New Tech Tonics Podcast: Jess Mega of Verily Actually Is Making the World a Better Place

This blog was originally posted on Venture Valkyrie.

J-Mega-PhotoJessica Mega, an accomplished cardiologist and now Chief Medical Officer at Alphabet’s Verily (formerly Google Life Sciences), says she joined the venerable Silicon Valley company to help patients. According to Jess, physicians who love patients need to lean into the tech world because great tech that doesn’t actually change care doesn’t have much of a chance, implying also that it doesn’t have much of a point.

Very early to the concept of what is now called Precision Medicine, Jess helped pioneer the idea of large scale patient data collection (e.g., a study with multiple countries, 1000 sites, 20,000 patients) while studying the individual effects of medications, such as Plavix among populations. She was early to the concept of joining genetic, clinical and phenotypic information together to inform medicine, a concept she has imported to Verily as they take on some of the most challenging clinical problems together with world class medical partners such as Novartis, Dexcom, J&J and the American Heart Association, among others.

Jess imbues her work with the enthusiasm of someone who feels that work is play and that a real contribution is possible every day. She brings the kind of empathy and humanity to Silicon Valley that makes the effective intersection of tech and healthcare seem not just desirable, but also achievable. She just may be making the world a better place.

We are delighted to host Jess on Tech Tonics today. You can listen to her interview by clicking below or find it on iTunes by clicking HERE or on the Connected Social Media website HERE.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Before Thursday’s ACA repeal and replace vote – a throwback to 2012

Before Thursday’s ACA repeal and replace vote, we’d like to share a post from 2012, when Disruptive Women in Healthcare Founder Robin Strongin moderated a panel held by The Hill at the Republican National Convention on the future of health care policy. Among the panelists were former Sen. Trent Lott; Rep. Tom Price; Dr. Donald Palmisano, MD, JD, former president of the American Medical Association; and Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League.

2012-08-29-GN-Strongin Robin-2

Check out the recap (with video) of that event:


Subscribe to our newsletter

Beyond Repeal and Replace

Robin Strongin

While most of the attention in the health zone is being sucked up by the latest attempt to repeal ACA and replace it with God knows what, there exists a disturbingly high number of health related issues that never seem to get the attention they deserve.

So I thought I would remind us about a few of them — (would love to hear from others–what else should be on this list?):

  • Hunger: do you have any idea how many children go to school hungry? How many older people do not get enough nutrition? How many homeless people and people living in poverty go to bed hungry?
  • Hospitals’ tax-exempt status: what are hospitals giving back to their communities?  If they aren’t, why do they still maintain non-profit status?
  • When we talk about Quality in/of health care–what does that really mean? Are we delivering quality health care and if not, what can be done?
  • Patient’s rights/wishes–do people really understand what they should/can be asking/demanding? Are individual’s wishes being honored, especially at the end of life?
  • Workforce–are we training and maintaining adequate health teams–if not, what can we do differently?  What/who should the health workforce of the future include?
  • Young adults with chronic diseases–we don’t often “see” or know about 14.5 million young adults who struggle everyday–to stay in school, to work, to attain/maintain independence?
  • Mental health services–where are the beds? the services desperately needed?
  • Increasing women in real health care leadership positions (C-suite; boards; equity partners) and related to this, Increasing access to capital for women innovators
  • Violence against women (and girls); sexual assault (civilians and military)–we are so far from where we need to be on this one
  • Bias: how best to conquer unconscious bias in delivering health care to individuals who may be “different” from the health care practitioner–gender sensitivity/language challenges/socioeconomic status/race/mental health status

None of this is easy.   We have to keep pushing forward.

Subscribe to our newsletter

How the Wrong Medicaid Reforms Could Devastate Young People with Complex Medical Needs

This post was authored by Sophia Jan MD, MSHP; Ahaviah Glaser, JD; and Rebecca Kim. It was originally published by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute Policy Lab blog

Current proposals to simultaneously repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reform the federal Medicaid program would be devastating to children and young adults with disabilities and complex medical needs. Even if the final ACA replacement plan continues to allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until they turn 26 – which is a benefit largely supported on both sides of the political aisle – the most medically complex among them rely on Medicaid because of the extraordinary level and cost of care needed.

