Insights from CEOs building at the front lines of healthcare innovation
Healthcare is one of the hardest industries to build in. Not because innovation isn’t possible, but because the stakes are high and the system is complex.
At the 2026 Utah Tech Week, Philo Ventures hosted a panel of healthcare leaders to talk candidly about what it actually takes to build in the healthcare tech space. The conversation spanned AI, reimbursement dynamics, workforce burnout, consumer expectations, and the future of insurance.
At Utah Tech Week, Philo Ventures hosted a candid discussion with healthcare tech leaders building across staffing, behavioral health, dental, and venture. What emerged wasn’t a celebration of AI. It was a grounded conversation about incentives, burnout, cost, and what it actually takes to build something that lasts in this system.
Products that integrate into messy workflows, survive reimbursement realities, and earn trust from clinicians who are already stretched thin, are gaining traction.
The themes that emerged weren’t about hype. They were about durability. Here are five themes that stood out.
One dynamic was very clear: customers are not shopping for AI.
They’re shopping for solutions that work.
Curtis Anderson, CEO of Nursa, shared that their clients don’t particularly care whether a feature is marketed as “powered by an LLM, or AI”. They care whether it fills shifts faster, reduces friction, or improves reliability. In some cases, labeling something as “AI-driven” can actually discourage adoption.
Cairo Murphy of Stratus echoed a similar shift in dental. “Practices experimented with AI tools because the category was hot. Now the conversation has tightened: What is the measurable return? Does this change my revenue cycle? Does it improve patient experience? Or is it just another dashboard?”
The novelty phase is ending. The ROI phase is beginning.
For builders, this is a meaningful inflection point. Healthcare buyers are increasingly disciplined. If the economic impact isn’t clear, tangible and relevant, the technology won’t survive procurement.
If AI makes healthcare more efficient, does that mean care becomes more affordable?
Not necessarily.
Loren Larsen, CEO of Videra Health, raised a harder question: “If AI reduces administrative overhead or improves documentation speed, who actually captures the value? Providers? Payers? Patients?”
Several panelists described what feels like an emerging arms race between payers and providers. As providers adopt automation to optimize claims and reimbursement, payers deploy increasingly sophisticated tools to review and deny claims more efficiently. It can almost be described as “bots fighting bots.”
Curtis Anderson described it as “Star Wars — bots against bots.”
“The more ubiquitous those bots have become on reimbursement models,” he noted, “the deeper the adversarial roots go… the better the automated weapons become to wage war against the other side.”
The result isn’t necessarily lower cost. It’s technical escalation that has cost.
The deeper issue isn’t whether AI can improve operational efficiency — it can. The question is whether those gains translate into lower system-wide costs or simply sharpen adversarial dynamics.
Healthcare incentives are layered and, at times, misaligned. Founders entering this space must understand where value accrues and who benefits when efficiencies increase.
Technology alone doesn’t change incentives. But it can expose them.
Perhaps the most sobering part of the conversation centered on clinician burnout.
Nurse burnout is now higher than it was at the peak of COVID, attrition remains elevated and wage growth has not consistently kept pace with inflation. This isn’t a simple operational challenge. It’s structural.
Curtis Anderson spoke to the post-pandemic whiplash many clinicians are experiencing. During COVID, healthcare workers were publicly celebrated. As patient volumes outside of COVID have normalized and financial pressures returned, that moment of recognition faded — but the workload and strain did not.
For health tech builders, the implication is clear: technology must either reduce friction for clinicians or risk contributing to it.
AI can remove administrative burden. It can streamline scheduling. It can reduce redundant documentation. But if it simply increases productivity expectations or surveillance, it may deepen mistrust.
The companies that win loyalty will be those that restore autonomy and capacity, not just optimize margin.
Another theme that surfaced was the rapid consumerization of healthcare.
Patients now have direct access to medical literature, AI-driven explanations, and digital health tools. If someone can upload lab results and receive instant analysis at home, the traditional model of waiting weeks for a short in-person visit begins to feel inefficient.
Loren Larsen noted that many patients are increasingly asking: why sit in a waiting room when you can get immediate answers elsewhere?
In dental, Cairo Murphy, CEO & Founder of Stratus shared that some providers are experimenting with reducing reliance on traditional insurance models, responding to patients who question the value of coverage that doesn’t always meaningfully reduce cost.
These shifts don’t eliminate the need for clinicians. But they do raise expectations around transparency, responsiveness, and value.
Builders operating in healthcare must account for a more empowered patient — one who arrives informed, skeptical, and digitally fluent.
Underlying the entire discussion was a philosophical tension: not all health tech improves healthcare.
Some products optimize billing. Some accelerate denial management. Some monetize complexity without reducing it.
The CEOs in this conversation returned repeatedly to a different standard: alignment.
The companies that endure tend to reduce friction across stakeholders rather than exploit it. They integrate into real workflows. They improve clarity. They deliver measurable outcomes that matter to clinicians and operators.
Healthcare is slow-moving for a reason. The regulatory environment is strict. The financial structures are entrenched. The human stakes are high.
But within that complexity is opportunity for builders who are willing to understand incentives, validate rigorously, and build patiently.
Healthcare is not a market you disrupt overnight. It is a system you earn your way into.
AI will absolutely shape its future. But the companies that matter most won’t be the ones with the loudest claims or the most aggressive positioning. They’ll be the ones that improve workflows in ways clinicians, managers and patients actually feel. The ones that can demonstrate measurable ROI while increasing trust. The ones that understand reimbursement dynamics deeply enough to navigate them — not just criticize them.
In healthcare, credibility compounds. Adoption follows proof. Trust follows consistency.
The founders who endure are not chasing hype cycles. They are building companies that integrate into real environments, respect the lived experience of providers, and create value that persists beyond a funding round or a trend line.
That was the throughline of the CEO discussion: not speed, not spectacle — but disciplined building in one of the most complex systems in the world.
And for those willing to do that work, the opportunity isn’t just large. It’s meaningful.
March 12, 2026