🚨 DEEP DIVE: The CMS ACCESS Model is the "Subscription for Health" We’ve Been Waiting For....maybe?

It was August in Texas, and the heat hit like a physical wall the second I stepped outside. I was not in an air conditioned operating room. I was walking up a cracked concrete path to a mobile home to see a patient named Maria. The window mounted air conditioning unit hummed desperately against the rising temperature. This was my third attempt to find her. We had previously been unable to find her trailer after two attempts to work through an interpreter, poor phone connections, and constantly changing locations of residence. Standing on that porch, sweating through my scrubs, I realized something that changed the trajectory of my career. I realized that geography is destiny. In our current system, your ZIP code predicts your lifespan more accurately than your genetic code. That realization is why I wrote "The Borderless Healthcare Revolution." This Wednesday (tomorrow!), it finally hits the shelves. The Problem: We Are Feeding the Zombies I moved from clinical practice to tech strategy because I got tired of the gap. We have robots that can perform surgery across continents. We have AI that can predict a stroke before it happens. Yet, we still rely on the "zombie" of healthcare. The fax machine. It just will not die. I remember realizing the absurdity of this when I was just a mom trying to get immunization records for my kids. I actually caught myself wishing I had a fax machine at home just to get a simple piece of paper. That is desperation. And that is a broken system. The Floatplane Paradox We cannot just sprinkle technology on top of a broken system and expect it to work. We often build digital tools that ignore the reality of the people using them. In the book, I share a story from Danny Gladden, LCSW, MBA about his time working in rural Alaska. He served remote island communities where accessing mental healthcare was surprisingly complicated. They had the technology to conduct telehealth visits. However, regulations required indigenous patients to physically travel to a designated healthcare facility to connect virtually with providers. This was the case even if the doctor was sitting comfortably at home. This meant patients had to take a floatplane or a boat just to log on to a video call. Imagine telling someone they have to take a boat and a plane to answer a Zoom call. That is the definition of a system that values compliance over care. It was telehealth, but it certainly was not virtual care. This is what happens when we innovate without fixing the foundation. We create expensive, inconvenient workarounds instead of solving the actual problem. The Solution: The 5 Pillars of Access This book is not a memoir. It is a manual for fixing this mess. To fix it, we need to build on five specific pillars. I break these down in detail in the book: 1. The Physical Pillar We have to bring care to where people actually are. Whether that is a street corner in Syracuse or a rural clinic in Kenya. In the book, I talk about the Health Wagon in Virginia, a mobile unit that has spent decades proving that healthcare can be sustainable when it meets people on their own turf. 2. The Financial Pillar We need to stop the bleed. Did you know that only 80 cents of every private insurance dollar buys actual care?. The other 20 cents vanishes into administration, commissions, taxes, and margin. That is a tax on innovation we cannot afford. We need sustainable reimbursement models that reward outcomes, not just activity. 3. The Cultural Pillar Access is not access if we do not speak the language. I do not just mean English or Spanish. I mean cultural competence that builds genuine connection. In Singapore, for example, the HealthHub app lets every resident toggle instantly among English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil. That is how you build a system that respects the user. 4. The Digital Pillar This is about more than broadband. It is about usability. If a patient needs a PhD to use your portal, you have failed. We need infrastructure that supports interoperability so that patient data flows securely across clinics, pharmacies, and hospitals. 5. The Trust/Knowledge Pillar Without trust, the best algorithm in the world is useless. We have to address historical mistrust. If patients do not trust the system, they will not use the tools we build, no matter how advanced they are. Why This Matters Now We are at an inflection point. The borders are falling. We are seeing success stories globally, from India's eSanjeevani platform serving millions to Rwanda's use of drones for blood delivery. We have the tools. We just need the will to use them. Your Action Plan for Wednesday Grab the book. It is the blueprint you have been waiting for. Audit your own work. Are you building barriers or bridges? Join the fight. Share this with a colleague who is ready to build a system that actually works. Let’s get to work. Dr. Matt P.S. To the "tech bro" I met while researching Chapter 3. Yes, AI can do amazing things. But until it can hold a patient's hand, we still need humans in the loop.