Today, Medicaid covers 10.2 million adults and children with serious illnesses or disabilities whose health needs create significant financial burden for patients and their families. For example:

  • Medicaid pays for physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy that children with cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities may receive through school.
  • Medicaid covers private-duty nursing and assistive technology — such as ventilators, feedings tubes and communication devices — that children with disabilities may need to attend school and avoid placement in institutional settings.
  • Medicaid frequently fills in coverage gaps for privately insured children with disabilities since over one-third of insured children with disabilites report inadequate coverage.

These individuals and their families have much to lose with the Medicaid reform proposal currently on the table.

The Switch to Medicaid Per Capita Caps

The ACA replacement plan unveiled Monday night in the U.S. House of Representatives recommends converting Medicaid to a “per capita cap” program, which would provide states with a predetermined amount of funding for each Medicaid enrollee. This type of proposal also gives states more flexibility to decide Medicaid eligibility and service options. Far from a new idea, proposals to reform Medicaid in this way go back at least as far as 1981. Supporters have always presented these proposals as a way for the federal government to save billions of dollars and give states more control. Sounds good, so what’s the catch?

First, per capita caps endanger funding for medically complex children. Under a Medicaid per capita cap, the federal government will likely determine the limit of reimbursement for each child enrolled in Medicaid based on the average health care cost of a child eligible for Medicaid today. It is reasonable to assume that the reimbursement rate per child will be set fairly low, since children make up 50 percent of the Medicaid population, but only contribute to 20 percent of the program’s costs. This may leave insufficient funding for medically complex children whose health care costs are significantly higher than those of other children.

To illustrate, a Medicaid-eligible child costs Pennsylvania $3,561 per year on average. By contrast, a family with a child who has suffered spinal cord injuries may require over $7,000 per month for the mechanical ventilation keeping their child alive. Medicaid per capita caps would not account for the differential health care needs of this family and would shrink both states’ overall budget and ability to care for all children regardless of their health care needs.

Loss of EPSDT

Additionally, all children covered by Medicaid are at risk of losing essential health services they are currently guaranteed. Today, to receive federal funds for their Medicaid programs, states must provide insurance coverage and Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services to all children under 21 who qualify for Medicaid based on their health status or family income. EPSDT is a comprehensive set of screenings and preventive services that catch problems early, before they have the chance to escalate. States must also guarantee children have access to all treatment services that Medicaid providers deem medically necessary from these screenings and services.

EPSDT services, which were designed to meet the unique health care needs of children, could be eliminated with major cuts to Medicaid spending through per capita caps. This is because the financial burden of keeping people covered would fall to the states, which would have more flexibility to decide who qualifies for Medicaid and which services to cover. Medicaid coverage would, therefore, be on the negotiating table when states are faced with difficult budgetary decisions. Children with disabilities could lose access to essential services and, in all likelihood, would be left with no affordable insurance options that meet their health care needs. In Pennsylvania alone, over 13,000 people with intellectual disabilities are already waiting to receive Medicaid-funded services.

Impact on therapies children receive in school

For decades, Medicaid has also allocated funding to schools that provide special education and certain medically necessary services to children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). By reducing federal spending and eliminating the possibility of adjusting funding levels based on changing needs, per capita caps would likely force school districts to compete with hospitals and health care centers for precious Medicaid dollars, and they’d likely take the most significant hit. Schools would be forced to pay for special education programs with funds allocated for general education, potentially reducing the amount of money available to pay for teachers, counselors, nurses and extracurricular programming for all students.

Potential Solutions

One way to decrease the potentially devastating impact that per capita caps will have on children with disabilities is to place children with disabilities and other medically complex conditions into a different category from their healthier peers, essentially creating a “high-risk pool” for Medicaid-eligible children. Alternatively, Medicaid-eligible children with disabilities could be grouped together with adults who also qualify for Medicaid due to disability, which may minimize loss of Medicaid coverage — and the requisite delivery of medical and nursing care services — that frequently occurs when emerging adults with disabilities transition from pediatric to adult health care services.

