Today’s newsletter is brought to you by: Bridge

Data on how virtual care companies grow, get paid, and reach patients is fragmented—making it hard to get a clear view of the industry.

Bridge, the platform companies like Found and Neura Health use to launch nationwide insurance coverage, is addressing that through its flagship State of Virtual Care report. It will combine an executive survey, a patient survey, and Bridge’s proprietary data to benchmark what’s happening across the industry.

Virtual care executives who complete the 10-minute survey will gain early access (plus the chance to score some sweet new tech!).

If you're interested in partnering with Health Tech Nerds, let us know!

AI ASSISTANTS

AI personal assistants and healthcare’s front door

On Wednesday, I had a fascinating conversation with Lorikeet’s Co-founder, Steve Hind, about the state of AI customer support in digital health. One part of the conversation that has stayed with me over the past few days is how they are starting to see personal assistant tools, like Instinct, reaching out to telehealth vendors on behalf of consumers.

I’m sure most folks reading this have seen some of the social media buzz around Instinct. Inc highlighted one of the most notable examples, telling the story of the VC who told his Instinct assistant to “Get me a res at 4 charles.” 4 Charles is apparently a hard reservation to get in NYC, but Instinct nonetheless took care of the task. It also got the VC temporarily banned from Resy for violating its terms of service, as Instinct was hitting Resy’s API roughly 200 times an hour around the clock until it secured the reservation.

The VC shared this perspective on the situation with Inc, which I think summarizes the argument in support of using AI for these sorts of use cases well:

“If you use an AI assistant to book a dinner you actually plan to attend, I don’t see why that’s different from a wealthy person having an executive assistant do the same thing,” he said. “If you’re securing reservations to flip them on a secondary market, that shouldn’t be allowed, whether a bot or a human is doing it.” 

Source: Inc article

It’s a reasonable point he makes. Now, back to healthcare topics, in my conversation about Lorikeet, Steve shared that some of their telehealth customers are starting to see signs that Instinct is showing up in customer service emails on behalf of consumers, negotiating discounts for their humans. And, perhaps not surprisingly, they are seemingly very good at finding any possible available discount, while also demonstrating limitless patience when a human might otherwise be deterred.

Then on Thursday, Ferry Health emerged from stealth with $9 million in funding to build an AI personal assistant focused on health tasks, including scheduling appointments. It’ll make the phone calls to provider groups for you until it schedules an appointment. Now, this is going to be a challenging problem to solve, and it won’t be done overnight, but it seems to me indicative of how fast this is all moving.

Meanwhile, I’m left scratching my head, wondering what happens as AI agents take over the “4 Charles” equivalent use cases for healthcare. What will it look like the first time care delivery organizations experience an AI personal assistant reaching out seeking to negotiate a bill, with unlimited patience to read through pricing files and the ability to consume information on the internet? It’s clearly starting to happen for telehealth vendors, so it seems like it’s only a matter of time here.

As I chatted with Steve about, it seems worth contemplating a future state in which the internet is primarily built for agents to interact with other agents on behalf of their humans, and the various implications that has for the front door to healthcare services.

NEWS

Oscar’s Investor Day and its second act as Lucie

I spent my Wednesday listening to Oscar’s Investor Day, which made the case that it is building the leading platform for the individual healthcare market, with Oscar Insurance as its ACA product offering today, while positioning Lucie as its consumer marketplace brand of the future.

If you want to go deep on the Investor Day, I wrote 3,300 words talking about how Oscar feels a bit like a tale of two businesses:

  • Oscar’s core ACA insurance business. Oscar deserves a lot of credit for its execution in the ACA over the last several years. Oscar expects to continue taking share in the ACA market while also expanding its margins, and makes a good case that it is well-positioned to do so. The challenge with the ACA narrative is a market-wide one, as the ACA seems to be growing slower than anticipated a few years ago, with the exception of CHOICE, where Oscar continues to lean in as it expects the market to grow to 2.5 million lives by 2029.

  • Oscar’s new consumer marketplace, Lucie. Lucie is Oscar’s latest attempt at building a platform business on top of the ACA offering. Despite a lot of time spent discussing Lucie, I didn’t leave the session with a great understanding of exactly what Lucie is, beyond a rebranded version of the ACA enrollment platform it acquired in 2025, INSXCloud. Oscar noted it isn’t expecting Lucie to contribute to its 2029 financial targets, which is reminiscent of previous efforts to commercialize +Oscar. The consumer marketplace future state is certainly an interesting idea, although it feels like Oscar is attempting to build an entirely separate business from its core ACA insurance offering.

