Why I traded the OR for a boardroom....for impact
December 9, 2025
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.
Happy Tuesday! If you read one thing this week, make it this. Yesterday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quietly dropped one of the most significant policy shifts for digital health in the last decade. It’s called the ACCESS Model , and if you are building, investing in, or delivering technology-enabled care, this is the signal you have been waiting for. For years, the industry has been stuck on a "billing code treadmill." We build incredible tools; AI coaching, continuous remote monitoring, predictive analytics, but we are forced to shoehorn them into antiquated Fee-for-Service (FFS) codes that pay for minutes spent rather than health achieved. With ACCESS, CMS is finally cutting the red tape. They are proposing a model that pays for outcomes , not clicks. Grab your coffee. Let’s break down exactly what this means for the future of healthtech. The Friction Point: Why FFS Failed Digital Health To understand why ACCESS is a big deal, we have to look at the status quo. Currently, if you want to treat a Medicare beneficiary using digital tools, you are likely relying on Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) or Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM) codes. These are better than nothing, but they are rigid. They require specific device definitions, minimum data transmission days, and strict time-logging requirements. The result? Activity-based care. Providers are incentivized to maximize data points and call minutes to ensure reimbursement, even if the patient just needs a passive nudge or an automated intervention. We are maximizing activity, not necessarily efficiency or outcomes. The Solution: Outcome-Aligned Payments (OAPs) The Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions (ACCESS) Model changes the currency of care. Instead of billing for every 20-minute increment of time, participating organizations will receive a recurring payment (essentially a subscription fee) to manage a patient’s condition. Here is the kicker: You only get the full payment if the patient gets better. CMS is testing Outcome-Aligned Payments (OAPs) . This gives providers complete flexibility on how they deliver care. Do you want to use a fancy FDA-cleared wearable? A text-message-based AI coach? A telehealth nutritionist? Go ahead. CMS doesn't care about the method anymore; they care about the metric. If you can prove that you lowered a patient’s blood pressure or controlled their A1c using a specific tech stack, you get paid. This aligns the financial incentive with the clinical goal: keeping the patient healthy with the least amount of friction. The Scope: Who is this for? CMS is not starting small. They are targeting the conditions that drive the vast majority of Medicare spending. The model focuses on Original Medicare beneficiaries with: Hypertension: The silent killer. Diabetes: The metabolic crisis. Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A massive driver of opioid use and mobility issues. Depression & Anxiety: Recognizing mental health as a core chronic comorbidity. This is a 10-year voluntary model, meaning CMS is playing the long game. They aren't looking for a quick pilot; they are looking to build a permanent alternative to Fee-for-Service. The "Tech" in HealthTech What’s fascinating about the RFA (Request for Applications) details is the language CMS is using. They are explicitly calling for "technology-supported care." They list examples that would have been unimaginable in a CMS memo ten years ago: Wearable devices for continuous monitoring. Asynchronous apps for lifestyle coaching. Telehealth software for on-demand interaction. This is a massive validation for the digital health sector. CMS is acknowledging that the future of chronic care isn't a quarterly 15-minute office visit; it’s continuous, data-driven support that lives in the patient’s pocket. Dr. Matt’s Strategic Analysis: Is this a slam dunk? Not exactly. Here is the nuance you need to consider before you rush to apply The Risk of "Outcomes" "Pay for Performance" is the holy grail, but it is also dangerous. How do you risk-adjust for a patient who is non-compliant regardless of your tech? How do you account for social determinants of health (SDOH) that might spike a patient's blood pressure despite your best algorithm? The ACCESS model will rely on risk-adjusted benchmarks, but the devil will be in the math. If the benchmarks are too aggressive, providers might shy away from the sickest patients, the exact opposite of CMS's goal. 2. The "Co-Management" Opportunity One of the smartest parts of this model is the coordination with primary care. ACCESS participants (likely specialists or dedicated tech-enabled provider groups) can co-manage patients with a beneficiary's primary care doctor. The Opportunity: This creates a business model for "Bolt-on" healthtech companies. You don’t have to replace the PCP; you can be the specialized "hypertension management layer" that plugs into their practice, handling the daily digital grind while they handle the holistic care. 3. The Transparency Engine CMS plans to publish the risk-adjusted outcomes of participating organizations. This is the "Yelpification" of clinical results. Imagine a world where a PCP can look up a dashboard and see: "Company A controls diabetes in 80% of patients, but Company B only manages 60%." Referrals will flow to the performers. Timeline & Next Steps If you are a digital health founder, a forward-thinking provider, or an investor, the clock has started. TBD: Request for Applications (RFA) has not yet been released. The specific details on payment rates and risk adjustment will be here (crossing fingers!). April 1, 2026: Application Deadline for Cohort 1. This is a tight turnaround. July 1, 2026: The program goes live. My Advice: Start building your consortiums now. Digital health vendors need to partner with provider groups (you'll have to decide who/how to apply). If you have a tool that actually works, meaning it drives clinical results, not just engagement, this is your moment to shine. We are moving from the era of "Digital Health" to just "Health"; efficient, scalable, and paid for by results. 🔗 Explore the Official CMS ACCESS Model Page Until next week #StayCrispy, Dr. Matt
