Healthcare IT
Why $4.9 trillion of American medicine still runs on 1966 software, and how AI finally reads the chart.
A $4.9 trillion industry runs on software designed in 1966, built for bedside safety and structurally unable to read its own data across patients. Healthcare didn't fail to digitize. It digitized brilliantly for the wrong question, and every downstream cost flows from that original choice.
What this argues
- Digitized for the wrong question1966 architecture optimized for safety, not analytics.
- Washington paid for adoption, not connection$27B created digital silos.
- A duopoly hardened into a moatEpic and Oracle Health, guarded by data network effects.
- Interoperability is a compliance illusionThe semantic layer never got solved.
- AI attacks the real bottleneckMachines can finally read clinical language.
What has changed
Updated November 2026
Epic widened its lead and Oracle Health kept losing hospitals
- KLAS (reported by Fierce Healthcare and HIT Consultant, May 2026): Epic held 43.7% of US acute-care hospitals at the end of 2025, up from 42.3%, and 56.9% of beds.
- Epic added 77 acute-care hospitals in 2025 while Oracle Health lost 56, its third consecutive year of the largest net share loss. Oracle Health fell to 21.9%.
- Only two large health systems made enterprise-wide EHR decisions in 2025, and both chose Epic.
- KLAS (via HIT Consultant, May 2026): 84% of Meditech customers deciding on a move chose to migrate to Expanse, up from 63% in 2024.
Digital-health venture funding rebounded, and Rock Health stopped counting AI separately
- Rock Health (H1 2026 report, via Fierce Healthcare and Healthcare Dive): US digital-health startups raised $7.4B across 244 deals in the first half, versus $6.4B across 245 deals in H1 2025.
- Rock Health Q3 2026 update (via Milled summary): $3.7B across 114 deals in the quarter and $11.1B across 358 deals year to date, with the firm projecting the year to pass $14.8B.
- Rock Health said it is retiring its separate AI-deal tracking because AI has become table stakes. A secondary source (ai2.work) cites its 2025 year-end report as putting AI companies at 54% of 2025 funding, up from 37% in 2024; this was not checked against the original.
Medicare telehealth flexibilities extended through 2027
The flexibilities lapsed briefly on 31 January 2026 during a partial government shutdown. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, signed on 3 February 2026, extended them through 31 December 2027 (law-firm summaries from Foley, Greenbaum and AASM, early 2026). The reimbursement ceiling described in chapter 06 therefore moved out by two years but is still set by legislation.
Ambient AI scribes drew large rounds
Abridge closed a $316M Series E extension in April 2026 at a $5.3B valuation, according to secondary coverage (valueaddvc and aggregator pages; not confirmed against a company release).
UnitedHealth raised its 2026 outlook
UnitedHealth Group reported Q3 2026 revenue of $112.7B (versus $113.2B a year earlier), a medical care ratio of 88.4%, and raised full-year adjusted EPS guidance to at least $20.50 from $19.50-$20.00 (company 8-K and press coverage, 13 Oct 2026). UnitedHealthcare served 48.3M consumers and Optum over 120M patients and consumers in the release.
Change Healthcare breach total unchanged at 192.7M
UnitedHealth's final count of 192.7M affected individuals (reported August 2025, via HHS site) is still the latest figure found.
Not refreshed: Meditech and Others hospital shares (Others is recomputed as the remainder), HL7/TEFCA status, prior-authorization survey figures, revenue-cycle market size, telehealth claim-line share for 2025-26, Teladoc, FDA AI clearances, ambient-AI health-system counts, UnitedHealth lives covered (52M, differing definition from the 48.3M in the Q3 release), and 2025 full-year Rock Health total.
Digitized by Decree
Why healthcare modernized late
A mother arrives unconscious. The ER can't see she is allergic to penicillin, because her records sit in another hospital's system. In US healthcare, one patient's history can be scattered across ten or more platforms that cannot talk to each other.
The four failures that finally forced digitization
- Safety. Illegible scripts and missing allergy data caused thousands of deaths a year.
- Efficiency. Physicians re-ordered tests they couldn't locate: duplicate work, duplicate cost.
- Coordination. The average patient saw seven doctors; none could see the others' notes.
- Speed. An unconscious patient's history was simply unavailable in the ER.