Lawmakers will confront many difficult decisions in the coming weeks and months, but whether to pursue reforms that will inevitably cut access to care for our most vulnerable populations should not be one of them. As Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel wrote this week in his New York Times op-ed, “this would be even worse than going back to the days before the Affordable Care Act.” Sweeping cuts to a program that nearly half of all U.S. children — and most children with very complex medical conditions — rely upon for the health care they need to survive and thrive is not the answer. We must find thoughtful ways to improve the efficiency and quality of health care in order to achieve the shared goals of bringing down health care costs and improving health outcomes for everyone.

Rebecca Kim is an MD/MPH student at the University of Pennsylvania. She works with Dr. Sophie Jan and the Multidisciplinary Intervention Navigation Team (MINT) at CHOP on their efforts to improve transitions to adult care.

Subscribe to our newsletter

In Honor of International Women’s Day 2017…

In Honor of International Women’s Day 2017, we give a shout-out to our Disruptive Women to Watch in 2017!

aveyLinda Avey

Co-founder 23andMe and Co-founder and CEO, Curious Inc.


BrintonDr. Roberta Diaz Brinton

Inaugural Director, Center for Innovation in Brain Science, University of Arizona Health Sciences


CarrilloDr. Maria C. Carrillo

Chief Science Officer, Medical and Scientific Relations, Alzheimer’s Association


ComerMeryl Comer

Founding Board Member, USAgaistAlzheimer’s and President, Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative


CrooksDr. Glenna Crooks

Founder and CEO SageMyLife.


HallerStacy Pagos Haller

President and CEO, BrightFocus Foundation


HendersonMarsha B. Henderson

Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health (OWH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)


LangbaumDr. Jessica Langbaum

Principal Scientist, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and Associate Director, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative


LathanDr. Corinna E. Lathan

Co-founder, Board Chair and CEO, AnthroTronix


LesserJill Lesser

President, WomenAgainstAlzheimer’s Network and Board Member, UsAgainstAlzheimer’s


MikulskiSenator Barbara Mikulski

Senator, retired


PfeiferDr. Andrea Pfeifer

CEO, AC Immune


PoslunsLynn Posluns

Founder, President and Board Chair, Women’s Brain Health Initiative (WBHI)


SeeleDr. Pernessa Seele

CEO & Founder The Balm In Gilead, Inc.


ElizabethTaylor2Dr. Reisa Sperling

Director, Center for Alzheimer’s Research and Treatment; Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Director of Clinical Research, Memory Disorders Unit, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Director, Neuroimaging Program, Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center


TomainoDr. Concetta Tomaino

Executive Director and Co-Founder, Institute for Music and Neurologic Function


TomainoTrish Vradenburg

Founding Board Member and Vice-Chair, UsAgainstAlzheimer’s


Subscribe to our newsletter

Patient Advocates Targeted with Unwarranted Criticism

Glenna Crooks

A study in the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, dings patient-advocacy groups for taking funds and engaging with experts from biopharmaceutical and medical device companies.

It’s an unfortunate (though familiar) drumbeat, insinuating – though not proving – a conflict-of-interest because money is involved. Guilty until proven innocent – once the charge is made – is hard to defend against.

Having worked with more than 1,500 patient advocacy groups in 26 countries for more than 40 years, I can.

The late Henreitta Aladjem, founder of the Lupus Foundation and the first advocate to visit me after my appointment by President Reagan would give me plenty of ammunition, as would everyone who testified when I was the Chairman of the Commission on Rare Diseases and the many groups I have met since.

I remember each one. Their stories are compelling and the groups they created are doing important work despite daunting challenges. Their resolve and sense of independence is fierce. They take companies to task far more often than you might think about how studies are conducted, about whether patient voices are heard and, yes, about price.

The NEJM publication, and subsequent news reports, strike at the heart of their integrity and the integrity of everyone who works for and with them. This is unwarranted finger-pointing, especially since it is not based on all the facts. I’ll address one error in particular: the percentage of an organization’s budget attributable to company sources which, in some cases, is positioned as ill-advisedly large.

Even the largest groups today started small, on someone’s kitchen table and often by people without business and professional skills to make it easier. It is only by dint of their dedication and the hard work of volunteers that these groups were founded and continue to exist at all.

At the start, and along the way, they recognized the value of volunteers implicitly. Rarely, however, did they adequately and accurately capture that value explicitly. Even reporting the number of volunteers or the hours of board meetings tells only a fraction of the story.

