Early in the book, Nosta writes, “The solved can never touch the whole.”  That line lingers. It captures the essence of his argument. AI can solve, generate, synthesize, and accelerate. Yet something about the human experience of thinking, the struggle, the friction, the meaning-making, exists beyond resolution.

This tension defines the book. It is not anti-technology. Nosta is deeply engaged with AI and candid about its value. He describes large language models as tools that “move faster and connect more disparate concepts than our minds could ever manage on their own.”  He is equally clear that this capability introduces a subtle risk. We may begin to outsource not just tasks, but thought itself.

That distinction matters more than many may be willing to admit.

From Tools to Thought

One of the most compelling contributions of The Borrowed Mind is its framing of AI not as the next step in computing, but as a turning point in cognition. Nosta traces a clear arc. Gutenberg unlocked words. Google unlocked facts. AI, he argues, is unlocking thought. 

That progression is elegant, yet also unsettling. Words and facts could be externalized without fundamentally altering the structure of human reasoning. Thought is different. It is intimate. It is identity. It is how we become.

Nosta reminds us that thinking once required effort, a type of natural friction that created sparks of innovation. “The distance between question and answer created space for our discernment.”  Within that space, judgment formed, curiosity deepened, and understanding took root.

AI compresses that distance. It removes friction. It delivers coherence with remarkable speed.  One of the book’s most important insights emerges here. Coherence is not the same as understanding.

Nosta introduces the concept of “anti-intelligence,” describing it as “fluency without understanding. Coherence without experience.”  AI does not think. It mirrors the structure of thinking. It produces language that resembles reasoning without sharing its origin.

In health, where evidence, interpretation, and judgment must coexist, this distinction is not academic. It is operational. It shapes how clinicians trust tools, how leaders deploy them, and how patients ultimately experience care.

The Seduction of the Socratic Mirror

One of the most original sections of the book is Nosta’s description of the “Socratic Mirror.” He draws a parallel between classical dialogue and modern AI interaction. Socrates asked questions to surface the truth. AI, in a different way, reflects our thinking back to us, reframed, extended and sometimes clarified.

Nosta writes that the model “…does not tell me what to think but creates the conditions under which my own thinking could deepen.” This is where the book moves beyond critique and into possibility.

Used well, AI becomes a cognitive partner. It expands perspective, accelerates exploration, and invites iteration. In clinical research, patient engagement, and system design, this capacity holds enormous promise.

Nosta does not romanticize the relationship. He recognizes its asymmetry. The model has no interior life. It does not ponder. It does not carry consequence. It does not bear responsibility. That responsibility remains human.

Rethinking the Fear of Displacement

A persistent anxiety runs beneath every conversation about AI. Many fear it will become a job slayer, a force that displaces rather than elevates human contribution. That concern is understandable, yet not new.

Every meaningful advance in technology has reshaped how people work. The wheel did not eliminate labor. It redefined movement. The stethoscope did not replace physicians. It extended their ability to listen and interpret. The tollbooth transponder did not end transportation roles. It changed the flow and focus of human involvement. Each innovation shifted roles, demanded new skills, and expanded what people could do.  AI belongs in that lineage.

What distinguishes this moment is not the elimination of work, but the redistribution of cognitive effort. The real risk is not that machines will think for us, but that people may become less inclined to think for themselves. Nosta’s warning is subtle yet profound. Surrendering curiosity, judgment, and reflection to systems that generate answers with ease risks dulling the very faculties that define human intelligence.

This is why The Borrowed Mind is such an important read at this moment. It does not dismiss concerns around job displacement. It reframes it. The central challenge is not protecting roles as they exist today, but strengthening the uniquely human capacities no system can replicate. Creativity, discernment, ethical reasoning, and the ability to navigate ambiguity are not diminished by AI. They become more essential.

The book offers reassurance without complacency. The future of work will favor those who sharpen their thinking, engage deeply with ideas, and remain active participants in their own intellectual development. The machine is not the adversary. Neglecting the development of one’s own mind is a danger.

Composite Intelligence and the Limits of the Machine

Nosta introduces “composite intelligence” to describe the interaction between human and machine cognition. Composite does not mean blended into sameness. It means distinct contributions working in concert. The model brings speed and breadth. The human brings depth.

This triad becomes one of the most useful frameworks in this book. AI excels in velocity and scale. Depth, the slow transformation of understanding, remains human. As Nosta writes, “Models do not ponder.” 

In health, this distinction is profound. Data can inform. Algorithms can suggest. The act of deciding, especially in moments of uncertainty, requires something more. It requires what Nosta elevates as the defining human contribution. Virtue.

Drawing on Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom, Nosta reminds us that judgment is forged through experience, consequence, and accountability. A model can generate options. It cannot live with outcomes.

This is where the book resonates most deeply for those working in health. Intelligence is becoming abundant. Discernment is becoming scarce and, therefore, more valuable.

The Risk of the Borrowed Mind

The book’s title is not metaphorical. It is a warning. Nosta argues that as engagement with AI deepens, internal dialogue begins to change. The model becomes a cognitive tuning fork, subtly shaping how questions are framed, how ideas are explored, and how answers are anticipated. This dynamic is not inherently negative. It can elevate thinking, accelerate learning, and make complex domains more accessible. Dependency remains the concern.

Reliance on generated thought risks weakening the muscle of original thinking. Access can be mistaken for understanding. Individuals may become, in Nosta’s words, “cognitive clones.” 

This concern is particularly relevant in health ecosystems already strained by time, complexity, and administrative burden. The temptation to offload cognitive work will be strong. The discipline to remain intellectually engaged will be essential.

A Book About AI That Is Not About AI

What makes The Borrowed Mind stand apart is that it is not ultimately about technology. It is about humanity. Nosta writes, “This book is not really about technology. It is about you.”  That idea anchors this work.

Readers are challenged to consider what it means to remain “the authors of our own minds.”  Not passive recipients of generated insight, but active participants in meaning-making.

This question sits at the center of the health ecosystem’s future. As AI becomes embedded in clinical workflows, research, and patient engagement, the issue is not whether it will improve efficiency. It will.

The deeper question is whether it will deepen humanity or dilute it. Will it create space for clinicians to think more deeply, connect more meaningfully, and act more wisely? Or will it create a system that values speed over reflection, output over understanding, and coherence over truth?

Nosta offers no simple answers. He offers a framework for asking better questions.

The post “The Borrowed Mind” – Reclaiming Thought in an Age That Wants to Do It For Us appeared first on Medika Life.

This story also ran on NBC News. See below.

West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency enrolls nearly 215,000 people — state workers, as well as their spouses and dependents. The new law, which will take effect June 10, will allow plan members who have been approved for a course of treatment to pursue an alternative, medically appropriate treatment of equal or lesser value without the need for another approval from the state-based health plan.

“This legislation is rooted in a simple principle: if a treatment has already been approved, patients should be able to pursue a medically appropriate alternative without being forced to start the process over again — especially when it does not cost more,” Gov. Patrick Morrisey said in a statement after signing the bill into law on March 31.

“This is about common sense, compassion, and trusting patients and their doctors to make the best decisions for their care,” he said.

Delegate Laura Kimble, the Republican from Harrison County who introduced the legislation, told KFF Health News the measure offers “a rational solution” for patients facing “the most irrational and chaotic time of their lives.”

From Arizona to Rhode Island, at least half of all state legislatures have taken up bills this year related to prior authorization, a process that requires patients or their medical team to seek approval from an insurer before proceeding with care. These state efforts come as patients across the country await relief from prior authorization hurdles, as promised by dozens of major health insurers in a pledge announced by the Trump administration last year.

