Group awaiting approval of Summa purchase shares extensive vision for using AI
The venture capital firm bankrolling Health Assurance Transformation Company's purchase — pending regulatory approval — of Summa Health has been lobbying U.S. government officials for new health care policies espousing greater use of artificial intelligence in medical settings.
HATCo owner General Catalyst has published a range of materials advocating for policies encouraging health care providers to use AI while delivering care and equip patients with AI to monitor vital signs in their daily lives.
In 2024, General Catalyst launched an initiative called the General Catalyst Institute. The institute published a March report that said AI could be implemented throughout the entire health care system — with the federal government getting rid of regulations that General Catalyst and its allies see as burdensome.
The integration of AI into health care is among the chief concerns opponents of the Summa deal have expressed about the potential HATCo ownership, with fears that it will result in less attentive care and the elimination of jobs.
One of the proposals in the GCI paper — which General Catalyst spokesperson Molly Gillis said via email was "drafted in collaboration with over two dozen healthcare experts and entrepreneurs" — is for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to "create an expedited pathway for reviewing and approving AI-driven healthcare solutions."
The paper also shares the firm's vision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services broadly supporting the "Make America Healthy Again" movement championed by President Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For example, the paper said the department can create "regional healthcare innovation sandboxes" that would test "interventions that address root causes of chronic disease, including environmental factors and food additives, while maintaining rigorous scientific standards."
Gillis, partner and chief of staff at General Catalyst, said the General Catalyst Institute is nonpartisan. She did not directly answer a Beacon Journal reporter's question about whether General Catalyst is concerned about Kennedy, the HHS secretary — opposing vaccines, questioning antidepressants and advocating for the removal of fluoride from public water.
The effectiveness of multiple vaccines and antidepressants has been thoroughly tested and is widely agreed upon in the medical community, while new drugs go through multi-tiered government approval processes. Fluoride is added to water to prevent cavities, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Our engagement in Washington reflects our belief that healthcare transformation requires input from leaders across the public and private sectors, regardless of who is in office," Gillis said.
More broadly, Gillis said, "General Catalyst's commitment to fulfilling and accelerating the promise of Health Assurance, which prioritizes and incentivizes keeping people well, remains steadfast. We strongly believe that accelerating innovation and advancing value-based care through patient-centered solutions will create better health outcomes for all Americans."
Summa spokesman Mike Bernstein said via email that Summa is fully aligned with General Catalyst and HATCo's vision of creating a new health care model "that transforms the current sick care system into a resilient, proactive system designed to help people stay well, reduce cost through innovation and make quality care more affordable and accessible for everyone. We view this work as non-partisan and we seek feedback from people throughout the public and private sectors, regardless of who is in office or what political affiliations they hold."
Summa leaders could not directly address the GCI report, Bernstein said.
General Catalyst Institute also praised decisions surrounding AI by the Trump administration in a March 14 letter to the National Coordination Office at the U.S. government's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.
"President Trump has demonstrated his commitment — and that of his administration — to strengthening American leadership in the global AI race in a variety of ways, including prioritizing the appointment of the first ever White House AI Czar in David Sacks, and nominating and appointing many qualified individuals to shape and implement his administration's policies across this important topic," the letter said.
While the March 14 letter was not fully focused on health care as the GCI report was, it cited health care as an area where AI could be applied, stating that AI can "analyze medical data, help with diagnostic tools, predict disease outbreaks, and personalize treatment plans."
Matthew Charlebois, who is opposed to the proposed Summa-HATCo deal and a member of the Summa Is Not For Sale coalition, said it was "not surprising at all" to him that General Catalyst would try to curry favor with the Trump administration.
"If Kamala Harris won the election, they would do something similar with her administration in terms of trying to win their support," Charlebois said.
But as far as General Catalyst's proposals themselves, he said, "It very much sounds like Akron and Summa in particular is being used as an experimental guinea pig subject to test out these largely unproven scientific experiments with regards to implementing AI technology into health care."
Charlebois said General Catalyst wants "less regulations on the health care industry so they can extract more profits from patients and they can work their workers even harder."
The General Catalyst Institute wrote in the March 14 letter, "The adoption of intelligent AI agents allows humans to focus on work that requires creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex decision-making. As this trend continues, managing AI agents will likely become a new function, or part of an expanded role."
Summa's Bernstein said, "Importantly, technology will be used to support and empower our workforce, not replace it, so that clinicians and staff can focus fully on what matters most: delivering compassionate, high-quality care.
"As part of this transformation, we remain committed to investing in our people through workforce development, clinical training and enhanced engagement, recognizing that they are vital to our long-term success."
