Category: Healthcare News

  • Forbion Bucks VC Fundraising Trends, Reeling In €2.3B for Two New Funds

    Forbion Bucks VC Fundraising Trends, Reeling In €2.3B for Two New Funds

    Forbion, already one of Europe’s largest life sciences venture capital firms, now has more investment firepower with €2.3 billion (about $2.6 billion) raised for two new funds.

    The fundraise is the largest in Forbion’s 20-year history, the Naarden, Netherlands-based firm said Tuesday. It comes in a market generally characterized by a shortage of capital, particularly in Europe.

    This year through the third quarter, VC firms globally have raised $142.1 billion total, according to a new report from Pitchbook. VC fundraising is on pace to top $200 billion for the full year, which would mark a strong rebound from 2025. But the report also shows more money going into fewer funds.

    Furthermore, there’s geographic imbalance in the fundraising. About two thirds of this year’s financial commitments to date are for firms in North America. Pitchbook said that despite this year’s global fundraising already surpassing 2025 figures, Europe is on pace for its lowest fundraising total since 2019, excluding last year.

    The imbalance is also evident in tallies of VC investments. The number of deals and the deal values are up year over year, but that reflects strong activity in North America, the report said. Every other region in the world is on pace for a decline in deal count year over year, which Pitchbook attributes to the lack of liquidity across global markets.

    Forbion said it has already completed the first investments from its two new funds, Forbion Growth Opportunities Fund IV and Forbion Ventures Fund VIII. The firm added that it expects its new capital will support investments in about 30 portfolio companies. In the announcement, Forbion co-founder and Managing Partner Sander Slootweg said the capital enables the firm to invest in “the most exciting biotech companies.”

    “We will continue to focus on building and scaling those companies that develop the most paradigm-shifting treatments, addressing true unmet needs and delivering societal impact,” Slootweg said.

    Forbion’s investments this year to date include participation in the $130 million Series A financing of North Carolina-based migraine drug developer Slate Medicines (now on track to go public in a reverse merger) and the $125 million Series A financing of immunology biotech Coultreon Biopharma, based in Belgium.

    Forbion said its new capital comes from existing investors as well as new ones. Disclosed investors include MN, PGGM, KfW Capital, Kauffman Foundation, and Eli Lilly and Company. With the capital raised for the two new funds, Forbion said it has €7.5 billion (about $8.5 billion) in assets under management spread across 13 funds, making it Europe’s largest dedicated life sciences VC firm.

    Image: mustafaU, via Getty Images

  • Perimenopause Anxiety: Sometimes It’s a Progesterone Deficiency

    Perimenopause Anxiety: Sometimes It’s a Progesterone Deficiency

    When women suddenly start feeling anxious in their 40s, the conversation needs to shift from serotonin and estrogen to understanding what’s happening to their progesterone levels.

    One of the biggest mistakes I see in perimenopause is assuming every symptom is caused by low estrogen. Hot flashes? Estrogen. Night sweats? Estrogen. Vaginal dryness? Estrogen.

    But when it comes to anxiety, irritability, feeling overwhelmed, poor stress tolerance, and that wired but tired feeling many women describe, the conversation often needs to shift. Because in many women, progesterone is the first hormone to decline consistently, making it an important contributor to anxiety and nervous system symptoms.

    The conversation needs to shift beyond estrogen

    Most medical discussions blame estrogen for every perimenopausal symptom, from hot flashes to mood swings. While estrogen levels do fluctuate wildly during this transition, this singular focus leaves women confused when typical estrogen treatments fail to soothe their frayed nerves. Progesterone is one of the most overlooked contributors to emotional stability during perimenopause.

    When progesterone levels drop faster than estrogen levels, it can trigger a spike in anxiety and a fight-or-flight response. This imbalance explains why women suddenly experience panic attacks, heart palpitations, and the inability to handle everyday stress.