The West Virginia law was inspired by Eric Tennant, a coal-mining safety instructor from Bridgeport who died on Sept. 17 at age 58. In early 2025, the Public Employees Insurance Agency repeatedly denied him coverage of a $50,000 noninvasive cancer treatment, called histotripsy, that would have used ultrasound waves to target, and potentially shrink, the largest tumor in his liver. His family didn’t expect the procedure to eradicate the cancer, but they hoped it would buy him more time and improve his quality of life. The insurer said the procedure wasn’t medically necessary and that it was considered “experimental and investigational.”

Related coverage

After Series of Denials, His Insurer Approved Doctor-Recommended Cancer Care. It Was Too Late.

Eric Tennant’s doctors recommended histotripsy, which would target, and potentially destroy, a cancerous tumor in his liver. But by the time his insurer approved the treatment, Tennant was no longer considered a good candidate. He died in September. Read More

Becky Tennant, Eric’s widow, told members of a West Virginia House committee in late February that she submitted medical records, expert opinions, and data as part of several attempts to appeal the denial. She also reached out to “almost every one of our state representatives,” asking for help.

Nothing worked, she told lawmakers, until KFF Health News and NBC News got involved and posed questions to the Public Employees Insurance Agency about Eric’s case. Only then did the insurer reverse its decision and approve histotripsy, Tennant said.

“But by then, the delay had already done its damage,” she said.

Within one week of the reversal in late May, Eric Tennant was hospitalized. His health continued to decline, and by midsummer he was no longer considered a suitable candidate for the procedure. “The insurance company’s decision did not simply delay care. It closed doors,” his wife said.

Had the new law been in effect, Kimble said, Tennant could have undergone histotripsy without preapproval, because it was a less expensive alternative to chemotherapy, which his insurer had already authorized. The bill was passed unanimously by the state legislature in March.

U.S. health insurers argue that most prior authorization requests are quickly, if not instantly, approved. AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group, says prior authorization acts as an important guardrail in preventing potential harm to patients and reducing unnecessary health care costs. But denials and delays tend to affect patients who need expensive, time-sensitive care, studies have shown.

The practice has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, particularly after the fatal shooting of a health insurance executive in New York City in late 2024. Americans rank prior authorization as their biggest burden when it comes to getting health care, according to a poll published in February by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Samantha Knapp, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Department of Administration, would not answer questions about the law’s financial impact on the state. “We prefer to avoid any speculation at this time regarding potential impact or actions,” Knapp said.

In a fiscal note attached to the bill, Jason Haught, the Public Employees Insurance Agency’s chief financial officer, said the law would cost the agency an estimated $13 million annually and “cause member disruption.”

West Virginia isn’t an outlier in targeting prior authorization. By late 2025, 48 other states, in addition to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already had some form of a prior authorization law — or laws — on the books, according to a report published in December by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Many states have set up “gold carding” programs, which allow physicians with a track record of approvals to bypass prior authorization requirements. Some states establish a maximum number of days insurance companies are allowed to respond to requests, while others prohibit insurance companies from issuing retrospective denials after a service has already been preauthorized. There are also a crop of new state laws seeking to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in prior authorization decision-making.

Meanwhile, prior authorization bills introduced this year across the country, including in Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey, have been supported by politicians from both parties.

“Republicans in conservative states see health care as a vulnerability for the midterm elections, and so, unsurprisingly, you’ll see some action on this,” said Robert Hartwig, a clinical associate professor of risk management, insurance, and finance at the University of South Carolina. “They realize that they’re not really going to get much action at the federal level given the degree of gridlock we’ve already seen.”

Last summer, the Trump administration announced a pledge signed by dozens of health insurers vowing to reform prior authorization. The insurers promised to reduce the scope of claims that require preapproval, decrease wait times, and communicate with patients in clear language when denying a request.

Consumers, patient advocates, and medical providers have expressed skepticism that companies will follow through on their promises.

Becky Tennant is skeptical, too. That’s why she advocated for the West Virginia bill.

“Families should not have to beg, appeal, or go public just to access time-sensitive care,” she told lawmakers. Tennant, who sees the bill’s passage as bittersweet, said she thought her husband would have been proud.

During Eric’s final hospital stay, Tennant recalled, right before he was discharged to home hospice care, she asked him whether he wanted her to keep fighting to change the state agency’s prior authorization process.

“‘Well, you need to at least try to change it,’” she recalled her husband saying. “‘Because it’s not fair.’”

“I told him I would keep trying,” she said, “at least for a while. And so I am keeping that promise to him.”

—–

NBC News health and medical unit producer Jason Kane and correspondent Erin McLaughlin contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The post After Man’s Death Following Insurance Denials, West Virginia Tackles Prior Authorization appeared first on Medika Life.

Health systems are not stepping into artificial intelligence from a place of calm or control. In the United States, spending now exceeds $4.5 trillion, with a significant share tied up in administrative work that adds complexity more than clarity. Clinicians are caring for more patients, navigating more data and making more decisions under pressure than ever before. The system is stretched. Artificial intelligence is entering at a moment when change is no longer a choice.

The discussion drew on the experience of three leaders who are not observing this shift. They are guiding it. Hal Wolf leads HIMSS, influencing digital health policy and implementation across more than 100 countries. Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Chair of Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School, has spent four decades defining how data informs clinical care. Ran Balicer, MD, Chief Innovation Officer at Clalit Health Services, operates within one of the world’s most integrated health systems, where data and care are aligned across generations.

These are not just star panelists. They are system-wide architects.  What emerged from the hour-long conversation was not what artificial intelligence can do. It was a recognition that it is already doing more than most systems are prepared to guide and govern.

Dr. Kohane captured the tension immediately. “I think that we have to worry about the fact that we’re going both too slow and too fast.”

That statement reflects a reality many leaders feel but rarely express. Governance takes time because it must. Patient safety, validation and accountability require structure. Practice moves in real time. Clinicians do not have the luxury of waiting for perfect systems.

“They’re so desperate to do right by their patients to use other resources,” Dr. Kohane adds.

That instinct is not a weakness. It reflects a commitment to doing what is right for the patient. When clinicians turn to external AI tools, they are seeking clarity, speed, and confidence in their decisions. Artificial intelligence is already present at the point of care, shaping how physicians assess information, validate thinking, and move forward. The system is not adopting AI. The system is catching up.

This creates a condition that is difficult to measure and even harder to manage. Different clinicians use different ChatGPT platforms. Those tools produce different answers. Different assumptions shape those answers. Over time, consistency erodes. The system begins to operate with multiple definitions of truth (and the risk of varied outcomes).

Dr. Kohane’s warning is not about misuse. It is about misguided permanence. “The worst outcome will be if the worst parts of medicine get concrete poured over it, by AI.”

Artificial intelligence does not fix a system; without leadership, it accelerates the integration of incorrect assumptions. If workflows are inefficient, they become more efficiently inefficient. If bias exists in data, it becomes more precise. If fragmentation defines care, it scales.

This is not a failure of technology. It is a mirror held up to system-wide leadership.

Hal Wolf, among the health sector’s leading policy and operational voices, grounded this moment in proven experience. Health care has seen this pattern before. When internet connectivity entered hospitals, clinicians moved faster than governance. They created access where it was needed. Systems responded later. Risks were discovered after adoption.

Artificial intelligence now follows that same trajectory, though at far greater speed and with far greater consequences. Web connectivity gave quick access to information. Artificial intelligence influences how that information is interpreted and acted upon.

“We have to go faster,” Mr. Wolf said. “But there needs to be structure around it.”

That is the leadership challenge of this moment. Speed without structure creates exposure. Structure without speed creates irrelevance. The tension between the two is not something to resolve. It is something to manage continuously.

The industry has predictably responded to artificial intelligence. It has started where risk is lowest and return is clearest. Documentation, scheduling and revenue cycle optimization have become the entry points. These applications reduce burden and improve efficiency. They are necessary. However, they are not transformational.