Yet, none of these groups would exist without the in-kind, human capital contributions of members, volunteers, community fund raisers, advisory committees and governing boards. Nor would they exist without in-kind contributions of vendors who provide services at discounted rates. Some in-kind contributions come from staff, as well, when they work at below-market wages for “the cause.”

Only one group I know attempted to comprehensively assess in-kind support. When they did, the value of just the Board’s time (at a rate far below their day job’s compensation) was greater than the total financial contributions from five companies. When the value of vendor discounts was added to the Board’s time, the in-kind total equaled the organization’s entire budget.

A few months ago, I might have shrugged-off this article as yet-another example of just-damn-sloppy scholarship work done by academics to inform policy debates today. There are plenty like this one taking opportunistic strikes, this time at advocates who are guilty-by-association with one of todays’ favorite policy and political whipping boys.

A few weeks ago, however, after nearly two years of volunteering my professional skills to a patient advocacy group, I was asked to join its Board and Executive Committee. I agreed. Now, I take this personally.

Advocacy groups don’t deserve unwarranted finger-pointing like this, nor as a Board member, do I.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Loneliness and its Impact on Health: Share Your Story

Robin Strongin

A friend of mine reached out not to long ago and asked if we could meet for coffee.  She had something she wanted to talk to me about and I was intrigued.

It had been some time since we had seen each other so we spent a bit of time catching up on friends and family.  Of course most of that time was focused on our kids–how proud we are of them, how fortunate we are to have great relationships with them, and how quiet it is at home now that they are out of the house.

As we made our way from coffee to food (hers was the healthy meal choice, mine, not so much) she shared that she had been thinking about, and doing some research on, loneliness–and it’s affect on health.  Especially for women.

We discussed the many dimensions of loneliness–living in isolation (geographically speaking and feeling isolated in a crowded urban environment); empty-nest syndrome; aging and the loss of friends; relationships gone bad.

All of this at a time when, ironically, more and more of us are more and more connected through technology.  Or are we?

We started to talk about how prevalent loneliness is, especially for women–and the remarkable impact it has on health–emotional and physical health.

Ever the analyst, my friend came bearing statistics and articles with headlines that screamed: Researchers Confront an Epidemic of Loneliness, How Loneliness Wears on the Body, The Dangers of Loneliness, and Loneliness Has the Same Risk as Smoking for Heart Disease.

She wondered if there was something Disruptive Women could do.

We will be exploring this issue in greater depth over the next few months.  In the meantime, if you have a story you would like to share, please feel free to do so in the comments section.  If you have data, research, personal stories (please be sure all permissions to share are in accordance with any and all legal and regulatory requirements), we would love to hear from you.


Subscribe to our newsletter

See You at HIMSS 2017

Robin Strongin

DW-HIMSS-Banner-2017-TWITTERHope to see you on Tuesday where we will be discussing NAVIGATING UNCERTAINTY: Disruptive Women Style.



Subscribe to our newsletter

Gaming the System

This post was originally published by  The Health Care Blog  on February 11. 

As physicians ready themselves for the future of medicine under onerous MACRA regulations, it seems appropriate to glance into the future and visualize the medical utopia anticipated by so many.  Value-based care, determined by statistical analysis, is going to replace fee for service.

Six months ago, I received my first set of statistics from a state Medicaid plan and was told my ER utilization numbers were on the higher end compared to most practices in the region.  This was perplexing as my patients tend to avoid ER visits at all costs and can be found milling about in my parking lot at 7am on Mondays with their sick children waiting for my office to open.

I requested more detailed reports on ER utilization and was given a 20 page list with codes that needed to be hand matched to patient names.  Being a committed and diligent physician, I spent a random Saturday evening matching up 420 names to individual 15-digit codes after putting my children to bed.  Of my top 20 utilizers, only 8 were actually patients.  The remaining 12 had been “on my panel list” during the reporting period but had never set foot in my office.  Of the top 100 utilizers, only 42 were patients.  In the interest of accuracy, I requested they re-run the numbers using my patients only.  Mr. IT informed me the inaccurate panel would make no difference.  He might have failed statistics in college but who is keeping track. (more…)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Heart Month: Disruptive Woman Dr. Bernadette Melnyk Shares Her Story

Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN

This post was originally published by the Women’s Heart Alliance on February 10.

When people ask how I became interested in health and wellness, I have to tell them about the tragedy that forever changed my life.