    The perimenopause problem nobody explains

    Most women are told that menopause is a gradual decline in hormones, but that’s not actually what happens first. Perimenopause (the long stage prior to menopause) is characterized by hormonal volatility, not simple deficiency.

    During perimenopause, estrogen often fluctuates dramatically from cycle to cycle, while progesterone tends to decline earlier as ovulation becomes less consistent.

    Progesterone is usually the first hormone to decline consistently. Ovulation becomes less predictable. And when ovulation becomes less predictable, progesterone production falls. 

    This is often years before menopause. The result? Many women begin experiencing symptoms long before their periods stop.

    Why progesterone matters for the brain

    Progesterone is not just a reproductive hormone. It’s a neuroactive hormone. One of progesterone’s metabolites, allopregnanolone, interacts with GABA receptors in the brain.

    GABA is the primary calming neurotransmitter system. Think of it as the brain’s brake pedal. When progesterone signaling is adequate, many women experience better stress resilience, improved sleep, greater emotional stability, less irritability, and reduced anxiety.

    When progesterone declines, many women describe feeling wired but tired, more reactive, easily overwhelmed, unable to turn their brain off at night, and more anxious than they’ve ever been before. 

    The problem is that these symptoms are often labeled as purely psychological when there may be a significant hormonal component. As ovulation becomes less frequent, progesterone production declines significantly, reducing one of the brain’s important sources of neurosteroid support for stress regulation.

    Why normal labs don’t always give answers

    This is where many women get dismissed. They are told: “Your labs are normal.” But normal reference ranges do not always explain why someone is experiencing symptoms.

    Looking at a single lab value without understanding hormone signaling, metabolism, and symptoms misses the bigger picture. Hormones influence sleep, neurotransmitters, inflammation, metabolism, and stress response.

    The question isn’t simply: “What is the hormone level?” The better question is: “How is the body responding to that hormone?”

    Anxiety is often a systems problem

    This is why a systems-based approach matters. Progesterone doesn’t operate in isolation. Sleep quality matters. Blood sugar regulation matters. Stress physiology matters. Inflammation matters. And hormone metabolism matters.

    When progesterone declines during perimenopause, these systems often begin to unravel together. What looks like anxiety on the surface may actually be a convergence of hormonal volatility, sleep disruption, cortisol dysregulation, and declining neurosteroid support.

    The real takeaway

    When women in their 40s suddenly develop anxiety and feel like a different person, don’t assume it’s just stress. Stop assuming it’s just aging. And don’t assume it’s all in their heads. 

    Perimenopause is one of the most significant biological transitions a woman experiences. Progesterone is often the first hormone to change.

    For many women, understanding that connection becomes the first step toward getting answers. Because education is the first intervention. And understanding why symptoms happen is often where better outcomes begin.

    Clinicians should help women understand that treatment is individualized and depends on the underlying contributors to their symptoms. For some women, this may include discussing bioidentical progesterone therapy when appropriate. Supporting sleep, addressing chronic stress, optimizing blood sugar regulation, ensuring adequate magnesium intake, and improving overall nervous system resilience may also play important roles. Another focus should be prioritizing magnesium-rich foods to support GABA pathways. Together, these strategies can help improve symptom burden and quality of life while supporting healthier hormonal adaptation during perimenopause.

    Perimenopausal anxiety isn’t simply in our patients’ heads. It’s often the result of complex physiologic changes involving hormones, sleep, metabolism, and the nervous system. When clinicians look beyond estrogen alone and take a systems-based approach, women are more likely to understand what’s happening and receive care that addresses the root contributors rather than simply masking symptoms.

    Photo: kate_sept2004, Getty Images

    Lexi Yoo

    Lexi Yoo, NP, is a double board-certified nurse practitioner and the founder of Yoo Direct Health and YDH Training Academy. Women’s hormone expert, national keynote speaker, and host of The Better Yoo Project Podcast, Lexi is a longevity medicine expert, practitioner mentor, and education-first disruptor challenging outdated standards in midlife and metabolic care to advance a systems-based approach to hormone health, metabolism, and modern longevity care.