HITECH digitized nearly every hospital in six years
View the data
| Hospitals with an EHR | |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 9 |
| 2011 | 28 |
| 2013 | 59 |
| 2015 | 84 |
| 2017 | 96 |
Source: ONC / American Hospital Association (2008-2017) · values read from the chart, approximate
The Architecture Trap
The 1966 decision that still rules
A superb answer to a 1966 question
- Fused layers: OS, language and database welded into one, so you can't upgrade a piece; you replace the whole system.
- Tree 'globals': data stored as branches that exist only when data does. Genius on 4KB, meaningless without the vendor's dictionary.
- Built for concurrency: each department writes to its own branch at once, never colliding. Perfect for the bedside.
- The tradeoff: fast for one patient, brutal across millions. A population query must walk every tree.
Why the same question is instant or impossible
| Relational (SQL) | Hierarchical (MUMPS) | |
|---|---|---|
| Shape | tables with fixed columns | per-patient trees, no columns |
| Find all diabetics >65 | one indexed query, milliseconds | walk every patient's tree, one by one |
| Built for | reading across populations | one patient, right now |
| Weakness | assumes memory the 1960s lacked | population analytics fights live care |
How analytics got bolted onto a system that can't do it
- Chronicles: the live MUMPS database. Fast writes, tree-structured, unsafe to query at scale.
- Nightly ETL: a batch job copies everything after hours, a ~24-hour cycle.
- Clarity: a separate SQL warehouse. Relational, analytics-ready, safe to query.
- The 24-hour gap: reports run on yesterday's data; a deteriorating patient is flagged too late.
The moat around 1966 architecture
- Switching cost. $50-500M and 18-36 months, both systems running at once.
- Clinical safety. A new system must prove it never crashes during care, which needs scale.
- Chicken-and-egg. Reaching scale needs early adopters willing to bet patients' safety.
- Network effects. The value of an EHR rises with how many peers share it.
The EHR Duopoly
Two vendors, and a data moat
Two companies control most US hospital records
View the data
| Share of hospitals | |
|---|---|
| Epic | 43.7 |
| Oracle Health (Cerner) | 21.9 |
| Meditech | 15 |
| Others | 19.4 |
Source: KLAS Research (end-2025 data, published 2026); Meditech and Others not refreshed
The two firms that own the record of truth
| Epic | Oracle Health (Cerner) | |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | private, founder-led | public; Oracle acquired for $28.3B (2022) |
| Hospital share | ~44%, leads 500+ bed systems | ~22% and slipping |
| Architecture | MUMPS, built in-house | MUMPS, acquisition-stitched |
| Strategy | one integrated record, organic growth | cloud re-platform under Oracle |
| Momentum | +77 hospitals in 2025 (+176 in 2024) | -56 hospitals in 2025, third straight year of largest net loss |
Why Epic sells an ecosystem, not a product
- The moat: one patient record no rival can assemble module by module.
- Analytics: Cogito, Caboodle and SlicerDicer, plus Cosmos across 250M+ patients.
- Patient and mobile: the MyChart portal; Haiku and Canto clinician apps.
- Operational modules: scheduling, registration, pharmacy, lab, radiology, OR, billing.
- Clinical core: EpicCare inpatient and ambulatory, one chart across every setting.
The moat that compounds
- More hospitals adopt Epic.
- Care Everywhere grows more valuable.
- ~90% of residents train on Epic.
- Switching costs reach $50-500M.
- Churn falls toward zero.
- The loop repeats: data and network effects.
If data won't flow between firms, erase the boundary
| Horizontal: Epic | Vertical: UnitedHealth | |
|---|---|---|
| Move | own one layer completely | own many layers at once |
| Logic | if everyone runs Epic, interop is internal | data flows freely inside one company |
| Reach | ~42% of hospitals | insurer + 90K doctors + PBM + claims |
| Churn / Edge | Churn: ~zero in 47 years | Edge: sees ~40% of all US claims |
UnitedHealth owns the whole pathway
The Interoperability Illusion
Forty years, six standards
Six standards in forty years. Each solved a layer. None solved all four. Machines can now exchange the envelope of clinical data. They still can't read the letter inside.
Four decades of trying to make records talk
- HL7 v2: a shared message format, but ~20% stayed proprietary.
- HL7 v3: rigorous, unreadable, barely adopted.