It was then a bit confusing to see that Adweek ran an interview with Oscar’s CMO on Thursday describing how Oscar is going through a rebrand. Oscar Health is now the parent company of three brands: Oscar Insurance, Lucie, and Trove, Oscar’s in-house health insurance agency. The article refers to Trove as a high-intensity test bed for Lucie. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Trove was not mentioned at all. I don’t understand how Trove goes from not being mentioned on Wednesday to one of three core brands for the business on Thursday.

It all underscores the general sense I have leaving the conversation that Oscar is a company in search of its second act. It has built an impressive ACA insurance business, but that business is now maturing, and it needs to demonstrate growth potential to drive investor excitement. CHOICE certainly represents an interesting opportunity to continue growing the ACA insurance. But Oscar appears to think that the bigger opportunity for its second act lies in becoming a consumer marketplace, taking advantage of the broader macro shift happening in the industry.

AI

OpenEvidence quietly raises capital and gets into rare disease therapeutics

Well, that is a headline I didn’t expect to write this week.

OpenEvidence shared this week that it has partnered with Memorial Sloan Kettering. MSK will integrate OpenEvidence into its Epic workflows, and OpenEvidence will distribute MSK’s oncology knowledge base, known as OncoKB, to other clinicians. That piece of the partnership seems pretty straightforward, with MSK implementing OpenEvidence similar to other systems, while also seemingly monetizing its knowledge base with OpenEvidence distributing it on their behalf, similar to other content partnerships it has.

While that all seems straightforward for OpenEvidence, a Forbes article on the announcement also provided two other rather strange updates:

  1. At the bottom of a paragraph halfway through the article, Forbes reported that OpenEvidence quietly raised $250 million last week, led by Byers Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, at a $15 billion valuation. This funding round had not been publicly disclosed. Compare this to OpenEvidence’s last funding announcement, when it raised $250 million at a $12 billion valuation back in January. OpenEvidence issued a press release and trotted CEO Daniel Nadler out to outlets including CNBC for interviews. Recall that back in July, The Information reported that OpenEvidence had considered raising $250 million at a $20 billion valuation. So depending on how you look at OpenEvidence’s valuation, this could either be seen as a 25% increase or a 25% decrease. The quiet nature of this announcement seems telling.

  2. The Forbes piece also noted that with this deal, OpenEvidence now intends to enter the drug development space and develop its own oncology therapies. It expects to launch its first clinical trial before the end of the year, focusing on cancer treatments for rare diseases. I’m sorry, but what? Here’s a quote from Nadler, suggesting he doesn’t want to compete with Lilly, but rather is focused on developing drugs that don’t work for their business model:

“We are not going to compete with Lilly or Pfizer to do 10,000 patient nation-scale trials. We’re going to go after the stuff that they are not doing, and maybe can’t do, because it doesn’t work with their business model. And we can do it because we have the economies of scale in finding these patients”

Source: OpenEvidence CEO Daniel Nadler in Forbes

I’ll leave it to your imagination to work through why a company that seemingly had so much momentum only months ago is now taking capital at a reported 25% discount to offers it had previously turned down, while also shifting its focus to rare disease drug development.

It’s worth juxtaposing this shift with the momentum Doximity shared on its most recent earnings call, as it lends credence to the idea that health systems are indeed interested in a more enterprise-grade offering and that OpenEvidence is perhaps hitting a ceiling in its core business, leading it to search for new narratives to drive revenue growth. Certainly, this shift would seem to accomplish that, given the excitement around leveraging AI for drug development. My skepticism grows, and I am left wondering whether this is a signal that we’re past the peak for OpenEvidence.

ACCESS

5 new ACCESS tracks: heart failure, COPD, SUD, tobacco cessation, and additional MSK conditions

by Martin Cech

At an event in D.C. earlier this week, CMS expanded the ambit of its moonshot program seeking to manage chronic disease in Original Medicare in a deflationary manner, adding heart failure, COPD, SUD, tobacco cessation and additional MSK conditions to the ACCESS model. Also announced: a participant directory which shows that 39 of the 160+ announced vendors are already up and running, and additional payers have pledged to adopt the model outside of Original Medicare.