    This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.

  • MedTech VC 2026: The Real Story vs. The Thesis

    MedTech VC 2026: The Real Story vs. The Thesis

    One thing I love about investing is that the best research often disproves your own assumptions.

    I kept hearing “medtech VC is in decline,” so I decided to dig into the data myself. I expected shrinking investor interest, inflated valuations, and a weak exit environment.

    Instead, I found a more nuanced story.

    What’s true:

    → Medtech VC deal value fell 17.1% YoY in Q1 2026, but off a record $16.1B in 2025.

    → Deal count fell only 3.7% YoY. Participation held up far better than dollars.

    → Median deal size climbed to $11.8M (from 2025’s already-record $10M). The money isn’t leaving, rather concentrating into fewer, larger checks.

    → Medtech PE deal count dropped ~41% YoY to 26 deals in Q1.

    What I got wrong:

    I assumed overinflated multiples were scaring VCs off. The opposite is true. IHI (iShares US Medical Devices ETF) is down 17–20% YTD, trading at a compressed multiple vs. its 2021 peak. Public medtech comps are de-rating, not inflating. If rich multiples were the brake, we wouldn’t be seeing this.

    I also missed the exit data. Medtech VC exits hit $4.1B in Q1 2026 alone, and nearly half of all of 2025, anchored by EdgeMedical’s $2.2B surgical-robotics IPO. Strategics are still paying full price for differentiated assets: Boston Scientific/Penumbra ($14.5B), Danaher/Masimo ($9.9B). Not a sector investors have given up on.

    So what’s actually happening?

    Medtech isn’t necessarily being rejected, but instead, being crowded out. AI absorbed 86% of all US VC dollars in H1 2026. And with LPs still starved for distributions, 89% of new fund commitments this year went to seasoned, incumbent managers. A tough backdrop for the smaller, specialist funds that anchor early-stage medtech.

    I’m living a version of this firsthand. My own company is raising a pre-seed round right now, and the pattern shows up everywhere in conversations with investors: the ones still writing early-stage medtech checks are stretched thin, and a lot of the specialist funds that used to anchor rounds like ours simply aren’t raising new funds of their own. A medtech-focused fund manager put it well at a recent industry conference: with early-stage medtech funds in short supply, it’s become a buyer’s market for the VCs still active at seed and Series A. That tracks with what I’m seeing. The investors still in the game aren’t necessarily writing bigger checks because they love the sector more, they’re writing bigger checks because there are fewer of them left standing, and they can afford to be more selective about who they back.

    There’s a second piece to this I initially missed too: strategics aren’t sitting on the sidelines waiting for VCs to de-risk deals for them anymore. Corporate venture arms like Medtronic Ventures, J&J’s JJDC, and Philips Ventures have all stepped up their early-stage activity, effectively filling part of the gap left by pulled-back generalist and specialist funds. That’s a meaningfully different capital structure than five years ago: less spray-and-pray from generalist funds chasing the next big multiple, more concentrated conviction from investors, traditional and corporate alike, who actually understand the regulatory and clinical path a device has to walk.

    The real picture coming out of the clouds isn’t “medtech VC is dying.” It’s capital discipline colliding with an AI supercycle and an LP liquidity squeeze, while the exit window is quietly reopening underneath the headlines.

    For founders building in this space right now, the takeaway is less “the money is gone” and more “the money got pickier.” Clinical validation, a clear regulatory pathway, and evidence of real hospital demand aren’t optional anymore. They’re the price of entry to get in front of the smaller pool of investors who are still writing checks.

    I’m pretty curious how others read this: is medtech’s Q1 pullback a temporary AI crowding-out effect, or the start of a more structural re-rating?