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
During the 8th China International Import Expo (CIIE) last week, Sino Biopharm and MediTrust Health signed a landmark strategic agreement that signals a massive shift in how we pay for innovation. While the ink dried in Shanghai, the implications are vital for global healthcare access. This partnership is not just a distribution deal. It is the formalization of a "drug-insurance integration" model where commercial insurance logic is embedded directly into the pharmaceutical supply chain. This move coincides with China's broader "Healthy China 2030" initiative and the introduction of a new Category C in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) . This regulatory sandbox is specifically designed to allow commercial insurers to cover high-value innovations that the state budget cannot yet absorb. The Core Friction: Financial Barriers are Access Barriers We are currently witnessing a collision between two unstoppable forces. First is the exponential rise in the cost of curative therapies. We are seeing gene therapies for conditions like Sickle Cell Disease and Hemophilia priced upwards of $3 million per dose. Second is the rigid, legacy infrastructure of payer reimbursement. In the US and Europe, this manifests as increasing "financial toxicity" , a term now frequently discussed in tumor boards alongside clinical toxicity. Prior authorization delays, copay accumulators, and value-based contracting (VBC) hurdles create a landscape where a drug can be FDA-approved but functionally non-existent for a patient in a rural zip code. The traditional model; where Pharma makes the drug, Payer decides coverage, and Patient prays for access, is failing. It creates a two-tier system where scientific breakthroughs are only accessible to those with the liquidity to pay for them or the geographic luck to be near a major academic center. The New Model: Democratizing Risk The Sino Biopharm x MediTrust collaboration introduces a different architecture. They are building what they call a "dual-track" system. Instead of waiting for public or state insurance to cover a new and expensive oncology drug, the manufacturer partners with a tech-enabled platform to wrap the drug in a specific commercial insurance policy at the point of access. This is FinTech meets Pharma. The drug is no longer just a chemical product. It is a financial asset bundled with a risk-management tool. Key components of this convergence include: Outcomes-Based Underwriting: This isn't just a coupon. It relies on Real-World Data (RWD) integration to underwrite the patient's risk in real-time. If the therapy fails to meet specific clinical milestones, the "insurance wrapper" kicks in. This protects the patient's wallet from wasted spend and protects the payer's ledger from high-cost failures. It moves the industry from paying for treatment to paying for results. Direct-to-Patient Financial Rails: MediTrust’s "Smart Insurance Solution" and "Care2Pay" platform bypass traditional claims processing lag. By using AI to process claims instantly ("one-code direct payment"), they act as a dedicated centralized bank for that specific therapy. This ensures that cash flow issues, often the death knell for adherence in chronic care, do not interrupt a course of treatment. The "Commercial Catalog" Catalyst: This move aligns with the Category C regulatory push in China , effectively privatizing the risk of innovation while keeping basic care public. It creates a specific lane for drugs that are "too expensive for public, too important to ignore." The "Access" Angle: Why This Matters for Patient Access The real promise here is not just better margins for pharma companies. It is about expanding the Total Addressable Market (TAM) to include patients who are currently 'priced out of hope'. When a manufacturer subsidizes the financial risk via embedded insurance, they lower the barrier to entry for patients in rural or underserved demographics. It transforms a high-risk gamble into a manageable subscription or warranty. We see early echoes of this with Pfizer and AstraZeneca's recent moves toward "warranty models" , but the US market is often stymied by the complexity of Medicaid Best Price rules and fragmented private payers. The China model, with its "platform" approach, offers a blueprint for how to potentially scale this. It could be the key to bringing expensive cell and gene therapies to community hospitals rather than keeping them sequestered in major academic centers. Strategic Takeaway For health tech leaders, the lesson is clear. The next unicorn will not be a company that discovers a new molecule, nor one that sells a new insurance plan. It will be the infrastructure layer that connects the two. If you are building in health fintech or digital health, perhaps stop looking at workflow efficiency (e.g., "faster prior auth") and start looking at financial liquidity . Can you build the rails that allow a manufacturer to underwrite a patient's deductible? Can you build the data pipe that proves a gene therapy worked, triggering a payment release? You are not just solving a billing problem. You are solving an access problem. The Path Forward We often mistake invention for innovation. But a breakthrough therapy that remains out of reach due to antiquated billing models is not a success. It is a failure of imagination. The technology to democratize access exists. We simply need the will to deploy it. Here is my challenge to you this week. Look at your product roadmap. Find the friction point where a financial barrier is masquerading as an operational one. Solve that and you do not just improve a metric. You open the door for a patient who has been waiting outside. Let's get to work. #Stay Crispy -Dr Matt