Ed Liebowitz from Solera Healthcare

How favorable are the recent Trump Administration policy changes, specifically the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” for digital health?

EL: Extending the expansion of access to telemedicine for a variety of services (after introducing during COVID-19) is a big deal for digital health companies, which eliminates the biggest sticking point for consumers getting access to care, which is having to show up somewhere. And that’s the complex co-pay and deductibles for a few different reasons. Consumers aren’t comfortable inserting their credit card information into unknown sources. It’s not like it’s Amazon ‘one click’ for paying a co-pay. And they don’t like thinking about paying for care in general if they have insurance. If you eliminate those two frictions, it accelerates the ability for someone to see a doctor. Outside of the disease management companies, patients who are struggling with an issue can now talk to a doctor who will spend the time with them. It won’t take three months to get into a specialist, and that can avoid unnecessary procedures and imaging. So it has a real potential to impact the total cost of care. I think the biggest downside is the way the law was written, it’s up to the plan or the employer. As we’ve seen multiple times, anytime there’s ambiguity it creates more friction to operationalize a regulatory ruling.

What is the best strategy right now for employer sales that you’ve seen work? I’ve been writing about direct employer sales motions, versus just getting in network.

EL: We think just getting in-network is critical before selling directly to employers. Do you want to go it alone, or do you want operational support to get more negotiating power related to rates. And they can focus on the care model versus the operational hoops necessary to work with health plans. I think the strategy of selling into employers directly is declining. The ACA allowed companies to create a market for preventative health services, and that played a role but it led to fragmentation and silos of care delivery. This stuff needs to be aggregated somehow, whether it’s via new innovators like a Thatchthrough ICHRA or a Transcarent for navigation, someone has to unify the care model.

Are there any alternative health plan models that excite you?

EL: Anytime you introduce more consumer choice, it’s exciting. I’d love to see a future where employers don’t need to dictate what an employee has to choose for their benefits, and employees can choose their own adventure. When you combine it with LLM and AI, we’re on the advent of delivering really personalized benefits. That has the potential to transform how care is delivered and paid for. But we’re in the early innings. I’m watching companies like Thatch and XO Health, and I also think Quantum’s acquisition of Embold in the provider quality arena is really interesting. It’s all about getting to the same result. How do you deliver on that personalized experience for members?

At what point do employers give up, given rising costs of care? Should health care be their job?

EL: We are seeing a perfect storm between rising costs, uncertainty and more – and that’s really finally opening the door to the alternative health plan space. I think it’s also bolstering some of the navigation players. The question for me, particularly given the job market is softening and there’s more people looking for work, is whether employers will be forced to compete on benefits? I don’t know if there will be a single payer system in America. But I think the market will dictate whether it’s an alternative health plan model, like an individual or defined contribution (perhaps you get $1000 a month and you get to figure out what to do with that money). Or is it super sophisticated benefits designed via large employers to attract better talent? That’s a big question that fascinates me, and I’m continuing to follow it closely.

‍

This excerpt is from Christina Farr's August 14, 2025 Roundup in Second Opinion HealthTech News

‍