    Photo: drogatnev, Getty Images

    Jordan Lisnow

    Jordan Lisnow is COO and co-founder of CuffWay, a medtech startup building the first automated, adaptive cuff pressure controller for intubated patients. He is a three-time founder with two prior exits, and previously worked in venture capital at Traverse Ventures evaluating early-stage teams across AI, fintech, SaaS, and frontier tech.

    This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.

  • Hidden Risks and Costs of Maternal/Infant Health that Health Plans Miss

    Hidden Risks and Costs of Maternal/Infant Health that Health Plans Miss

    baby fertility pregnancy

    Pregnancy and neonatal care are complex healthcare journeys requiring specialized insight to address and navigate the unique challenges involved. From clinical risks to social and non-clinical drivers of health, member engagement to the potential for overbilling, the need to control costs and improve outcomes has never been greater.

    Access to reliable transportation can be an overlooked but critical barrier to maternal care. A missed prenatal visit can lead to complications that send the mother into labor well ahead of the due date, leading to a prolonged NICU stay. A long NICU stay can generate high medical costs, not to mention the stress on families potentially facing substantial medical expenses, the future health of the mother and child, and billing complexities. ProgenyHealth sees the bigger picture and understands how to work with health plans to manage these risks.

    A new report from ProgenyHealth offers a window into how the business works with commercial and Medicaid health plans to close gaps in maternity and NICU care management that traditional programs overlook. Health plans benefit from the company’s experience and insight to address these challenges. 

    The process involves turning information gathered from extensive claims and clinical data, as well as case management interactions, into timely interventions that enhance the member experience, improve outcomes and manage costs. To download the white paper Beneath the Surface: The Hidden Risks and Costs Commercial and Medicaid plans Are Missing, fill in the form below:

    Photo: Morten Falch Sortland, Getty Images

  • Before Saying Yes to the Medical Test, Know the Risks and Benefits

    Before Saying Yes to the Medical Test, Know the Risks and Benefits

    (Maria Fabrizio for WPLN and KFF Health News)

    When Lori Baute first learned about precautionary full-body MRI scans, she dismissed the idea.

    “ I heard Kim Kardashian got one, and some other wealthy people,” Baute said. But at 59, she was worried about her long-term health. She has a family history of cancer, and she’s a critical caregiver for her aging mom and her adult brother with special needs.

    After a close friend was diagnosed with bladder cancer, Baute decided to make an appointment with a clinic that offers full-body scans near where she lives in Ocala, Florida. Her results came back a week later. One major finding: She has lesions on her pancreas. “When I got that, I was really petrified,” she said.

    Worried about pancreatic cancer, Baute shared the results with her gastroenterologist, who ordered a targeted MRI scan as a follow-up. That test showed the lesions were benign cysts.

    Baute’s experience is becoming more common as companies pitch body scans directly to consumers as a way to detect cancer and other diseases early. But no major medical association — including the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology — recommends these scans for people without a very high risk of certain cancers.

    And even medical screenings that doctors do recommend can carry some of the same reasons for caution.

    The QTip:

    Before saying yes to the test, ask about the risks and benefits — even if your doctor recommends it.

    Here’s what to know:

    Every Test Comes With Costs and Risks

    At a minimum, a medical test will cost you time — and could mean a hefty medical bill. Many tests marketed directly to consumers, like full-body scans and at-home blood screening kits, are not covered by insurance, and some tests can cost several thousand dollars.

    Some laboratory tests might involve only the discomfort of a blood draw or the awkwardness of collecting a urine or stool sample, but others carry the possibility of physical harm. For example, a small percentage of people who get CT scans each year will develop cancer because of the radiation exposure from the tests, according to estimates from the National Institutes of Health. Relatively simple procedures like a biopsy or an endoscopy come with the risks of pain, infections, tearing, a reaction to anesthesia, or further serious complications.

