or 9-10% of total US emissions and 25% of global healthcare emissions. If US healthcare was its own country it would likely rank 9th, less than Saudi Arabia but more than Germany.
Two reasons largely explain US healthcare’s carbon footprint. The industry is immense. Despite providing care for 4% of the world’s population, last year it constituted a $5.3 trillion market or roughly half of total global healthcare spending. The industry wastes an enormous amount of energy. Despite spending over $5 billion annually on energy, equivalent to at least 15% of profits, hospitals are significantly energy inefficient because they continue to consume fossil fuels to first generate heat to produce electricity that is dramatically less efficient than using renewable resources that directly generate electricity or work demand. End-use energy inefficiency compounds the problem. For example, only a trivial number of hospitals are EPA Energy Star certified for energy efficiency. For the ten-year period ending in 2024, 85 or 1.4% of over 6,000 hospitals were on average certified.
Continue reading…