The shift occurs when artificial intelligence moves into clinical decision-making. At that point, the question is no longer whether the system works. The question becomes whether it should be trusted.

Who owns a decision informed by an algorithm? How is accuracy validated? What happens when a clinician disagrees with a recommendation? These are not technical questions. They are questions of accountability. Artificial intelligence does not assume responsibility. It does not carry consequence. That remains with leadership.

Dr. Balicer reframed the conversation, shifting how the room thought about artificial intelligence. “There’s no such thing as AI neutrality. Algorithms are just opinions embedded in code.”

That insight is easy to acknowledge and difficult to operationalize. Every model reflects choices. What data is included? What outcomes are prioritized? What trade-offs are accepted? Those decisions are embedded in the system, shaping how it interprets information.

When a health system adopts an AI tool, it is not simply implementing technology. It is adopting a perspective.

At Clalit Health Services, alignment across payer and provider creates a system where priorities are consistent. Even there, external AI models introduce new assumptions. Those assumptions may not align with the system’s goals. If leadership does not define its own values, it inherits someone else’s.

This becomes real in proactive care. Artificial intelligence enables systems to identify patients at risk before they present. It allows for earlier intervention, often improving outcomes.

It also creates a new kind of pressure. “The toughest choice is what not to do,” Dr. Balicer said.

That statement deserves more attention than it receives. Health care has been built around responding to need. Artificial intelligence introduces the ability to anticipate it. When every patient can be flagged, every risk predicted and every intervention suggested, the system is no longer constrained by insight. It is constrained by capacity.

Artificial intelligence expands what can be done. It does not expand who can do it. Leadership becomes the act of choosing who does what based on validated data.

There is a moment that captures this shift. Imagine a primary care physician starting the day not with a schedule of patients who have called for appointments, but with a list generated by AI identifying individuals who are likely to experience clinical complications in the next six months. Some will develop chronic conditions. Some will require hospitalization. Some can be helped now – preventively.

The physician cannot see them all. Artificial intelligence expands what is possible. Leadership decides what is essential and permissible.

The industry often responds to complexity with activity. Organizations pilot, test and explore. They engage broadly without committing deeply. This creates motion. It rarely creates progress. Pilots are nothing more than experiments. At some point, leadership must decide what to scale, what to stop and what defines value.

Hal Wolf grounded the conversation in discipline. Without a defined, shared objective, effort becomes noise. Pilots create learning, though they often avoid decision-making. Leadership requires clarity. What problem are we solving? What outcome defines success? What are we willing to prioritize? Without those answers, artificial intelligence adds another layer of complexity to an already complex system.

Dr. Kohane brought the conversation back to the discipline of leadership. It cannot remain abstract. It must be informed by experience.

“Go and pay a few bucks and use three or four of the models… get a feel for what this does,” Dr. Kohane advised.

That is not a call for technical fluency. It is a call for leadership proximity. Leaders cannot guide what they do not understand. Artificial intelligence does not behave consistently across models. It produces different answers, shaped by different assumptions. Without direct engagement, those differences remain hidden, and leadership becomes removed from the very decisions it is responsible for guiding.

This is where many organizations hesitate. Artificial intelligence feels complex and complexity invites delegation. At this moment, delegation creates distance. Leadership is required to move closer, not further away.

Artificial intelligence is not reducing the role of leadership. It is redefining it.

This is not a gradual transition. It is already underway. Artificial intelligence is embedded in workflows, shaping decisions and influencing behavior in real time. The system is adapting whether leadership is ready or not.

The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will shape the future of health. It will. The question is whether leadership will shape how it is applied.

Artificial intelligence will not fix health. It will scale whatever we allow it to touch. The question is whether it will scale what is best in health or what we have yet to fix.

The post AI Will Not Fix Health Care – Leadership Might appeared first on Medika Life.

History, however, offers a useful caution. Breakthrough technologies in medicine rarely achieve their full potential simply because they exist. Their real impact depends on whether the institutions responsible for health-care delivery know how to adopt them wisely, integrate them responsibly and align them with their mission to improve patient health.

Artificial intelligence now stands at that same threshold. The industry has moved beyond fascination with what algorithms can do and entered a more demanding phase: determining how these tools should be evaluated, governed, and integrated into the environments where care is delivered. At the same time, some health professionals are turning to AI – not to augment their knowledge – but assuming the information is patient-care ready.

Across the health ecosystem, leaders are discovering that the most important questions about artificial intelligence are not technological. They are organizational, ethical and operational. Which AI systems genuinely improve clinical decision-making? Which tools strengthen the efficiency of hospitals and health systems? Which innovations introduce complexity without delivering measurable benefit?

Answering those questions requires a perspective that bridges policy leadership, real-world care delivery, and the scientific foundations of biomedical informatics. That convergence of experience sits at the center of a “Views From the Top” mainstage discussion at the HIMSS Global Health Conference & Exhibition, where some 35,000 leaders whose work spans the global health ecosystem will examine how organizations can recognize the true value proposition of artificial intelligence applications before embedding them into health-care systems.

The perspectives shaping this discussion reflect three essential dimensions of responsible artificial intelligence in health: governance frameworks that guide innovation, operational insights from large-scale health care delivery, and scientific rigor grounded in biomedical informatics. Together, these vantage points illuminate the path from technological promise to practical value.

Governing Innovation in a Rapidly Changing Health Ecosystem

Digital transformation in health rarely succeeds simply because technology exists. It succeeds when organizations develop leadership frameworks capable of evaluating innovation, managing risk and aligning new tools with patient-centered goals.

Few leaders have observed the evolution of digital health across as many national systems and institutional environments as Hal Wolf, president and chief executive officer of HIMSS, Ran Balicer, MD, PhD, chief innovation officer of Clalit Health Services and Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, chair of biomedical informatics at Harvard Medical School. The three will step onto the mainstage at HIMSS to share their “View from the Top” in a session titled: “Recognizing the ‘Value Proposition’ Criteria While Selecting AI Applications.”

Through his work with global government health ministries, hospital networks, and technology innovators worldwide, Wolf has consistently emphasized that technological progress must be anchored in governance and trust.

“Digital health transformation is not about technology alone. It is about leadership, governance, and the trust that allows innovation to improve care,” Wolf has said in discussions about global digital health transformation.

Artificial intelligence intensifies this leadership challenge because its influence extends far beyond traditional clinical tools. AI systems increasingly operate across multiple layers of healthcare delivery. Some applications assist clinicians by analyzing medical data or suggesting treatment options. Others function within hospitals’ and health systems’ operational infrastructure, helping manage patient flow, prioritize diagnostic reviews, and allocate scarce resources.

These operational algorithms rarely capture headlines; however,  they shape the environment in which health care is delivered. Decisions about which cases are reviewed first, how clinicians allocate their attention, and how health systems manage capacity can profoundly influence patient outcomes.

For leaders responsible for health systems, artificial intelligence cannot be treated as simply another technological upgrade. It must be evaluated through governance structures capable of understanding how algorithms function, what assumptions shape their recommendations, and how their use aligns with institutional priorities.

Without that oversight, innovation risks amplifying complexity rather than improving care. Instead of informing, it can spread misinformation.

Aligning Artificial Intelligence With the Values of Medicine

Governance provides the policy foundation for responsible adoption of artificial intelligence, but real-world implementation reveals a second challenge: ensuring that AI systems operate effectively within healthcare delivery itself.

Large population health systems increasingly use advanced analytics to anticipate risk, manage chronic disease, and allocate clinical resources across diverse communities. Within these environments, artificial intelligence is no longer a theoretical innovation. It is already influencing how health organizations prioritize patients, coordinate care and deploy limited resources.