    Plus, testing can cause anxiety and stress — as patients wait for results and if the results are inconclusive. “I see patients every week in my office who are tortured by the results of tests that they really didn’t need to ever have,” said Rita Redberg, a University of California-San Francisco professor and cardiologist and an advocate for less medical testing. For example, if you discover a cyst, then “you’re living for the next year, two years, three years getting repeated tests to figure out whether it’s benign or a cancer,” Redberg said. She cautions patients against testing unless they have specific symptoms.

    Testing Often Leads to More Testing — And More Risk

    A reality of getting a medical test is that the results often lead to additional, and potentially more invasive, testing. Doctors call this “diagnostic cascade.”

    Baute, for example, plans to continue monitoring her pancreas with annual scans. To her, she said, the financial cost and anxiety are worth it if she can feel “like I’m in control of my health and I have knowledge.”

    But Redberg points to a worst-case scenario, documented by JAMA Internal Medicine in 2011: After starting an exercise program, a 52-year-old woman experienced chest pain and went to see her doctor. Her exam suggested that her pain was muscular and she had a low risk for heart disease. Still, her doctor ordered a scan of her heart to reassure her. The results led her doctor to order another test, during which her artery was ripped. She had emergency bypass surgery, experienced complications, and ultimately, Redberg said, “she ended up with a heart transplant — all from this unnecessary scan just to reassure her.”

    A Few Simple Questions Can Help You Decide

    Before saying yes to the test, it’s important to know about the risks and benefits — even if your doctor recommends it, Redberg said. She suggests asking a medical provider and yourself questions like:

    • What am I going to learn from this test?
    • How is this test going to help in my care?
    • Could I improve my health without doing this test?

    She said many test results, especially in her field of cardiology, end up pointing patients back to the basics of a healthy lifestyle, like eating well, exercising, and not smoking. And those, she said, could be advised without a test.

    People and Policy

    If your health insurance covers a medical test, that means the test has most likely met vetted, scientific standards that demonstrate benefits to patients. Insurers must cover evidence-based services that have a rating of A or B from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Private insurers, as well as Medicaid and Medicare plans, must cover the full cost of recommended preventive screenings. Many medical tests marketed directly to consumers are not covered by insurance.


    Emily Siner at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.


    HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable healthcare system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and KFF Health News.

  • Witnessing the Failed Execution of Christa Pike: ‘We Could All Hear Her Breathing’

    Witnessing the Failed Execution of Christa Pike: ‘We Could All Hear Her Breathing’

    On Sept. 30, I was one of the seven media witnesses who observed Tennessee fail to execute convicted murderer Christa Pike, the first woman to face the death penalty in the state in almost 200 years.

    From our previous reporting, each of us had an inkling that the lethal injection process might not go according to plan. Pike’s attorneys had asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to allow her to be hanged instead, citing concerns that a platelet disorder and small veins would make the actual injection not only painful but ineffective.

    And Tennessee had already botched an execution attempt in May, when healthcare workers failed to establish complete IV access into Tony Carruthers, who was sentenced to death after being convicted for his involvement in the kidnapping and murders of three people in 1994.

    Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said after the failed execution of Carruthers, who has maintained he is innocent, that the state wouldn’t try again to kill him for at least a year. After Pike left the execution chamber in an ambulance on Sept. 30, Lee announced he would suspend lethal injections for the rest of the year.

    The morning of Pike’s scheduled execution, I and the other media witnesses arrived at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville by 8:30 a.m. and waited to be ushered into the prison with nothing but our driver’s licenses in hand. The plan was to wait inside until Pike began her journey to the death chamber at 10 a.m.

    But we didn’t make it that far.

    Before the Department of Correction’s staffers began moving us away from the outdoor media tent and our belongings, the reporters’ phones all went off. A federal circuit court had stayed the execution. This was my fifth stint as a media witness to an execution, and I’d never seen a stay issued. We didn’t know what that would mean.