- HITECH: $27B digitized the silos, not the connections.
- FHIR: web-style APIs cut interface cost from $500K to ~$50K.
- Cures Act: made data-blocking illegal, with fines up to $1M.
- TEFCA: one national hub instead of thousands of contracts.
Interoperability is mostly solved, where it isn't matters most
- Foundational: the pipes connect (systems connect).
- Structural: the format is consistent.
- Organizational: governance and consent align.
- Semantic: meaning is shared. This is the gap (machines understand).
Hospitals can exchange data; clinicians rarely use it
View the data
| Share | |
|---|---|
| Hospitals can exchange | 70 |
| Clinicians who use the data | 42 |
| Projects hitting ROI | 35 |
| Key variables missing | 22 |
Source: ONC; KLAS; HIMSS (2023)
Consolidation is necessary but not sufficient
| Estonia: centralized | United States: fragmented | |
|---|---|---|
| Scale | 1.3M people | 340M people, 6,000+ hospitals, 50 state regimes |
| Structure | one national health-IT backbone, a universal patient ID; near-total interoperability by 2008, before HITECH even began | no national patient ID, and a competitive vendor market with every reason to keep data in |
The Claims Machine
The $1 trillion administrative layer
A large share of American healthcare exists to translate care into a bill, and then to argue over it. Roughly $1 trillion a year, about a quarter of all health spending, pays for administration, not care. Per capita, the US spends ~3.5x what Canada does.
The revenue-cycle industry is set to nearly double
View the data
| Market size | |
|---|---|
| 2024 | 142 |
| 2030 (est.) | 273 |
Source: Research and Markets (2024)
Every hop translates clinical reality into billing language
- Encounter: the clinician documents the visit in the EHR as free text.
- Coding: 185,000 coders translate notes into ICD-10 and CPT codes.
- Clearinghouse: Change Healthcare routes ~40% of all US claims.
- Adjudication: the payer approves, denies or downcodes, 14 to 30 days.
- Paid or denied: 10%+ are denied; 80%+ of appeals are later overturned.
Prior authorization is friction by design
Telehealth's Reset
Boom, bust, and a durable floor
Telehealth normalized at ~5x its old level
View the data
| Share of claim lines | |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 0.2 |
| 2020 peak | 13 |
| 2021 | 5.2 |
| 2022 | 5.4 |
| 2023 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 5.1 |
Source: FAIR Health Monthly Telehealth Tracker; McKinsey · values read from the chart, approximate
What the pandemic permanently changed
The reset sorted telehealth into winners and losers
- Behavioral health. The durable winner: most telehealth visits, no physical exam needed.
- Chronic-care check-ins. Medication management and follow-ups moved online for good.
- Primary and urgent care. Reverted largely to in-person once offices reopened.
- The reimbursement cliff. Pandemic payment parity was temporary and has been extended in two-year steps; policy, not tech, sets the ceiling.
Telehealth's limit is no longer the technology. It is the reimbursement rule. The durable question is not whether a visit can happen over video, but whether it will be paid the same when it does.
AI Reads the Chart
The bottleneck finally lifts
For sixty years, software could exchange clinical data but never understand it. Language models changed that. Every constraint in this deck collapses into one bottleneck, machine comprehension of clinical language, that is finally being lifted.
Attacking the friction, not the fortress
- Ambient documentation: AI listens and drafts the note live, 100+ systems (Abridge, DAX, Ambience).
- Coding and prior auth: models read the record and generate payer-specific, code-accurate requests.
- Trial matching: free-text records screened against trial criteria in minutes, not weeks.
- The unlock: LLMs finally read clinical language. 'MI' = 'heart attack' = 'acute MI'.
- The Olive lesson: an $850M startup died automating the UI, not the meaning. Semantics is the moat.
- The pincer: enterprise compression inside the system, patient aggregation outside, at once.