For each of these new tracks, a handful of startups doing really interesting work in the space immediately come to mind; e.g. in SUD, Boulder Care, Bicycle Health, & Ophelia are all candidates on paper and operate on Medicaid rates. But if the first ACCESS rate announcements are an indicator, I suspect the SUD rates will be an order of magnitude (at least!) lower than what they’re billing today.

Which isn’t a knock on either the companies or the model. ACCESS is attempting something incredibly ambitious: defeating the pernicious iron triangle with rates so low that they require AI-driven productivity gains. As I’ve commented before*, I am skeptical that it will be successful, but very much glad that we as a country are attempting it, and am rooting hard for the success of the model and the companies that participate.

*Martin wrote this section, so yell at him if you disagree. Also, worth checking out the recently published guest post from Bryan Sivak, Managing Partner at Evidenced, on CMMI and how it encourages experimentation.

CEO, Research Safety Startup, at Fitzroy Health, a health tech venture studio.
Equity w/ $150K Base | Remote (2-3 days monthly travel)

Chief of Staff at CenterWell Senior Primary Care, Humana’s care delivery arm.
$168K - $231K | Remote

Head of Platforms at Thatch, a CHOICE platform for employers.
$190K - $210K | Remote

VP, Commercial at UpDoc, an FDA-cleared autonomous clinical AI platform.
On-site (SF)

AI Operations at Forus (fka Tandem), a specialty pharmaceutical network.
$100K - $270K | On-site (NYC)

Contact us to feature roles in our newsletter.

Other Top Headlines

  • SCAN Health Plan partnered with Walmart to launch a co-branded Medicare Advantage plan in two states. If you’re experiencing a sense of deja vu, join me, as this news is quite similar to the announcement a month ago that SCAN is partnering with Costco to launch Costco-branded plans in two states. The Costco partnership was in three markets with 5 million Medicare enrollees; the Walmart partnership is targeting markets with 2 million enrollees. Walmart is integrating its AI wellness and nutrition platform, Everyday Health Signals, into the offering. This marks Walmart’s third co-branded MA partnership announcement in the past six years, following a ten-year collaboration with UHG announced four years ago and before that, a co-branded health plan with Clover Health announced in 2020. Walmart has had a long history of attempting to enter the healthcare space with limited success. It is not immediately obvious to me what is different this go-around for Walmart (beyond the plan partner, but I will be curious to keep an eye on any signals that this relationship is developing differently.

  • Walmart also shared this week that it is piloting a new GLP-1-focused health coach role for pharmacists in six rural locations over the next six months. The role is broader than just GLP-1s, as it’ll also offer support for maternity and other conditions. Walmart noted that the role will have no prescribing responsibilities; it’ll just be there to support customers. I’d be curious to see the business case behind this rollout — it’s not immediately obvious to me how Walmart will make the math work of moving a pharmacist into what sounds like a health coach role given the relative salaries. I’m generally a believer that pharmacists have a really interesting role to play in the future of rural healthcare, although I’d imagine that generally revolves around expanding “top of license” roles for pharmacists, where this feels almost like the opposite.

  • Per Modern Healthcare, HCSC sent a notice to brokers on Thursday that it will exit several of its Medicare Advantage plans in 2027, affecting 6% of its membership. HCSC purchased Cigna’s Medicare Advantage business, along with CareAllies, for $3.3 billion back in 2024. It appears HCSC will be focusing more on HMO plan designs, as well as D-SNPs and C-SNPs, reflecting a trend we’re seeing more commonly in the market as plans prioritize profitable plan offerings.

  • Alignment Healthcare’s stock plunged over 30% this week, although it’s not quite clear to us here why. Alignment spoke at the Baird conference on Tuesday, with the headline being that it didn’t feel it was prudent to give any updates on the Stars plan period 1 window, noting that with everything going on in Stars, it doesn’t want to “poke the bear”, with the bear being CMS here. It seems the cut points will make performance harder in Stars moving forward, and so we will be watching closely when the data come out in mid-October, as perhaps the stock move this week is indicative of general market skittishness. That, or this is just the UChicago grad in me still trying to convince myself that markets are at least somewhat efficient.