That operational perspective is central to Ran Balicer, MD, PhD, of Clalit Health Services, one of the world’s most advanced data-driven health systems. The Clalit integrated infrastructure connects hospitals, clinics, and community health programs through longitudinal datasets that support predictive analytics at the national scale.

Experience within such systems reinforces an important insight: artificial intelligence models do not function independently of human judgment. They reflect priorities embedded in their design and the assumptions guiding their deployment.

“Algorithms are opinions embedded in code,” Balicer has observed in discussions about the role of artificial intelligence in population health.

In practice, this means that AI systems interpret clinical data through frameworks shaped by human choices. The way a model defines risk, prioritizes cases, or recommends interventions reflects decisions about what matters most within a healthcare environment.

Those decisions carry ethical implications. When artificial intelligence helps determine which patients receive immediate attention or which cases are escalated for further review, transparency about how algorithms function becomes essential to maintaining trust among clinicians and patients alike. The scientific frontier of health-care AI reinforces that concern.

Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, who has also served as a co-author of the Institute of Medicine Report on Precision Medicine, which has served as the template for national efforts, has spent decades exploring how machine learning can advance medicine while preserving the judgment that defines clinical practice. His research emphasizes that artificial intelligence in healthcare must align with the ethical traditions and professional responsibilities of medicine.

“AI systems in medicine must ultimately reflect the values of the profession they serve,” Kohane has written in discussions about AI alignment in biomedical informatics.

This perspective highlights a crucial distinction between technological capability and clinical responsibility. Many AI models entering healthcare environments were originally designed for broader computational tasks rather than the nuanced realities of patient care. Medicine operates within a landscape shaped by uncertainty, empathy, and accountability, and technologies introduced into that environment must reflect those values.

Ensuring that artificial intelligence aligns with the principles guiding health-care delivery, therefore, represents one of the most important scientific and ethical challenges facing the future of health.

The Discipline Required to Make Innovation Matter

The health sector has experienced waves of technological enthusiasm before. Electronic health records promised seamless information exchange, but then introduced administrative burdens on health professionals when implemented without thoughtful workflow design. Data analytics promised unprecedented insight, but sometimes led to fragmentation when systems failed to communicate across institutions.

Artificial intelligence now stands at a similar moment in the evolution of health technology.

Its capabilities in supporting decision-making flow are extraordinary, yet realizing them will require disciplined leadership to evaluate, integrate and govern AI tools within health-care delivery systems. Health leaders must learn to ask deeper questions before embracing the next algorithmic breakthrough. What problem does this system truly solve? How does it strengthen clinical practice? What assumptions guide its recommendations? How does its use advance the mission of improving patient health?

These questions move the conversation beyond technological novelty toward operational practicality. It’s among the many reasons these three global leaders step to the HIMSS stage together.

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly reshape the health ecosystem in the years ahead. Its long-term impact, however, will not be determined solely by the sophistication of algorithms or the speed of technological progress. Along with how to leverage AI, ChatGPT and LLMs, users require heightened cognitive awareness.

It will be determined by whether the health community develops the discipline and ability required to translate innovation into systems that strengthen care, support clinicians and improve the health of the populations they serve.

The real story of artificial intelligence in health is no longer about what machines can do. It is about how wisely the health sector chooses to use them.

The post From AI Excitement to Execution: Why Health Leaders Must Now Master the “How” appeared first on Medika Life.

The country’s trajectory has been building for years. A fast-growing middle-income population, rising chronic disease burden, and expanding health infrastructure have created both demand and urgency. What is changing now is the environment in which innovation can move, driving faster approvals, a culture of collaboration, digital infrastructure and a government signaling policy readiness to engage global partners in shaping the next era of medicine.

The economic momentum is significant. The Indian health ecosystem has expanded from roughly $372 billion in 2023 to $638 billion in 2025, making it one of the fastest-growing major health markets in the world. The broader industry is expected to exceed $610 billion by 2026, fueled by rising insurance coverage, expanding hospital infrastructure, and growing demand for chronic disease management. Health growth in India continues at approximately 10–12 percent annually, well above the growth rates typical of mature markets, reflecting both rising access and structural transformation.

BIOAsia 2026 reflects this inflection point. The global gathering in Hyderabad, themed “TechBio Unleashed: AI, Automation & the Biology Revolution,” highlights the (bio)convergence of biology, data, and intelligent systems reshaping health worldwide. Organizers emphasize that the meeting aims to drive health transformation and reinforce India’s position as a leading global life sciences force. For multinational innovators, the message is increasingly clear: India is not only where innovation is deployed; it is also where it is developed. It is where innovation is increasingly defined. India has become a go-to market for multinational enterprises.

Policy Signals and Market Scale: From Opportunity to Strategic Partnership

India’s regulatory and policy environment is evolving in ways that matter deeply to multinational innovators. One pivotal shift came with the country’s decision to allow certain medicines approved in specified developed markets to launch without local clinical trials, a move designed to accelerate patient access while aligning more closely with global regulatory science. This policy shift reflected confidence in international data, a commitment to innovation, and recognition that faster access must remain central to national health strategy.

The scale of India’s pharmaceutical and life sciences market reinforces this transformation. The pharmaceutical sector reached approximately $68 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to more than $170 billion during the next decade, driven by expanding middle-income demand and strong domestic manufacturing. India already supplies roughly one-fifth of the world’s generic medicines. It produces the majority of global vaccines by volume, positioning the country as a central player in global health supply chains.

As Aman Gupta of SPAG/FINN wrote in Medika Life, “India’s health sector is undergoing a profound transformation, bolstered by government-led reforms and a favorable FDI regime. The allowance of 100% foreign direct investment through automatic routes in health and related sectors has already attracted global giants.” His observation reinforces a central reality for multinational innovators: India’s policy environment is increasingly designed not only to welcome global participation, but to encourage long-term strategic partnership in building the future of healthcare.

Investment trends tell the same story. Health and pharmaceutical private equity and venture investments have reached multi-billion-dollar levels annually. At the same time, India’s contract drug development and manufacturing sector is projected to exceed $22 billion within the next decade. These dynamics position India as a growth market and as a strategic partner across the innovation lifecycle from discovery and clinical development to manufacturing and global distribution.

Shakthi Nagappan, CEO of Telangana Life Sciences Foundation, captured this moment clearly, noting that BIOAsia arrives at a time when technology and biology are redefining healthcare and creating “unprecedented opportunities for innovation, investment, and impact.” The language reflects partnership rather than transaction, a signal that India is moving from market opportunity to strategic collaboration.

Digital Infrastructure, BIOAsia and the Multinational Innovation Imperative

India’s digital transformation may be its most potent catalyst for long-term health innovation. Unlike many mature systems, the country is building a national-scale digital health infrastructure designed to connect patients, providers, and health systems across a population of more than 1.4 billion people, with a rising middle class of 400 million.

The Global Digital Health Market is projected to grow from USD 288.55 billion in 2024 to USD 2,688 billion by 2035, expanding at a CAGR of 22.55% during 2025–2035. This surge is driven by the rapid adoption of AI-powered diagnostics, telemedicine, wearable devices, and data analytics solutions that are revolutionizing patient care and operational efficiency worldwide.

Hundreds of millions of citizens are already using digital health services, including telemedicine, electronic prescriptions, and remote care. The Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission is creating an interoperable national health ecosystem, enabling secure health records, improved care coordination, and population-scale data infrastructure that supports research, real-world evidence, and precision health.

For multinational companies, this digital backbone creates a uniquely strategic environment, enabling large-scale clinical research, faster pharmacovigilance, AI-supported health insights, and rapid deployment of innovation across diverse populations. India’s digital infrastructure is not simply modernizing health delivery. It is enabling national-scale transformation.