Reform the institutions, or route around them
| The institutional vector | The patient vector | |
|---|---|---|
| Path | force vendors to share via standards | patients download their own records |
| Tools | HL7, FHIR, Cures Act, TEFCA | HIPAA right of access + AI to read them |
| Speed | 40 years, slow, loophole-ridden | bypasses vendor consent entirely |
| Ceiling | compliance, not utility | consumer adoption and trust |
The Investment Case
Where the capital is going
Digital-health funding fell ~65% from its 2021 peak
View the data
| Funding | |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 14.7 |
| 2021 | 29.1 |
| 2022 | 15.3 |
| 2023 | 10.8 |
| 2024 | 10.1 |
| H1 2026 | 7.4 |
Source: Rock Health (2020-2024; H1 2026 half-year total)
AI's beachhead is the unlocked, high-friction work
A two-by-two map plots AI disruption potential (vertical) against incumbent lock-in (horizontal). Top-left is the open field for AI and bottom-right is the entrenched moats. Ambient documentation, prior authorization and patient data aggregation sit toward the open field. Revenue-cycle and coding sits top-right, as contested high ground. Clearinghouses and claims, medical imaging AI, and the EHR system of record sit toward the entrenched, high-lock-in side, with the EHR system of record lowest on disruption potential.
Who owns what across the stack
- The EHR fortresses: Epic (private), Oracle Health, Meditech, the systems of record.
- The verticals: UnitedHealth/Optum, CVS/Aetna, insurance-to-pharmacy under one roof.
- The admin layer: athenahealth, Waystar, Veradigm, RCM and claims plumbing.
- Ambient AI: Abridge, Ambience, Nuance/Microsoft, Suki, the scribe wars.
- Consumer rails: Apple Health, Hims, Doximity, GoodRx, the patient front door.
- The platforms: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Amazon, betting the bottleneck is gone.
Where the dollars are moving now
Reference
Glossary and sources
Plain-language glossary
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| EHR | electronic health record, the digital chart and system of record. |
| HL7 / FHIR | standards for exchanging clinical data; FHIR is the modern API version. |
| Interoperability | the ability of different systems to share and actually use data. |
| Prior authorization | insurer pre-approval required before certain treatments. |
| MUMPS | the 1966 language and database still underneath Epic and Meditech. |
| HITECH | 2009 law that paid $27B to digitize hospital records. |
| RCM | revenue-cycle management, turning care delivered into payment collected. |
| Ambient documentation | AI that listens to a visit and drafts the clinical note. |
Healthcare didn't refuse to modernize. It modernized perfectly, for a question the world stopped asking. The bill for that mismatch is a trillion dollars a year, and the receipt is a record no one can fully read.
Sources and further reading
- CMS: National Health Expenditure data (2024).
- KLAS Research: US acute-care EHR market share (2024-25).
- ONC / HealthIT.gov: hospital EHR adoption and interoperability metrics.
- McKinsey & Company; Annals of Internal Medicine: healthcare administrative cost.
- American Medical Association: prior authorization physician survey (2023-24).
- Rock Health: US digital health funding reports (2021-2024).
- FAIR Health: Monthly Telehealth Regional Tracker.
- Institute of Medicine: 'To Err Is Human' (1999); Pew Charitable Trusts / GAO: patient matching.
- Figures marked 'estimate' are compilations of the above.
Sources cited
CMS · McKinsey · KLAS Research · Pew Charitable Trusts · GAO · Institute of Medicine · NCBI · ONC · American Hospital Association · Becker's Health IT · Epic · UnitedHealth Group filings · HL7 · HIMSS · European Commission · CDC · BLS · Experian · Research and Markets · American Medical Association · HHS OIG · FAIR Health · Rock Health · Annals of Internal Medicine · Company filings and disclosures · KLAS Research, May 2026 (via Fierce Healthcare, HIT Consultant) · Rock Health, H1 and Q3 2026 (via Fierce Healthcare, Healthcare Dive, Milled) · UnitedHealth Group Q3 2026 earnings release, Oct 2026 · Foley, Greenbaum Traurig and AASM summaries of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (Feb 2026) · Abridge funding coverage, Apr 2026
Keep reading
Research, not investment advice. Figures as of , from the sources cited.
Legal information and disclosures
These are my own views as of the update shown on this page. They can change without notice, and I have no duty to update them. Past performance does not indicate future results, and any investment can lose money.
This is for education only. It is not investment, legal, tax, medical or accounting advice, and it is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security in any jurisdiction. It does not consider your goals or circumstances.
Figures from company filings, public agencies and other third parties are believed to be reliable, but I have not independently verified them and cannot guarantee them. Forecasts and anything marked as an estimate rest on assumptions that may prove wrong.
Please do not copy or republish this material without my written consent.