    It turned out to mean waiting for nine hours at the prison, barred from leaving the grounds. We spent most of it in the boardroom where parole hearings take place.

    Hours of Waiting. Then, ‘It’s a Go.’

    Throughout the wait, the victim’s family often came up in conversation. In 1995, Pike, then 18 years old, killed Colleen Slemmer, who was 19. Slemmer’s family in Florida traveled to Tennessee for the execution with money raised through crowdfunding. It’s unclear where they waited while the last-minute legal wrangling played out.

    Sometime around 6 p.m., the prison system’s communications director, Dorinda Carter, told us: “It’s a go.”

    Tennessee had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay, and it did. Carter read the ruling aloud to us.

    For unknown reasons, it took another hour or so for the security team to usher us into the witness bay, an all-white cinder block room with black pleather chairs in two rows and a big window overlooking the death chamber. A loudspeaker pipes sound into the room from the chamber when the microphones are on.

    A black curtain hangs in front of the window inside the death chamber. Department of Correction workers open it once IV lines are inserted into the condemned prisoner.

    The curtain is there to obscure the workers who place the IVs, in order to shield their identities as required by state law. That process is enshrined in the “Lethal Injection Execution Protocol,” which is the guidebook the Department of Correction writes for itself. There is no other regulation over executions in the state.

    My employer, the Nashville public radio station WPLN, is a party in a lawsuit challenging the state’s concealment of the IV insertion. When executions are botched, it’s often due to something going wrong while IVs are placed — or with the subsequent step if IVs fail, placing a central line in a deeper vein through the chest, neck, or groin.

    A lower court ruled in favor of WPLN and other media plaintiffs in January, but the state appealed the order, and it has been halted while higher courts consider the case.

    The Death Chamber

    The American Medical Association officially bars doctors from participating in executions, and many other health professionals also consider assisting an execution to be unethical.

    Outside of prison staffers and the execution team, only the prisoner’s spiritual adviser and attorney are allowed in the room with the prisoner while the IVs are inserted. So generally, attorneys’ descriptions are the only account of the procedure.

    Under normal circumstances, witnesses sit in the bay for 10 or 15 minutes with the curtain closed. That’s how long it tends to take for the IV team to place a line and start running saline, to prepare for the 5 grams of the sedative pentobarbital that will be pumped in to kill the prisoner.

    Once the lines are set, the execution team enters an adjacent, concealed room. The IV lines run through the wall into that hidden chamber, from which the drugs are administered.

    But at Pike’s execution, we sat in the bay for 45 minutes with the curtain closed and the microphone turned off.

    Until Carruthers’ failed execution, the Department of Correction kept the lights off in the witness bay during the wait. Witnesses at his execution said they sat in a dark room for an hour and a half as the execution team tried and failed to place an IV line. This time, the prison kept the lights on.

    The clock we use to give a minute-by-minute account is in the death chamber, so we can’t see it with the curtain closed. John North, a reporter with the television station WBIR in Knoxville, was the only witness wearing a watch. The rest of us asked him over and over what time it was.

    After half an hour, it was clear the IV team must have been struggling.

    We wondered whether Pike’s execution would unfold similarly to Carruthers’. That time, the governor called and ordered the execution halted before the curtain ever opened.

    But at 7:27 p.m., we heard the curtain being drawn away.

    We saw Pike in profile, lying on the gurney, facing the window for the other bay, where the victim’s family and prosecutors sit.

    We saw Pike’s spiritual adviser, Mikey Noechel, who wore a wine-red sash over his suit. Together, they sang and talked about Buddhist teachings. 

    Under the state’s protocol, the spiritual adviser is allowed in the death chamber as the pentobarbital flow begins, though the attorneys are not.

    There is no signal when the lethal drugs start flowing, but it’s assumed to begin after the prisoner delivers her final words. It’s typical for the spiritual adviser to offer prayers and other support, and for there to be a back-and-forth between the two.

