Overworked To Optimized: Technology And The Future Of Primary Care
Dr. Trisha Swift is the CEO of Mula, an integrative health practice specializing in whole-health care, rejuvenation & executive well-being.
getty
The primary care model faces burnout, rising costs and administrative burdens, straining an overworked physician workforce. Meanwhile, AI, remote monitoring and digital health tools are reshaping care with a focus on prevention, personalization and accessibility.
Rather than replacing physicians, technology can help redefine their roles, enabling a more patient-centered, transdisciplinary approach that prioritizes prevention, well-being and longevity.
Healthcare technology is revolutionizing care delivery. Many organizations now realize that tools such as advanced analytics and workflow automation are essential for business differentiation and financial health. The widespread integration of technology in healthcare is being driven by several key innovations:
AI-powered diagnostics and predictive analytics are enhancing clinical decision making and, at times, making clinical decisions. AI-assisted tools now analyze vast datasets, identifying early disease markers that might otherwise be missed.
Studies show that AI can match or exceed human accuracy in detecting conditions like diabetic retinopathy, certain cancers and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks by using biomarkers to enable predictions of up to 96% accuracy. All this highlights AI's potential in early detection and risk assessment of emerging conditions.
The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth, and its benefits remain clear—reducing in-person visits while maintaining continuity of care, a win-win for the patient and overburdened healthcare system. Wearable devices, such as continuous glucose monitors and smartwatches with ECG capabilities, allow patients to track their health in real time, enabling earlier interventions when the issues are less acute.
Consumer-driven health tracking is expanding rapidly, with apps monitoring sleep, stress and metabolism to help patients take proactive steps toward well-being. AI-driven programs integrate biometric data to personalize stress management strategies.
A study on nurses in high-stress environments implemented an AI-assisted intervention, including mindfulness meditation, acceptance commitment therapy, storytelling, reflective writing and laughter therapy. The AI component tailored these interventions to individual biometric data, significantly reducing stress and burnout. If this approach works for nurses, could it also benefit other clinicians in high-pressure environments?
The current healthcare ecosystem is plagued by fragmented data systems. Improved interoperability—where electronic health records (EHRs) can seamlessly share information across providers—enhances coordinated care and reduces redundant testing.
However, achieving full interoperability remains a challenge due to regulatory and technical barriers. The inefficiencies and increased workload associated with non-interoperable EHRs have been found to limit the capacity of primary care providers, thereby reducing patient access to timely and effective care.
A key transformation in primary care is shifting from physician-centered models to transdisciplinary teams, where experts collaborate beyond traditional roles to deliver holistic care. Unlike multidisciplinary teams, where each professional operates in silos, transdisciplinary teams merge expertise to provide holistic, patient-focused care.
In this model:
• Physicians focus on complex case management, ensuring specialized care for chronic and rare conditions.
• AI-assisted clinicians—nurse practitioners, physician assistants and dietitians—leverage AI-driven insights to support lifestyle interventions and chronic disease management.
• Tech specialists and data analysts optimize patient outcomes through health analytics and inform tech strategies.
This approach allows each provider to operate at the top of their expertise, enhancing efficiency and care quality.
Despite the promise of these advancements, significant challenges remain:
Many EHR systems remain proprietary, making seamless data exchange difficult and political. Without universal standards, healthcare providers struggle to access comprehensive patient histories, leading to fragmented care. The universe of health and wellness data that exists outside of the EHR is often overlooked but could offer deep and longitudinal insights into a person's health and habits. One in six consumers uses wearable devices to track health metrics such as heart health, sleep and activity.
While digital tools can broaden access to healthcare, they can also worsen existing disparities if not designed with inclusivity in mind. For example, rural and low-income populations may have limited internet access or lack familiarity with digital health technologies, hindering their ability to benefit from these tools. When combined with the literacy and disposable income disparities often seen in low-income communities, this creates a risk of leaving some of the most vulnerable populations even further behind.
Technology should reduce clinician workload, yet many digital systems add complexity. Doctors frequently report that they are spending too much time on EHR documentation, which takes away from their time with patients.
While some of the excessive time spent on documentation may be attributed to physicians' low adoption of tools and automation, this is not the only cause. The truth is physicians are spending an increasing amount of time documenting content in the EHR.
Technology-driven strategies are vital for the future of primary care. Without digital transformation and AI investment, both caregiver well-being and business sustainability will likely suffer. Healthcare tech leaders should prioritize user-friendly, efficient systems that enhance workflows by exploring innovative solutions beyond traditional vendors for greater design control and data exchange.
The future of primary care is not a battle between technology and medicine—it is an evolution that requires collaboration. For this transformation to succeed:
• Healthcare organizations must invest in AI and interoperability solutions that reduce administrative burden and enhance clinical efficiency.
• Physicians must embrace redefined roles leading digital health initiatives and applying their expertise where it is most impactful.
• Policymakers must prioritize regulatory frameworks that support innovation while ensuring equity and security.
• Patients must be empowered as active participants in their health through better education, transparency and access to personalized digital tools.
By leveraging technology alongside transdisciplinary collaboration, primary care can move from a reactive, disease-centered and overburdened model to a proactive, prevention-driven holistic system driving health and wellness. The next generation of healthcare is already here, and those who adapt will define its future.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MSPs vote to introduce scaled-back social care reforms
MSPs have unanimously passed legislation which will allow people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted measures. The Care Reform (Scotland) Bill will also introduce changes to social care procurement and a new right to breaks for unpaid carers. The legislation was backed by 116 votes to none. Plans to introduce a national care service, which were initially part of the bill, were dropped in January after unions withdrew support and a number of health boards and care organisations expressed concerns. One of the big changes planned under the new law is a legal right to breaks for unpaid carers. This mean councils will have a duty to decide whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring role. If they are not, then the local authority will provide support to enable this, such as providing funding for short respite breaks. This policy, given Scotland has around 700,000 unpaid carers, will cost between £196m and £315m by 2035/36, according to the Bill's financial memorandum. However, it remains a fraction of the £13.9bn that unpaid care is currently saving Scotland every year. Improvements to the way information is shared in health and social care - to make it less likely that people will have to repeat their information - as well changes to procurement rules in the sector are also planned. Beefing up the powers that watchdogs can take against failing care providers is also part of the bill. The most high-profile part of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill is Anne's Law, which allows people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted measures. It is named after Anne Duke, who died aged 63 in November 2021 after being cut off from her family while battling early-onset dementia during the Covid pandemic. The original proposal for a National Care Service, inspired by the NHS, was to take social care provision and staff away from local authorities into a new national agency. That was then dropped in favour of creating a national care board to supervise service delivery and improve consistency - but this failed to win over a growing number of critics. Council body Cosla and trade unions then withdrew their support for the project, while a number of health boards and care organisations also expressed concerns. The plan, which was also subject to a series of delays, was eventually scrapped in January after £30m was spent on the process. Social Care Minister Maree Todd said at the time she was "still committed to the ambitions of the National Care Service" but added the SNP no longer had the support it needed in parliament to pass its original plans into law. How the SNP's flagship social care reforms were scaled back Why was Scotland's National Care Service scrapped?
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on
