EPtalk by Dr. Jayne 2/5/26
It’s been a couple of years since I’ve written much about digital therapeutics. The number of vendors in the space is small, and the market got quiet after Pear Therapeutics, the one I knew best, declared bankruptcy in 2023.
Digital therapeutics require a prescription and are regulated by the FDA. At the end of 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration announced a pilot program to encourage the use of these solutions. The Technology-Enabled Meaningful Patient Outcomes (TEMPO) model began accepting statements of interest in January. Under the model, a subset of medical professionals can prescribe digital therapeutics before they are officially approved by the FDA, with the resulting real-world data being used to potentially support their clearance.
One reason these tools failed to gain traction was the reimbursement landscape, which left developers unable to build a sustainable financial model. Some companies pivoted into the direct-to-consumer space and marketed their tools as wellness apps to avoid regulation.
The TEMPO pilot was developed by the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). It is limited to prescribers who participate in the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation model for Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions (ACCESS). If you’re a providers who meets the acronym test and is planning to prescribe digital therapeutics, feel free to drop us a note.
A recent article in JAMA Oncology looked at the MyLungHealth tool, which can help identify patients who are eligible for lung cancer screening. The procedure is underused, with about 16% of eligible patients receiving the screening. The trial described in the writeup, which was conducted at the University of Utah and NYU Langone Health, showed how digital tools can help close gaps in care.
Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer deaths around the world. Screening is recommended for adults aged 50 to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the previous 15 years. Barriers to screening include inaccurate or missing tobacco use history in patient records, missed opportunities to order screening, and lack of patient awareness.
The tool includes a patient education component with both videos and text-based content. Clinicians are alerted when patients engage. The study had 30,000 participants. Patients who received an intervention using a patient-facing tool integrated with the EHR patient portal completed more screening tests.
The authors noted that the end point of having a study ordered was a limiting factor. They encourage more research to look at strategies to ensure that patients complete the recommended CT scan. Props to them for also noting the need to test this approach in other care delivery settings, such as community-based primary care offices, to make sure that the findings are generalizable and to maximize impact.
They also noted the need to adapt the approach to address the needs of underserved patients, especially since patient portal use was required and rates of such use can be variable across demographic groups.
Most of the healthcare leaders who I talk to are trying to trim their budgets due to declining reimbursement and continued cost pressures. Vizient recently released data on healthcare expenditures and I was surprised to see that pharmacy costs are no longer the fastest growing expense category. Facilities and IT lead again, with IT hardware and software at a 5.66% inflation rate. IT services are close behind at 4.5%, with facilities management at 4.13%.
Other interesting tidbits: with the rise in medication use to treat obesity, bariatric surgery volumes are down 20%. The inflation rate for laboratory services is predicted to be less than 2%, which surprised me given the continued evolution of testing platforms and multi-result panels.
I work with a physician who is vocal about the tools we have for patient care. He is outspoken why AI is causing the downfall of civilization. He collects examples where AI tools have been wrong, specifically in situations where patient harm could have resulted.
His message of the week includes an example of uploading an image to identify a mushroom that a hypothetical patient might have eaten. The tool incorrectly identified it as being safe to consume, when in fact it was quite toxic. I’ve never been a mushroom hunter, but I’ve worked at a poison control center, so I hope that mycophiles and foragers are using multiple sources to confirm edibility before they sample their finds.
I appreciate his point of view and the fact that he provides interesting examples that make us think. But we’re not going to put this particular genie back in the bottle anytime soon.
One of my colleagues who is more accepting of AI told me about something called Moltbot, which apparently underwent a renaming in the time it took me to find time to research it. Now called OpenClaw, it’s an AI agent that goes beyond chatting and starts taking action. The solution is seeing rapid adoption given the fact that it’s free and runs locally. The tool can run using either ChatGPT or Claude models and can be assigned a vibe to embody as it goes about its work, which might involve executing commands or making changes to files.
The writeup in Scientific American had me chuckling as it noted that the tool “follows almost any order like a well-paid mercenary.” I’m curious about its potential, but leery of some of the risks as far as privacy and access. If you’ve given it a try, drop us a line.
One of our local care delivery organizations is looking to rebrand. I’m a little surprised because it has had no significant mergers or acquisitions that would indicate a responsible use of funds or a need to avoid confusion. It seems like more of a vanity project since the organizations have already been linked for decades.
They are apparently doing marketing outreach to local physicians, asking their opinions on logo and color combinations to see which have the most impact or best represent the partnership. I’m not sure if they’re also reaching out to patients for their opinions, but I would be curious to see how those might differ from those of the physician community.
Bottom line, however, is that this makes me a little angry. The organization’s cheapskate tactics have negatively impacted patient care in recent years. I wish they would spend the money on issues that directly impact patient care and improve the health of the community versus trying to look better than their competitors.
Has your organization been through a rebranding effort? Did it deliver the outcomes it promised or was it not worth the cost and effort? Leave a comment or email me.
Email Dr. Jayne.
It’s so funny watching Lotus Health get 40 million in the same week Carbon Health declares bankruptcy. There’s a sucker…