    Pike spoke.

    “I just want to say that I’m going to leave this world the way I’ve spent most of my life, and that is with love,” she said.

    She said that she had love for those who hate her, and that she was at peace with her death.

    Moments later, Pike told Noechel her arm was burning. She said it was in one specific spot and asked corrections staff in the room whether that was normal.

    Pentobarbital is alkaline, so it burns like drain cleaner if it touches skin. If the IV is administered correctly, that is unlikely to happen.

    But Pike and Noechel chatted for what seemed a shocking amount of time. Prisoners tend to show signs of being sedated a few minutes in. Pike didn’t.

    Something Is Wrong

    The Tennessee Department of Correction uses an odd practice to announce the drugs have been fully administered. There’s a small, hinged door built into the wall between the concealed drug management room and the death chamber, with a platform beneath it. Once the drugs have completely flowed through the IV, the door is opened and a rock is placed on the platform. That initiates a five-minute waiting period, after which the curtain closes again to obscure a doctor, who enters the death chamber, checks the prisoner’s pulse, and certifies the death.

    In each of the executions I’ve witnessed, the prisoners look unconscious long before the rock comes out, and in the minutes following they’re presumed dead.

    The rock came out at 7:41 p.m. At 7:44 p.m., Pike was still speaking quietly to Noechel.

    My jaw dropped. It was clear to me then that something was very wrong.

    Once the five minutes are up and the curtain closes to conceal the doctor, who confirms the time of death, the spiritual adviser moves into the witness bay and stays there until everyone leaves the facility.

    But after Noechel entered the witness bay, staff came in and ordered him back into the death chamber. There was only one reason to do so: They were trying again.

    The curtain reopened.

    The state’s protocol dictates that, as a backup plan, prison staff can run a second round of pentobarbital. According to a statement from the Death Penalty Information Center, which tracks execution attempts and their outcomes, Pike is “the first person to survive after being injected with lethal doses of execution drugs.”

    Eventually, Pike stopped talking. She started snoring.

    She continued to snore after the rock was put out the second time and the curtain closed again. We continued to hear her snore over the loudspeaker.

    The state’s protocol does not contemplate a second round of drugs failing to kill the prisoner, so there are essentially no rules for the situation the Department of Correction found itself in with Pike.

    It’s unclear what was happening behind the curtain. Her lawyers later said they weren’t allowed in the death chamber.

    The curtain closed at 8:16 p.m., and we listened to Pike’s snoring for nearly 40 minutes.

    Tensions rose between the media witnesses and Carter, the Department of Correction’s communications director. I asked her: “Do they do a third round? Are you going to resuscitate her?” Carter didn’t have an answer. Another witness, Steven Hale of the Nashville Banner, asked why the curtain was closed. The doctor wasn’t certifying Pike’s death. We could all hear her breathing.

    At 8:53 p.m., the prison warden, Kenneth Nelsen, came over the loudspeaker and said, “Media witnesses, please exit the area.”

    ‘Intubated, on a Ventilator’

    We went out to the news conference, which the Department of Correction usually requires media witnesses to participate in. While one of us was speaking, several emergency vehicles arrived. We saw the caravan leave with its sirens on. That was our only insight into whether Pike was alive.

    Pike’s attorneys later confirmed she was hospitalized. As of Oct. 1 she remained in critical condition at an undisclosed Nashville hospital, according to her attorneys.

    Her lawyers, in an emergency filing with the Davidson County Chancery Court on Oct. 2, alleged that the execution team apparently didn’t “realize that the IV lines were not correctly placed or that the veins had blown” and that pentobarbital had “in whole or in part” entered her body instead of her veins.

    Pike arrived at the hospital with both of her arms “swollen, burned, and blistered,” they wrote. “She is intubated, on a ventilator, and remains unconscious.”

    Pike’s future, as well as that of lethal injection in Tennessee, is uncertain.