Hemant Taneja, General Catalyst's CEO, and Dr. Stephen Klasko, an adviser to the firm and former president and CEO of Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Health, in 2020 wrote a book called "UnHealthcare." In it, they proposed that a new "health assurance" system could replace the "sick care" system.
"Building health assurance is one of the greatest business opportunities in history," they wrote. "How often in any generation does a multi-trillion-dollar global industry go through a reinvention?"
Many of the proposals listed in the book focus on using technology to detect symptoms so physical health assurance locations don't get crowded, consumers can make more choices about their health to improve their wellbeing and hospitals can lower costs.
"Failure to take medications is one of the chief reasons patients end up back at a doctor's office or emergency room," the authors wrote. "Soon, pills will contain a tiny ingestible chip that can tell an app whether you're following through."
Later in the book, Taneja and Klasko wrote, "AI-driven chat bots will 'talk' to mental health patients — we already know that many younger people are more likely to be honest with a chat bot than a psychologist. AI will help keep an eye on seniors 24/7, enabling them to live at home longer."
In its March report, the General Catalyst Institute addressed concerns about privacy, safety and security as it proposed the rollout of AI throughout the health care system. Ensuring privacy, for instance, would be done in part through data encryption and anonymization, the paper said.
A document signed by Summa and HATCo leaders said HATCo and its affiliates will encourage portfolio companies to "locate their headquarters in the Summa Community." The Beacon Journal obtained the report from the Ohio Attorney General's Office, which is reviewing the proposed sale.
Charlebois said he doesn't see how patients, workers and the community would benefit from General Catalyst's AI push.
"None of these are proposals that are about meeting the needs of Akronites," Charlebois said. "All these are proposals about, 'How can we profit our portfolio companies and ourselves and take over the health care industry and run it like a for-profit corporation?'"
Meanwhile, Summa is already using AI for multiple services, Bernstein said, citing "sepsis detection, transcription, radiology interpretation and lung cancer screening."
The hospital system uses a "comprehensive vetting process" before implementing new technologies, Bernstein said, adding that these are technologies from various companies, including some in General Catalyst's investment portfolio. He declined to name specific General Catalyst portfolio companies that provide the technologies, citing that "we are still in the early stages of this work and still in regulatory review" with the acquisition deal.
Other Northeast Ohio hospital systems are using similar technologies, too. University Hospitals radiologists interpret results with AI, and Cleveland Clinic uses AI to transcribe provider-patient interactions. Providers from both hospital systems have talked positively of the technologies.
Charlebois said Summa employees in inpatient and outpatient patient care settings have joined the Summa Is Not For Sale coalition. He declined, however, to share how many Summa employees have joined the group — saying they all want to remain anonymous.
Gillis said General Catalyst's work over the past several years has had a priority of "making healthcare more accessible and affordable for all Americans."
"As we work towards finalizing our transaction with Summa Health, which includes maintaining its charity care policy, community benefit, and essential services, our vision is to reimagine and evolve healthcare to work better for patients, providers, and communities in the Greater Akron region and across America — through partnership, innovation, and an unwavering focus on health outcomes for all people," Gillis said.
Patrick Williams covers growth and development for the Akron Beacon Journal. He can be reached by email at pwilliams@gannett.com or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @pwilliamsOH. Sign up for the Beacon Journal's business and consumer newsletter, "What's the deal?," at bit.ly/42LtqbS
This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: HATCo owner General Catalyst would bring heavy AI focus to Summa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WebMD
32 minutes ago
- WebMD
Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?