If you spent the last month scrolling through LinkedIn or attending health tech mixers, you would be forgiven for thinking the only thing happening in healthcare right now is the deployment of autonomous AI agents. The hype cycle has fully pivoted from "AI as a tool" to "AI as a replacement," with endless pitch decks promising to automate everything from revenue cycle management to patient triage. But while the venture world is looking at the stars, the federal government is pouring concrete. The most significant news in health technology this month didn’t come from a product launch in the valley. It came from a bureaucratic filing deadline in Washington, D.C., where the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) confirmed that states have overwhelmingly bought into the new wave of rural health funding. We are witnessing the quiet launch of what I call the "Anti-AI Stimulus." While the industry obsesses over Large Language Models (LLMs), the checkbooks for 2026 are opening for something far less sexy but far more critical: basic infrastructure. We are seeing a convergence of major funding streams, most notably the CMS AHEAD Model and the rapid expansion of Rural Emergency Hospital (REH) designations, that signal a massive shift in how care is delivered outside of major cities. For the founders, investors, and strategists reading this: ignore this shift at your own peril. The smart money isn't chasing chatbots; it is chasing the plumbing that makes modern medicine possible. The Policy Shift: From Volume to Value (Finally) To understand where the money is going, you have to understand the problem the government is trying to solve. The rural hospital business model is broken. Recent data from The Chartis Group indicates that 50 percent of rural hospitals are operating in the red. They cannot survive on fee-for-service medicine because they simply do not have the volume. The government’s response, through programs like the AHEAD Model, is to move states toward "global budgets." In plain English, this means paying hospitals a fixed amount to keep a specific population healthy, rather than paying them for every MRI and surgery they perform. This is a radical reimagination of the financial incentives. When a hospital is paid a flat fee, keeping a patient out of the hospital becomes profitable.....but it also sounds like 'pop health', or 'at risk' models?! This changes the technology wishlist overnight. If you are a hospital CEO under a global budget, you don't need a robot that does surgery faster. You need a remote monitoring platform that prevents the patient from needing surgery in the first place. You need data interoperability that actually works. You need the "boring" stuff. The Conflict: A Turf War for Survival There is a tension inherent in this funding that few are talking about. It is effectively a battle over the definition of "rural healthcare" and who controls the purse strings. On one side, you have the Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) and independent rural clinics. Their argument is straightforward: they are the physical lifelines in these communities. They view this capital as survival money intended to fix leaking roofs, update 15-year-old servers, and keep the emergency room lights on. On the other side, you have the large academic medical centers in larger cities. Their argument is equally compelling: because rural facilities often lack specialized capabilities, the complex cases are transferred to the city. They rgue that they are the de facto safety net for the rural population and deserve a cut of the funding to maintain the "mothership" capacity. This isn’t just improved accounting; it is a fundamental strategic conflict. Is the goal to treat patients where they live, or to build better highways to the city? The Technology Implications: The "Unsexy" Thesis This is where the rubber meets the road for the health tech community. If you read the specific language in the Notice of Funding Opportunities related to these rural initiatives, the focus is on "sustainable access" and "technology-enabled solutions." If you are pitching a generative AI copilot that costs $100 per seat, you are likely barking up the wrong tree. The winners of these contracts will not be the companies selling "optimization." They will be the companies selling "foundation." 1. Cybersecurity is the Priority We cannot ignore the reality that rural hospitals are currently the softest targets for ransomware. They are often running legacy software on deprecated operating systems, think Windows 7 or even XP running on MRI machines (a gross over exaggeration but you get the point), because they lack the IT budget to upgrade. When a rural hospital gets hacked, patients get diverted, and people die. A significant portion of this new funding will go strictly toward cybersecurity hardening. It is not exciting. It will not make for a viral TechCrunch headline. But it is the prerequisite for everything else. 2. The Death of the "AI vs. Broadband" Debate We love to talk about AI diagnostics in remote clinics, but those conversations are theoretical if the clinic has a shaky DSL connection that drops every time it rains. The USDA’s ReConnect Program and similar initiatives are acknowledging that "digital health" is impossible without "digital access." Expect massive spending on "plumbing"; high-speed satellite links, secure data backbones, and reliable telehealth endpoints . You cannot deploy the future of medicine on 1990s infrastructure. 3. Workforce Extension, Not Replacement The most viable "tech" play here is not replacing doctors, but extending the few we have left. Rural America is facing a massive shortage of specialists. We do not need AI to be the doctor; we need technology that allows one intensivist in a city to monitor patients across ten different rural ICUs simultaneously. Tools that facilitate this "one-to-many" care model, like virtual nursing or e-ICU platforms , will find immediate product-market fit. The goal is leverage. The Borderless Reality As I wrote in The Borderless Healthcare Revolution, the concept of "borderless" care isn't limited to medical tourism or crossing international lines. The most difficult borders to cross are often the invisible ones within our own country: the county lines that separate a well-funded university hospital from a struggling rural clinic. Technology has the power to erase those borders, but only if we invest in the right kind of technology. The "hype" cycle tells us that the future is an AI agent that can diagnose a rare disease in seconds. The "reality" cycle, fueled by federal dollars and actual clinical need, suggests the future is a rural hospital that doesn't get hacked, has a stable internet connection, and can access a specialist without putting a patient in an ambulance for a three-hour drive in the snow. If you are building for that future, 2026 is going to be a very good year. #StayCrispy -Dr. Matt