BIOAsia sits at the center of this conversation and convergence. The gathering reflects India’s ambition to lead at the intersection of biology, artificial intelligence, and scalable innovation. Leaders from industry, government, and science convene not only to discuss growth but to shape the next phase of global life sciences, where biology, data, and digital systems converge to influence global health.

One conference panel, among the many high-powered sessions, brings together global leaders in advanced therapeutics to explore how next-generation modalities are moving from discovery to scalable care. Panelists across biopharma, translational science, and hospital systems are examining progress in cell and gene therapies, mRNA, and radiopharmaceuticals, underscoring that innovation now depends as much on manufacturable scale and delivery as on scientific breakthrough. India’s expanding capabilities in clinical research and bioprocessing strengthen its role as a key partner in advancing next-generation therapies.

For multinational innovators, the implications are clear. Engagement in India now extends beyond commercialization. It calls for collaboration in research, investment in digital and scientific ecosystems, alignment with national health priorities and partnership in strengthening health delivery.

India’s Strategic Role in Global Health Innovation

India’s rise in global health innovation reflects the alignment of policy, market growth, digital infrastructure, and scientific capability forces that together are reshaping where and how healthcare innovation occurs.

For multinational companies, India now represents a full-spectrum innovation environment. It is a place to conduct clinical research across diverse populations, scale manufacturing and supply chains, deploy digital health at a national scale, and co-develop solutions addressing both local and global health challenges. Increasingly, India is not simply a recipient of innovation developed elsewhere. It is becoming a co-creator of next-generation health.

This shift changes the strategic equation. Market entry alone is no longer sufficient. Meaningful engagement requires partnership with policymakers, regulators, scientists, health providers, and digital health ecosystems. Organizations that invest in collaboration, align with national health priorities, and contribute to strengthening healthcare systems are most likely to succeed in India’s evolving landscape.

BIOAsia sets the stage for this transformation. It is more than a conference. It is a convergence of global health ambition, scientific capability, and policy momentum. The conversations taking place in Hyderabad mirror a broader reality: the geography of health innovation is expanding, and India is now central to its future.

For global health innovators, the question is no longer whether India matters. The question is how deeply they choose to engage in shaping what comes next.

The post India: The Growing Focal Point for Health Innovation appeared first on Medika Life.

Many private-sector investors are considering health in Africa. Maybe that’s no surprise; the African Development Bank says the Continent could almost double its GDP if health were better. Robert Appelbaum, though, thinks that many are interested in what Africa might export as well as the potential unlocked at home.

Appelbaum has advised multinational pharma companies through the most difficult episodes of the past three decades including the disputes over HIV medicines patents and the transfer of technology to African producers. He also provides legal and business counsel to billionaires who are household names. “Today, investors are looking at the African Continental Trade Agreement (AFCTA) and the commercialisation of African drugs and devices for use across the world,” he told me. “The AFCTA is making Africa into a legitimate manufacturing hub for the full gamut of manufacture from API [active pharmaceutical ingredients] through to fill and finish, whereas in the past we have been in the business of fill and finish,” he added.

The day before we spoke I had been to see the Biomedical Research Institute at Stellenbosch. It houses a network of 26 BSL-3 — highly secure — laboratories to handle infectious diseases samples. There are probably a third as many BSL-3 labs at Stellenbosch alone as there in all of China. The Biobank in the same facility has space for up to seven million samples and provides an exceptionally rapid way of looking back at the evolution of disease outbreaks. It was designed to allow another seven million to be stored when needed. To give an idea of how massive this is, the largest biobank in China can hold 10 million samples and the largest human biobank in Europe can keep 20 million. Maybe the most impressive statistic is that the Stellenbosch institute was completed for about €65 million, a fraction of what it would have cost in Europe.

Cost is not Africa’s only advantage: it has the kind of frugal innovation that hard-pressed European and American health systems need. “There is a huge amount of work taking place — more in devices and technology than in drug discovery. Africans are very innovative at creating for ourselves what does not already exist,” Appelbaum said. These are exactly the areas in which slow first-world innovation is holding back medicine: commissions on antimicrobial resistance assumed point-of-care diagnostics would by now have been able to differentiate between viral and bacterial illnesses and between different kinds of infectious bacteria. They cannot.

Pre-history gives Africa another advantage. As humans spread across the globe from Africa, we lost genetic diversity. It’s said that today there is more genetic diversity within Mozambique than between people in South Asia and people in Europe. In that vast genetic storehouse are hidden undiscovered clues to resisting and treating disease — clues that can be transformed into prevention, diagnosis and treatment by health innovators. As Africans have more access to health services, those genetic assets and liabilities will become more and more evident and accessible. This is a key aspect of the African Human Genome project and of South African agreements with commercial entities such as Illumina and MGI.

To spot the real life implications of these genetic patterns, to find population clusters and to identify possible genetic outliers, a country needs easy, secure access to massive numbers of records. The United Kingdom sees this as a competitive advantage for its four national health services while France’s La poste, the nation’s post office, is bringing together over 40 million patients’ referrals, visit reports and test results. These and other developed world efforts, though, are having to retrofit national analytical frameworks onto multiple old data systems and to pry data loose from academics and care systems with strong proprietorial instincts. African countries are building new national data systems from the bottom up with integration and analysis as part of the original design. Appelbaum thinks that Africa may again leapfrog over Western competitors, just as it did by introducing modern mobile telephony and mobile payment systems while legacy system owners slowed down adoption in Europe and the Americas.

Many think that Oracle has already honed in on the opportunity. It has partnered with the Tony Blair Institute to introduce vaccine tracking systems in Ghana, Rwanda and Sierra Leone and to promote them Continent-wide. Given the vast effort that Oracle continues to put into developing a nationwide repository of health records in the USA and the Gulf states, many see its efforts in Africa as a test run for much broader and more ambitious national health databases. African countries are not waiting. Kenya’s Afya Yangu platform is already operational in a third of the nation’s counties and provides portable individual records including medical history, prescriptions, lab results, and appointments for three million users. South Africa faces some of the same challenges as Europe in unifying or supplanting existing systems but its Health Patient Registration System has registered over 57 million patients across more than 3,000 facilities as a foundation for portable electronic health records. Africa’s health data is a vast opportunity which governments will need to use as the basis for investment.

Private sector health investors are indispensable to Africa, Appelbaum thinks. In the US and Europe, they find far more R&D than governments and foundations combined; that must be the pattern in Africa if the Continent is to not just meet its own health needs but to develop innovations for the world.

The post Why Sophisticated Investors Really Care about Health in Africa appeared first on Medika Life.

In later life, weight loss can be a double‑edged sword. A few pounds off the joints can be both helpful and risky. Shedding a few pounds may ease joint pain, but losing weight without meaning to can be a warning sign. Fast weight loss can also lead to muscle loss, which is key to staying independent.

Experts also point out practical issues: injections need good vision, steady hands, and a regular routine. Stomach and bowel side effects can be tougher for seniors, especially if they’re already losing weight without trying. complicate life for older adults — and how to approach them with a “safety first” mindset.

1) Aging changes the risk–benefit math (even when a drug “works”)

Older adults, especially those who are frail or have several health issues, are often left out of clinical trials. This is important because average trial results may not match the real-life experience of a 75-year-old who takes several medications and needs to manage appetite and hydration.

A 2024 debate paper on GLP-1 drugs in older patients, including those with kidney disease, points out that limited trial data and multiple medications make it harder to judge safety and effectiveness for frailer seniors. Clinicians need to make decisions based on each person, not just on averages. In simple terms, the real question is not whether GLP-1s are good or bad, but whether they help this specific older person with their unique health needs.

There’s another subtle issue: in later life, the goal is often less about chasing an ideal weight and more about protecting function—walking safely, rising from a chair, maintaining balance, staying hydrated, and maintaining enough strength to live independently. So for older adults, the most important question isn’t “How much weight will I lose?” It’s “What will this do to my strength, my nutrition, and my ability to stay steady on my feet?”