My mom had a stroke right in front of me and died when I was home alone with her at age 15. She had a history of headaches and saw her family physician one week before she died. My mom was diagnosed with high blood pressure and given a prescription for a high blood pressure medication that my dad found in her purse after she died. As you can imagine, this traumatic event had a major impact and left me suffering from post-traumatic stress for a couple of years.

Quote Graphics on Bern Blog Post_ fb_igIt’s hard knowing that my mother’s death might have been prevented. She might have lived if she had known more about how high blood pressure was a major risk factor for stroke and got her prescription filled. I do not want other children to experience the loss of their moms early due to heart disease, which is in large part preventable with healthy lifestyle behaviors.

Heart disease and stroke now takes the life of one woman nearly every 80 seconds. That’s more than 400,000 women each year, who are mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and friends. Even though this silent killer contributes to more female deaths in America each year than all cancers combined, many people still think of heart disease as a “man’s disease.” That thinking can affect how quickly a woman, her family, or even her doctor takes her signs and symptoms seriously or diagnoses them correctly, and time is vital in treating heart attack, stroke, and other complications related to heart disease. Also, women’s symptoms can present differently than men’s, and not all health care providers are up to date with the latest evidence-based practice to know how to recognize symptoms of heart disease in women.

I urge everyone, especially health care providers, to be proactive in learning about how heart disease affects women and men differently, and ways to prevent it.


Subscribe to our newsletter

Health Care Worries Top Terrorism, By Far, In Americans’ Minds

Jane Sarasohn-Kahn

This article was originally published in on February 8, 2017.


Health care is the top concern of American families, according to a Monmouth University Poll conducted in the week prior to Donald Trump’s Presidential inauguration.

Among U.S. consumers’ top ten worries, eight in ten directly point to financial concerns — with health care costs at the top of the worry-list for 25% of people. Health care financial worries led the second place concern, job security and unemployment, by a large margin (11 percentage points) In third place was “everyday bills,” the top concern for 12% of U.S. adults.

Immigration was the top worry for only 3% of U.S. adults; terrorism and national security represented 2% of the American public’s concerns.

In the 2015 Monmouth Poll, 15% said health care was their family’s main worry. Today, this issue is #1 for families across income categories and party affiliation. (more…)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Super Bowl 2017

Founder and CEO SageMy™Life.

Founder and CEO SageMy™Life.

Regardless of whether your team won, you’ve no doubt been delighted, entertained and inspired by the commercials that aired last night. There are too many I liked to pick a favorite, but in the spirit of this blogspace, I yield my time and give my vote to Audi.

It’s a beautiful statement, to which I’ll add this. May he never have to explain to her:

  • Why she must pay more for access to health care than the men around her;
  • Why she – and not her male relatives or work colleagues – will need to leave the workforce to be an unpaid family caregiver, suffering a loss of income and retirement benefits; and
  • Why she may suffer unnecessarily because a women’s health didn’t get the attention it deserved.

Perhaps there are things you’d add to this list.


Subscribe to our newsletter

Hostels for Hope: Easing the Burden for Women with Cancer

This article was originally published on on February 2, 2017.

Sarah* is a 46-year-old mother of five and a cervical cancer survivor living in Tanzania. Survival wasn’t easy. She had to travel over 300 miles from her village to one of only two treatment facilities in the entire country; once she got there, she had no place to stay. Like Sarah, many of the over 10,000 Tanzanian women diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer each year face two major challenges – how to pay for transportation to the capital, Dar es Salaam, and where to stay for the duration of their treatment. For some women, the challenge is too great and they have no choice but to stay home and die. Others, like Sarah, make the difficult trip to the hospital, and struggle to survive through the treatment. Many sleep on the hospital grounds, or on the street, while being treated.