  • Waystar is reportedly exploring strategic alternatives, including going private. It has engaged Evercore and Barclays to manage the process. The news drove Waystar’s stock up 8% on Tuesday, although it is still trading down roughly 30% over the last year. Waystar is currently trading at a $5.1 billion market cap, with analysts noting that this exploration isn’t a surprise given recent market activity in the RCM landscape. I’d imagine Thoreau would be at the top of the list for any banker here, given its recent investment in Ensemble (and as of Friday, Penelope, see below), coupled with its earlier aspirations to build a $30+ billion HCIT platform.

  • New Mountain Capital sold a “significant minority” stake in Datavant, a data platform for healthcare organizations, to two private equity firms, Neuberger and KKR. Recall that Datavant was expected to be one of the centerpieces of the $30 billion HCIT platform it originally envisioned acquiring from New Mountain.

Funding Announcements

  • Angle Health, an AI-native level-funded health plan for employers, raised $600 million at a $2.7 billion valuation. A European mid-market PE fund, Virtuvian Partners, led the round. The funding was $200 million of capital for the business and $400 million in a secondary offering. Angle serves 5,000 customers with plans available in 47 states, reporting 120% YoY growth and four straight quarters of EBITDA and GAAP Net Income profits. Angle reports median YoY rate increases for employers of 5% to 7%, compared to an 18% median increase that small and medium-sized businesses are generally facing. Angle appears to have roughly doubled its business since it last raised funding in December 2025, when it reported having 3,000 employer customers. It’s yet another indicator of the momentum in the employer market around alternative plan design concepts helping employers address cost increases.

  • Thatch, a platform for CHOICE (formerly ICHRA) plans, raised $108 million at a $1 billion valuation. Thatch reports having ~5,000 employers using its platform, while industry data suggests there are around 12,000 employers offering CHOICE plans. It’s worth noting the strategic partners in the round, including Eli Lilly, ADP Ventures, and Paychex, as Thatch has rolled out a new marketplace that helps employees spend their healthcare dollars on services like Lyra and Function Health. I’d imagine the underwriting case behind Thatch’s valuation views it as a consumer marketplace, much broader than the current CHOICE offering it has been focused on. In some ways, the narrative feels very similar to the business Oscar is attempting to build with Lucie.

  • Penelope, a platform that tracks payer policies, raised $100 million. Thoreau, Matt Holt’s infrastructure platform, led the round. The press release notes that Penelope will be part of Thoreau’s platform, which is attempting to build a real-time infrastructure layer for payments and clinical decisions. Penelope currently tracks policies from payers covering 200 million Americans, across 15,000 procedures and drug codes.

  • Nara Health, a TPA for small employers, raised $10 million. Khosla Ventures led the round. A customer quote in the press release notes that Nara helped a small employer (200 to 500 employees per LinkedIn) move from a level-funded plan design to a self-insured plan, with the employer noting that its benefits costs are down 55% YoY with this plan design, versus a 27% proposed renewal increase on the level-funded plan. It’s interesting to note the employer is saying their benefits cost is down 55%, and not that underlying medical expenses are down 55%. I’d be curious what is happening to the underlying medical expenses for employees and, assuming those aren’t down 55%, how this change is going over for employees at an organization like that.

  • Ferry Health, an AI-powered personal assistant for healthcare, raised $9 million from a group of investors. Given Instinct's recent success, I can imagine VC interest in funding models like this is sky high right now. Ferry, which launched in 2024, is focused on helping patients find and schedule appointments by automating calls to provider practices. Ferry notes it has partnered with health systems, health plans, and care navigation platforms, and that through these partnerships, over 1 million patients have access to Ferry. It expects that to grow 5x by year-end. As mentioned above, it will be fascinating to watch how quickly these personal assistants roll out for healthcare use cases.

What I’m Reading

  • I thought it was interesting to see the New York Times covering what must surely be a hot debate in DC about how HHS and other federal institutions are pacing the rate of clinical AI change internally. The article discusses concerns about the risks of AI in clinical care and notes the influence Silicon Valley appears to have on the federal government’s thinking on this issue. The article mentions that discussions have been underway within the administration about paying AI doctors 60% to 80% of what human doctors earn, which offers a clear glimpse into how the government might reimburse clinical AI in the future. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where this moves forward pretty quickly once the FDA figures out how to regulate AI more generally.

Want to comment or share feedback?

Login or Subscribe to participate

If this newsletter was forwarded to you, subscribe here or see more from Health Tech Nerds.