2) Common side effects can become serious for older adults.

GLP-1s often cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and less appetite. Younger people may find these symptoms unpleasant but manageable. For older adults, though, these issues can quickly lead to dehydration, dizziness, and falls, especially if they also take blood pressure medicines or diuretics.

Current FDA labeling for semaglutide products highlights this pathway: stomach and bowel side effects can lead to volume depletion, and acute kidney injury has occurred, including in postmarketing reports. The label advises monitoring kidney function when starting or increasing doses in people who develop severe gastrointestinal reactions, and it notes that dehydration has been part of reported kidney injury cases.

This is how many real-life problems start: a few days of not being able to eat or drink much, then feeling lightheaded, falling, or needing emergency care for dehydration. Older adults may not feel as thirsty and may have less ability to recover. So, it’s important to watch hydration, electrolytes, blood pressure, and kidney function, especially in the first months of treatment and after increasing the dose.

3) Muscle and frailty: losing weight does not always mean better health.

The headline benefits of GLP‑1s often focus on pounds lost. But the body doesn’t lose only fat. Lean mass (including muscle) can drop, too. This matters in older adults because age‑related muscle loss (sarcopenia) is already common — and it’s tightly linked to frailty, falls, and loss of independence.

A 2025 mini-review on older adults warns that starting and stopping GLP-1s repeatedly can change body composition, sometimes leading to ‘sarcopenic obesity’ — having too much fat and too little muscle. The authors are not saying to avoid GLP-1s, but to remember that weight loss does not always mean better health for older people.

More pointedly, a 24‑month retrospective cohort study in older adults with type 2 diabetes reported that semaglutide use was associated with muscle loss and functional decline, particularly at higher doses and in patients who already had sarcopenia. The authors emphasize individualized risk–benefit assessment and the need for monitoring and intervention.

If you’re reading this as an older adult, it may help to translate the research into plain questions to bring to your next appointment: “If I lose weight, how will we protect my muscles?” “How will we check whether I’m getting weaker?” “What would make us stop or change course?” An older adult who becomes “smaller but weaker” has not gained health — only risk.

4) Other complications: gallbladder, pancreas, vision, and low blood sugar

Gallbladder and bile duct problems can be an unexpected issue. Losing weight already increases the risk of gallstones, and GLP-1s seem to increase it even further. A large review found that using GLP-1 drugs increases the chance of gallbladder or bile duct disease, especially at higher doses, for longer periods, or when used for weight loss.

For older adults, this might present as sudden pain in the upper right side of the belly, nausea, fever, or pain spreading to the back or shoulder. These symptoms should be checked by a physician right away.

GLP-1 drug labels also warn about the risk of sudden pancreatitis and say to get medical help for severe, ongoing belly pain. The overall risk is low, but older adults may have additional risk factors, such as gallstones or high triglycerides. Severe belly pain in later life should always be checked quickly.

Then there’s the risk of blood sugar dropping too low. GLP‑1s don’t usually cause hypoglycemia by themselves, but the risk rises when combined with insulin or sulfonylureas. Semaglutide labeling warns that concomitant use with an insulin secretagogue or insulin may increase the risk of hypoglycemia and may require dose reductions of those agents.

In older adults, hypoglycemia can be particularly dangerous: it can cause falls, confusion, fainting, and cardiac stress. It’s also easier to miss, because symptoms may look like “just being tired” or “a little off today,” especially in someone who already has memory or balance problems.

Eyes and vision deserve special attention. Semaglutide labeling includes a warning about diabetic retinopathy complications and recommends monitoring patients with a history of retinopathy. Beyond labeling, post‑marketing safety monitoring continues to explore visual signals.

A 2025 analysis of FDA adverse event reporting data found a potentially elevated risk of vision‑impairment reports with semaglutide use compared with some other diabetes and weight‑loss medications, and it called for vigilant surveillance and further research. That doesn’t prove the drug causes vision loss in an individual patient, but it is enough to justify a cautious posture: new blurring, blind spots, or sudden changes deserve a same‑week medical call, not a “let’s see if it passes.”

5) Surgery and sedation: delayed stomach emptying can cause problems

GLP‑1 medications slow stomach emptying — one reason people feel full sooner. But that same effect can complicate anesthesia and deep sedation if food remains in the stomach despite standard fasting. A 2024 review describes the connection between GLP‑1 medications, delayed gastric emptying (including gastroparesis), and increased risk of aspiration during anesthesia, as well as possible effects on the absorption of other medications.

This issue has become important enough that several medical groups have created guidelines for surgery. The 2024 guidance says many people can continue taking GLP-1s, but doctors should look for higher-risk situations, such as people with stomach problems or other risks of food entering the lungs, and adjust plans as needed.

This is important for older adults because they are more likely to undergo procedures requiring sedation, such as colonoscopies, joint injections, cardiac procedures, dental work, or surgeries. The easiest and most often missed safety step is to tell every physician involved — surgeon, anesthesiologist, endoscopist, dentist — that you are taking a GLP-1 medication and when you last took it. Do not assume it will be clear in your medical chart.

6) A senior‑friendly “yes, with a plan” approach

If you’re an older adult considering a GLP‑1 (or already taking one), a safer approach often looks like “yes, with monitoring.” That means starting with function, not just the scale: tracking energy, steadiness, and strength in everyday life, not only pounds.

It also means treating hydration as a real medical concern. Ongoing nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea is not just part of getting used to the medicine. These symptoms can affect blood pressure and kidney function, especially when changing doses.

Because muscle matters so much in later life, protecting it should be part of the prescription. That can include discussing protein intake, adding a realistic strength plan (even chair‑based work or physical‑therapy guided resistance), and reassessing the medication if weight loss is accompanied by weakness, poor balance, or reduced stamina.

Older adults should also have their medications reviewed with a focus on preventing low blood sugar. If insulin or a sulfonylurea is being used, doses may need to be adjusted as appetite decreases and blood sugar improves.

Finally, it is important to take symptoms seriously. New stomach pain, ongoing vomiting, or sudden vision changes should be checked by a doctor right away. Before any procedure with anesthesia or deep sedation, make sure to tell the medical team about your GLP-1 use — do not assume they already know.

The GLP-1 medications can help some older adults, but there is less room for mistakes. Side effects can quickly lead to dehydration, frailty, falls, or problems during procedures. The safest approach is not just ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ but ‘yes, with a plan’ — one that protects hydration, nutrition, muscle, vision, and safety during medical care.

The post GLP‑1 Medications in Later Life: Why the “Miracle Shot” Needs a Senior‑Specific Safety Lens appeared first on Medika Life.

Healthcare is no exception, and in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the national awakening to the scourge of systemic racism in our country, more and more conversations about racism in healthcare are being had, across our country, and in the medical literature. This is only a good thing, and I hope and pray they lead to rectification of the healthcare disparities faced by people of color in this country.

One such conversation was recorded in the excellent Critical Matters podcast, hosted by Dr. Sergio Zanotti — world-renown Critical Care Medicine specialist and Chief Medical Officer for Sound Critical Care, a national critical care medicine practice. He was speaking with Dr. Greg Johnson, Sound Physicians’ Chief Medical Officer for Hospital Medicine and thought leader within his field and a champion for diversity, inclusion, and belonging within medicine.

In this episode, Dr. Zanotti and Dr. Johnson have an honest conversation about healthcare, race, and racism in healthcare. It was eye-opening, and it is a must-listen for every healthcare professional in this country. You can listen to it here:

Dr. Johnson reiterated that many Black Americans must go to great lengths to let members of the healthcare team taking care of their families know the value of their loved one: what job they do; what they mean to their families; what they mean their communities.