We at Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon believe that no woman should die of cervical or breast cancer, no matter where she lives. So we decided it was time for the women of Tanzania to have “homes away from home” near the country’s only two cancer treatment centers that could save their lives. We partnered with the American Cancer Society the Bush Institute HKS, Inc ., Southern Methodist University , and T-MARC Tanzania to sponsor the Hostels for Hope competition.

downloadWe challenged professional and student architects around the world to use fresh thinking, sustainable materials, and resourceful ingenuity to design safe, comfortable lodgings for women undergoing cancer treatments. And they responded! We received nearly 100 designs, and an esteemed jury chose six winners who will be announced on World Cancer Day , February 4, in Tanzania. The top two designs will be adapted according to the needs of the hospitals, and our hope is that they will be built in the coming year. (more…)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Top 5 Misconceptions and Questions about Public Health Tech

1. What is public health tech anyway?

lab-316553_960_720Public Health Tech, is any tech product or tech-enabled service that prevents the onset of disease or addresses the needs of medically vulnerable populations. This is an emerging niche of Digital Health growing due to the collision of digital health and public health. This collision has been catalyzed by two expanding pressures:

  1. Digital health failures: After a five year boom, 2016 was not a kind year to digital health. According to Rock Health, digital health VC funding made a slight dip to $4.2 billion after a record $4.5 billion in 2015. The overwhelming sense is that the party was over and the industry had entered the “trough of disillusionment.” A few of the factors that brought the over-exuberance down to earth were a renewed focus on evidentiary standards and a  reevaluation of the role of technology. Much of the boom was driven by sentiments that technology was the panacea even those most solutions were built around the fee-for-service model, that validation and claims would inevitably emerge with widescale adoption, and that the adoption of technology would inherently lead to reduced costs. None of these assumption have proven to be true.
  2. Public health spending crunch: Public Health spending had increased significantly from $39 per capita (inflation adjusted) to $275 per capita from 1960 to 2002, but a recent study has found that it has since been declining. Most of the increase in funding (approximately 80-90%) was a result of federal or local government spending. While the ACA in 2010 had originally committed $15 Billion in Public Health funding, it reduced that commitment by $6.25 Billion in 2012 and even further via sequestrations in 2013. Now with the new Trump administration, it is unclear how that funding will change, but if recent efforts to repeal the ACA are any indication, it is unlikely Public Health funding will see any relief in the near future and more likely will continue to experience significant cuts.

2. Public Health. Doesn’t that mean non-profits, government programs and impact investing?

Historically, Public Health has effected change through government agencies and community based organizations. However our healthcare system is changing at a rapid rate that makes it imperative to address needs in a scalable fashion. As fee-for-service begins to transition to value-based care, there will be renewed and growing interest and need on focusing on the biggest drivers of healthcare outcomes.

In 2016, my co-founder Marquesa Finch and I founded P2Health Ventures, the first venture fund investing in Public Health Tech companies. We invest in early-stage startups innovating solutions for population and/or preventative health. We also look for companies who are addressing health inequities, are committed to diversity within their teams and among the populations they serve, and who are implementing evidence-based product development.

As Public Health professionals, we know that access to care is a relatively minor driver. What’s most important is prevention. The United States spends only 3 percent of our health care dollars on preventing diseases (as opposed to treating them), when 75 percent of our health care costs are related to preventable conditions (APHA). This ratio largely holds true whether an individual is healthy or has an illness. Clinical care only drives 20% of our health outcomes. The rest comes from modifiable factors: health behaviors, physical environment and social and economic factors. These have historically been considered to be outside of healthcare from medicine’s perspective but this is the exact purview of Public Health. Adopting a public health lens to Digital Health and innovation opens up opportunities to effect significant and last change on the health of populations. (more…)

Subscribe to our newsletter

17 Disruptive Women to Watch in 2017

DW Women to Watch 2017 - banner

Today, we are proud to launch our 17 Disruptive Women to Watch in 2017.  As is our custom and commitment to our thesis—Disruptive Women seeks to highlight women from a broad cross-section of disciplines, all of whom profoundly impact health and health care. This year we are doing something different. Given the enormity of the issues we are facing globally, when it comes to Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias, we are focusing this year’s class of extraordinary women on those who are committed to ridding the world of this scourge. Lest you think this affects only the elderly (whatever that means), have a look at the sobering numbers and impact: start with our Brain Health series.

All of our 17 Disruptive Women to Watch in 2017 personify DW’s mission “to serve as a platform for provocative ideas, thoughts, and solutions in the health sphere.”

Disruptive Women in Health Care would like to take a moment to also salute our 16 Disruptive Women to Watch in 2016 and 15 Disruptive Women to Watch in 2015. (more…)

Subscribe to our newsletter