June 11, 2025 — Have you checked your annual mammogram off your health to-do list? That's a relief, for sure — but there's one more critical step to take after you get your results. Go over your report to see if you have dense breast tissue. For more than 40% of women, the answer is yes. And that means you may want to consider supplemental testing. The next step isn't always clear. But two new studies compared your options. Here's what to know. 1. Having dense breasts increases your risk of breast cancer. Why it matters: Not only is the risk higher, but it's also harder to detect cancer in dense breasts. What to know: Dense breasts have more fibrous tissue and milk glands than fat tissue. On a mammogram, the dense areas show up as white — the same color as cancer. That can make cancer harder to see, particularly when it's small. Federal law (since last fall) requires that you be notified whether your mammogram shows you have dense breasts. To be certain, check your patient portal report or call your doctor's office. You'll also want to find out if you have 'heterogeneously dense' or 'extremely dense' breasts. What's the difference? "Heterogeneously dense" means most of the breast is dense with some areas of fat, and "extremely dense" means the breast has almost no fatty tissue. Even if you don't have dense breasts now, they could become more dense as you age, so you need to recheck your report every year. Dense breasts can only be diagnosed with imaging — a physical exam can't tell. Bottom line: 'Women should know that if they have dense breasts, the mammogram might not see their cancer,' said Ruth Etzioni, PhD, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle who specializes in analyzing benefit-harm tradeoffs in cancer screening tests. 2. If you have dense breasts, consider supplemental screening. Why it matters: Between 25% and 30% of cancers in heterogeneously dense breasts are missed on a standard mammogram. That number for extremely dense breasts is even higher, potentially topping 40%. What to know: Knowing your breast density type can help you understand how likely a mammogram would be to miss cancer in your breast. But that's only one part of the decision-making equation. For those with heterogeneously dense breasts, 'we typically will consider other risk factors in addition to breast density in order to decide whether to recommend supplemental screening,' said Pittsburgh-based radiologist and dense-breast expert Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD. A list of risk factors, including family history and high BMI after menopause, is available at Bottom line: If you have extremely dense breasts, you should get supplemental screening, Berg said. If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, you should know your risk factors and talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you. 3. There are three types of supplemental screenings. Why it matters: Researchers compared these techniques — ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammogram — by randomly assigning them to women ages 50 to 70 with dense breasts whose mammograms didn't detect cancer. Results showed that MRI and the contrast-enhanced mammogram (using an iodine -based dye that helps reveal cancers) each found nearly five times as many cancers as ultrasound. What to know: Contrast-enhanced mammogram detected 19.2 cancers per 1,000 people scanned; MRI detected 17.4 per 1,000 scans; ultrasound detected 4.2 per 1,000. These detection rates were somewhat higher than in past studies, Berg and Etzioni said. They noted that women who get the scans repeated annually often see those detection rates drop over time. (That's because you're more likely to have an undetected past cancer than to develop a new one in the next year.) A separate study in JAMA Oncology recently showed that among women with a family history of breast cancer, just getting a slightly better scan than a standard mammogram — called a 3D mammogram — offered improved detection of advanced cancer in women with extremely dense breasts. 'That was compelling that we should really be doing [3D mammogram] as the routine screening, at least for the basic screening,' Berg said. Bottom line: If you have a family history of breast cancer, request a 3D mammogram for your initial annual screen, and when considering supplemental scans, know that some are better than others. 4. Your doctor may not automatically suggest supplemental screening. Why it matters: Berg's own doctor questioned her request to get an MRI after Berg learned that she has dense breasts. Ultimately, she got the MRI, which showed a small cancer that she said was easily treated and she has recovered. What to know: An advisory group called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that typically influences what insurance will cover doesn't recommend supplemental screening for people with dense breasts. Their reason: There is no multi-year clinical trial data examining whether extra screenings have drawbacks. Bottom line: It's OK to request supplemental screening, and knowing your risk factors will help during that conversation with your doctor. 'You still can't count on your doctor to provide all the information that you might need to make a decision for yourself about supplemental screening,' Berg said. 5. Not all supplemental screenings are covered by insurance. Why it matters: Not every state requires insurance to cover supplemental screenings — and in those that do, the law may not apply to every type of insurance. maintains a list of which states and plan types are required to cover it. What to know: Without coverage, out-of-pocket costs for an MRI can reach thousands of dollars, but a type called 'abbreviated' or 'quick' MRI can be lower — between $300 and $600 total. Contrast mammography and ultrasound are usually even less, and a 3D mammogram can sometimes cost an extra $40 or $50. MRIs where Berg works in Pittsburgh are booking six months out. A contrast-enhanced mammogram isn't a usual method used in the U.S., but Berg said some places are starting to offer it and testing the waters to see if insurance will cover it. The procedure only takes about 15 minutes, including the contrast dye injection, and uses a standard mammogram machine. Bottom line: 'If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, I think it really does come down to your own tolerance of other risk factors and whether your insurance will cover it, so it is more of a personal choice,' Berg said. 6. Think through your benefit/harm tradeoffs. Why it matters: Getting extra scans can be stressful, potentially expensive, and require a lot of time researching and communicating with your provider — not to mention taking time off work for appointments. What to know: Your risk calculation is complex, including the risk of missing a cancer detection. For example, ultrasound does have advantages (it's quick, noninvasive, and inexpensive), but tends not to spot cancer until the tumor is larger. There's also about a 10% risk of a false positive with most screening types. 'You have to poke a lot of people to find the people that you can help,' said Etzioni, who is an expert in data-driven medical decision-making, particularly when it comes to diagnostic testing and early cancer diagnosis. Bottom line: Deciding whether to get additional screening is personal and involves weighing your comfort with risk and the potential stress and cost of a false positive, Berg said. 'I think it's hard — you don't want to have any regrets either way. I don't know anybody who has regrets that their cancer was found too small. It's always better — if it's going to be there — to find it as early as possible.'
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
Federal agencies Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