First of all, I was shocked by this. And yet, when I thought back to my Black patients and their families, I realized that many of them did just that: go out of their way to let me know how important this patient in front of us was to them, their family, and their community.

Just the other day, I had a husband tell me, “This woman, she is the rock of our family.” Another family member of a patient with COVID-19 told me something similar. I never paid attention to this phenomenon, and I am so very grateful I heard this conversation to open my eyes to this reality.

This is wrong. This is horrific. This is terribly sad. No one should have to justify to me why their loved one is important, how prominent their loved one is in the community. It is absolutely horrible that Dr. Tyson’s had to show the healthcare professionals taking of his father that his father was a prominent lecturer in order to garner respect from them. How can this be?

Every patient we take care of has worth, has value. Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, or White, all our patients have worth, and the fact that Black Americans feel the need to describe how important their loved ones are to get respect is truly nauseating. And you know what they are saying to us? Black Lives Matter.

Painful though it may be, it is reality, and it is of absolute importance that we in healthcare are cognizant of this reality and work to rectify it. Indeed, I told that husband that his wife has worth, and I will do all that I can to care for her within her values and wishes.

Racism in healthcare is real; it is pervasive; it is indeed a pandemic. We need to acknowledge it and then work to overcome it. All of us in healthcare have a responsibility to do what we can to achieve this end. And for starters, all of us in healthcare should listen to this conversation about racism in healthcare to understand the problem and how to fix it.

The post Every Healthcare Professional Must Listen To This Conversation appeared first on Medika Life.

Lydia Romero strained to hear her husband’s feeble voice through the phone.

A week earlier, immigration agents had grabbed Julio César Peña from his front yard in Glendale, California. Now, he was in a hospital after suffering a ministroke. He was shackled to the bed by his hand and foot, he told Romero, and agents were in the room, listening to the call. He was scared he would die and wanted his wife there.

“What hospital are you at?” Romero asked.

“I can’t tell you,” he replied.

Viridiana Chabolla, Peña’s attorney, couldn’t get an answer to that question, either. Peña’s deportation officer and the medical contractor at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center refused to tell her. Exasperated, she tried calling a nearby hospital, Providence St. Mary Medical Center.

“They said even if they had a person in ICE custody under their care, they wouldn’t be able to confirm whether he’s there or not, that only ICE can give me the information,” Chabolla said. The hospital confirmed this policy to KFF Health News.

Family members and attorneys for patients hospitalized after being detained by federal immigration officials said they are facing extreme difficulty trying to locate patients, get information about their well-being, and provide them emotional and legal support. They say many hospitals refuse to provide information or allow contact with these patients. Instead, hospitals allow immigration officers to call the shots on how much — if any — contact is allowed, which can deprive patients of their constitutional right to seek legal advice and leave them vulnerable to abuse, attorneys said.

Hospitals say they are trying to protect the safety and privacy of patients, staff, and law enforcement officials, even while hospital employees in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Portland, Ore., cities where Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted immigration raids, say it’s made their jobs difficult. Hospitals have used what are sometimes called blackout procedures, which can include registering a patient under a pseudonym, removing their name from the hospital directory, or prohibiting staff from even confirming that a patient is in the hospital.

“We’ve heard incidences of this blackout process being used at multiple hospitals across the state, and it’s very concerning,” said Shiu-Ming Cheer, the deputy director of immigrant and racial justice at the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group.

Some Democratic-led states, including California, Colorado, and Maryland, have enacted legislation that seeks to protect patients from immigration enforcement in hospitals. However, those policies do not address protections for people already in ICE custody.

More Detainees Hospitalized

Peña is among more than 350,000 people arrested by federal immigration authorities since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. As arrests and detentions have climbed, so too have reports of people taken to hospitals by immigration agents because of illness or injury — due to preexisting conditions or problems stemming from their arrest or detention.

ICE has faced criticism for using aggressive and deadly tactics, as well as for reports of mistreatment and inadequate medical care at its facilities. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters at a Jan. 20 news conference outside a detention center he visited in California City that he spoke to a diabetic woman held there who had not received treatment in two months.

While there are no publicly available statistics on the number of people sick or injured in ICE detention, the agency’s news releases point to 32 people who died in immigration custody in 2025. Six more have died this year.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to a request for information about its policies or Peña’s case.

According to ICE’s guidelines, people in custody should be given access to a telephone, visits from family and friends, and private consultation with legal counsel. The agency can make administrative decisions, including about visitation, when a patient is in the hospital, but should defer to hospital policies on contacting next of kin when a patient is seriously ill, the guidelines state.

Asked in detail about hospital practices related to patients in immigration custody and whether there are best practices that hospitals should follow, Ben Teicher, a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association, declined to comment.

David Simon, a spokesperson for the California Hospital Association, said that “there are times when hospitals will — at the request of law enforcement — maintain confidentiality of patients’ names and other identifying characteristics.”

Although policies vary, members of the public can typically call a hospital and ask for a patient by name to find out whether they’re there, and often be transferred to the patient’s room, said William Weber, an emergency physician in Minneapolis and medical director for the Medical Justice Alliance, which advocates for the medical needs of people in law enforcement custody. Family members and others authorized by the patient can visit. And medical staff routinely call relatives to let them know a loved one is in the hospital, or to ask for information that could help with their care.

But when a patient is in law enforcement custody, hospitals frequently agree to restrict this kind of information sharing and access, Weber said. The rationale is that these measures prevent unauthorized outsiders from threatening the patient or law enforcement personnel, given that hospitals lack the security infrastructure of a prison or detention center. High-profile patients such as celebrities sometimes also request this type of protection.

Several attorneys and health care providers questioned the need for such restrictions. Immigration detention is civil, not criminal, detention. The Trump administration says it’s focused on arresting and deporting criminals, yet most of those arrested have no criminal conviction, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse and several news outlets.

Taken Outside His Home

According to Peña’s wife, Romero, he has no criminal record. Peña came to the United States from Mexico in sixth grade and has an adult son in the U.S. military. The 43-year-old has terminal kidney disease and survived a heart attack in November. He has trouble walking and is partially blind, his wife said. He was detained Dec. 8 while resting outside after coming home from dialysis treatment.

Initially, Romero was able to find her husband through the ICE Online Detainee Locator System. She visited him at a temporary holding facility in downtown Los Angeles, bringing him his medicines and a sweater. She then saw he’d been moved to the Adelanto detention center. But the locator did not show where he was after he was hospitalized.

When she and other relatives drove to the detention facility to find him, they were turned away, she said. Romero received occasional calls from her husband in the hospital but said they were less than 10 minutes long and took place under ICE surveillance. She wanted to know where he was so she could be at the hospital to hold his hand, make sure he was well cared for, and encourage him to stay strong, she said.

Shackling him and preventing him from seeing his family was unfair and unnecessary, she said.

“He’s weak,” Romero said. “It’s not like he’s going to run away.”

ICE guidelines say contact and visits from family and friends should be allowed “within security and operational constraints.” Detainees have a constitutional right to speak confidentially with an attorney. Weber said immigration authorities should tell attorneys where their clients are and allow them to talk in person or use an unmonitored phone line.

Hospitals, though, fall into a gray area on enforcing these rights, since they are primarily focused on treating medical needs, Weber said. Still, he added, hospitals should ensure their policies align with the law.

Family Denied Access

Numerous immigration attorneys have spent weeks trying to locate clients detained by ICE, with their efforts sometimes thwarted by hospitals.

Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, a Los Angeles attorney who counsels immigrants facing deportation, said two of his clients were registered under aliases at different hospitals in Los Angeles County last year. Initially, the hospitals denied the clients were there and refused to let Thompson-Lleras meet with them, he said. Family members were also denied access, he said.

One of his clients was Bayron Rovidio Marin, a car wash worker injured during a raid in August. Immigration agents surveilled him for over a month at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a county-run facility, without charging him.

In November, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to curb the use of blackout policies for patients under civil immigration custody at county-run hospitals. In a statement, Arun Patel, the chief patient safety and clinical risk management officer for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, said the policies are designed to reduce safety risks for patients, doctors, nurses, and custody officers.

“In some situations, there may be concerns about threats to the patient, attempts to interfere with medical care, unauthorized visitors, or the introduction of contraband,” Patel said. “Our goal is not to restrict care but to allow care to happen safely and without disruption.”

Leaving Patients Vulnerable

Thompson-Lleras said he’s concerned that hospitals are cooperating with federal immigration authorities at the expense of patients and their families and leaving patients vulnerable to abuse.

“It allows people to be treated suboptimally,” Thompson-Lleras said. “It allows people to be treated on abbreviated timelines, without supervision, without family intervention or advocacy. These people are alone, disoriented, being interrogated, at least in Bayron’s case, under pain and influence of medication.”

Such incidents are alarming to hospital workers. In Los Angeles, two health care professionals who asked not to be identified by KFF Health News, out of concern for their livelihoods, said that ICE and hospital administrators, at public and private hospitals, frequently block staff from contacting family members for people in custody, even to find out about their health conditions or what medications they’re on. That violates medical ethics, they said.

Blackout procedures are another concern.

“They help facilitate, whether intentionally or not, the disappearance of patients,” said one worker, a physician for the county’s Department of Health Services and part of a coalition of concerned health workers from across the region.

At Legacy Emanuel Medical Center in Portland, nurses publicly expressed outrage over what they saw as hospital cooperation with ICE and the flouting of patient rights. Legacy Health has sent a cease and desist letter to the nurses’ union, accusing it of making “false or misleading statements.”

“I was really disgusted,” said Blaire Glennon, a nurse who quit her job at the hospital in December. She said numerous patients were brought to the hospital by ICE with serious injuries they sustained while being detained. “I felt like Legacy was doing massive human rights violations.”

Handcuffed While Unconscious

Two days before Christmas, Chabolla, Peña’s attorney, received a call from ICE with the answer she and Romero had been waiting for. Peña was at Victor Valley Global Medical Center, about 10 miles from Adelanto, and about to be released.

Excited, Romero and her family made the two-hour-plus drive from Glendale to the hospital to take him home.

When they got there, they found Peña intubated and unconscious, his arm and leg still handcuffed to the hospital bed. He’d had a severe seizure on Dec. 20, but no one had told his family or legal team, his attorney said.

Tim Lineberger, a spokesperson for Victor Valley Global Medical Center’s parent company, KPC Health, said he could not comment on specific patient cases, because of privacy protections. He said the hospital’s policies on patient information disclosure comply with state and federal law.

Peña was finally cleared to go home on Jan. 5. No court date has been set, and his family is filing a petition to adjust his legal status based on his son’s military service. For now, he still faces deportation proceedings.

The post ‘I Can’t Tell You’: Attorneys, Relatives Struggle To Find Hospitalized ICE Detainees appeared first on Medika Life.

We usually think about outdoor air quality, but sometimes the air in our kitchens is even more dangerous. Did you ever think that home cooking could be dangerous for you? Not in terms of spills or burns, but the air you breathe?

Understanding the Problem

People in the UK spend about 90% of their time indoors, but most air pollution rules only focus on outdoor air. This is a serious problem because many things we do at home, especially cooking, create airborne pollutants that can harm our health.

The INGENIOUS project at the University of York is studying what happens to indoor air quality when we cook. Their research examines homes where many families experience poor air quality both indoors and outdoors.

What’s in the Air When You Cook?

Cooking releases several types of pollutants into your home’s air. The main ones are fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and formaldehyde. Did you ever think you would be breathing formaldehyde in your home as a result of how you cooked?

PM2.5 is especially concerning. These tiny particles can travel deep into your lungs and even get into your bloodstream. One study found that pan-frying chicken produced PM2.5 levels of 92.9 micrograms per cubic meter. The outdoor air quality standard for PM2.5 is 50 micrograms per cubic meter, so some cooking methods can more than double that amount in your kitchen.

Gas stoves create another issue. They release nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can irritate your lungs and is linked to asthma and other breathing problems. If you don’t use a range hood, cooking with gas can add 25% to 33% more nitrogen dioxide to your indoor air in summer, and even more in winter. In four out of ten homes studied, gas burners released enough nitrogen dioxide to go over the health standards set for outdoor air.

Who’s Most at Risk?

Young children, older adults, and people with asthma or heart and lung diseases are especially at risk.

The numbers are worrying for children with asthma. A 2006 study found that pollution from gas stoves more than doubles the chances of wheezing and shortness of breath for kids with asthma who live in apartments. Another study showed that children with asthma who are exposed to higher nitrogen dioxide levels use their rescue inhalers 14% more often.

Some communities are affected more than others. In Washington State, Black people are exposed to PM2.5 levels that are over 1.3 times higher than White people, and Asian people face levels 1.5 times higher. American Indian and Alaska Native adults have the highest asthma rates at 18%. And there are cultural factors at work here, as well as the type of cooking you do indoors and the airflow in your home.

The Long-Term Health Impact

Being exposed to PM2.5 for a long time raises the risk of early death for people with heart or lung disease. It is also linked to chronic heart and lung problems, effects on brain health, and pregnancy issues.

Around the world, household air pollution causes 6.7 million early deaths each year. The main health problems are stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer.

Use Your Range Hood Every Time You Cook

This is the most important step you can take. A range hood that works well and vents air outside can remove 50% to 70% of pollutants if you use it correctly. But studies show that people use their range hoods only 36% of the time in houses and 28% in apartments.

If your range hood only recirculates air back into the kitchen instead of venting it outside, you should open windows or use another exhaust fan.

Cook on Your Back Burners

Range hoods work best when you use the back burners because they are more fully covered by the hood. Cooking on a single back burner with the hood on low speed usually captures 50% to 70% of the pollutants.

Open Windows and Doors

If you do not have a range hood, opening windows or doors can help. One study found that opening both the front and back doors for ventilation creates strong airflow that can remove over 95% of cooking pollutants in just 10 minutes.

Consider Switching to Electric

All cooking creates some pollution, but gas stoves cause extra problems by releasing nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and benzene. A recent Stanford study found that switching to electric stoves could lower nitrogen dioxide exposure by over 50% across the country. One of the problems, of course, is that electricity or cooking with electricity is more expensive than using gas.

Choose Your Cooking Methods Wisely

Pan-frying and stir-frying at high temperatures make much more pollution than boiling, steaming, or using an air fryer. When you can, choose cooking methods that use lower temperatures.

Why This Matters Now

About half of the people surveyed did not know that cooking creates unhealthy air pollutants. But after learning about the health risks, 64% said they would think about using their ventilation devices more often.

People are spending more time at home. In 2021, Americans spent about 62% of their waking hours at home, up from 50% in 2019. With more people cooking at home, kitchen ventilation is more important.

Newer homes are built to be more energy-efficient, so there is less air exchange with the outdoors. Without good ventilation, pollutants can get trapped inside and build up to harmful levels. In homes with poor ventilation, indoor smoke can have fine particle levels 100 times higher than what is considered safe.

The Bottom Line

Cooking is a normal part of daily life, but it shouldn’t harm your health. By learning what pollutants are released when you cook and taking simple steps to ventilate your kitchen, you can protect yourself and your family.

The research is clear: using a range hood every time you cook, opening windows for airflow, cooking on back burners, and thinking about cleaner cooking technologies can really help. These are not complicated or expensive changes. They are simple habits that can greatly improve the air quality in your home and your health as well.

The post Home Cooking Means Hidden Health Dangers for You appeared first on Medika Life.