    Lee, the Republican governor who has paused executions for the rest of the year, leaves office in January. The front-runner in the Nov. 3 election to replace him, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, has been a vocal supporter of the death penalty. After Pike’s failed execution, the Republican candidate posted her solution to X.

    “Bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims swiftly,” she wrote. “As your governor, I will do just that.”

    The electric chair was last used in the U.S. in Nashville when Tennessee executed Nicholas Sutton in 2020. He was one of five prisoners who chose the electric chair over lethal injection in the state from 2018 to 2020.

    This article is from a partnership that includes WPLN, NPR, and KFF Health News.

  • Investing in Community Health: A New Model for Safety-Net Healthcare Innovation

    Investing in Community Health: A New Model for Safety-Net Healthcare Innovation

    Community health centers (CHCs) are one of healthcare’s most important yet overlooked care delivery establishments. Despite being a crucial link to healthcare for the communities they serve, CHCs are often asked to adopt new health technology after the fact, rather than being invited to help to shape it. 

    The launch of Facktor Ventures last week is an effort to change that dynamic.

    As a new early-stage venture fund focused on technology and services for CHCs and the broader healthcare safety net, Facktor Ventures is taking a new approach to healthcare investing: it’s structured so that the organizations delivering care on the ground collectively become majority owners of the fund as limited partners. 

    This makes them a different kind of an investment organization compared with traditional venture capital firms that have deep-pocketed entities as their limited partners.

    This distinct model gives participating organizations a mechanism to help influence investment decisions and then potentially earn returns that could be re-invested in their missions – something which can be difficult for CHCs to do given their financial constraints and competing demands on limited resources. 

    “We built Facktor Ventures so health centers and other safety-net organizations can collectively hold majority ownership as limited partners,” said Michael Ceballos, partner at Facktor Ventures, and senior director at Facktor in an interview. “That connects capital with the experience of the organizations closest to patients, giving them an opportunity to inform innovation and share in its financial success.”

    Facktor Ventures is the venture arm of Los Angeles-based Facktor, a healthcare consulting firm that works directly with more than 360 health centers to advance community-based care. Facktor Ventures plans to invest primarily at the Seed and Series A stages for companies that create healthcare software, digital health, and other healthcare services to support safety-net care. The fund’s areas of investment include patient access, revenue cycle performance, care management, workforce capacity, and cybersecurity. Ceballos declined to provide the size of the fund.

    Community health centers are nonprofit organizations that offer affordable, high-quality primary care to people living in areas where that care is difficult to access. CHCs serve 33 million Americans, and a total of 90% of their patients live at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, with many either uninsured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid. 

    These safety-net organizations face distinct needs and challenges, and more common investment strategies may overlook these realities, resulting in products and services that are poorly aligned with their needs or difficult to scale. CHCs bring firsthand knowledge of their patients’ needs and operational workflows, helping to clarify investment decisions. In this context, the investments made by the new fund could potentially have a significant impact.

    Ceballos explained in an interview why he believes this setup carries potential for CHCs to expand their missions.

    “What makes this idea so consequential is the combination of scale and ownership. Community health centers collectively form the nation’s largest primary care network, caring for millions of Americans, many with low incomes and limited options for care. When those organizations help shape innovation and have a stake in its success, the potential reaches far beyond any individual investment. We want the people closest to patients to help build the future of healthcare and the value created to help sustain their mission.”

    Rather than focusing on CHCs simply adopting technology built by others, the venture aims to drive innovation that prioritizes their most pressing needs, from reducing staff burden to improving patient access and addressing the realities of budget and insurance constraints.

    “We want safety-net patients and the organizations caring for them to influence innovation from the beginning,” Ceballos said. “The ambition is big: help the community health movement become an owner and architect of its future, with a voice in the innovation it helps make successful and an opportunity to share in the value created.”

    The idea is to change the role of community health centers in healthcare innovation. Instead of waiting for startups to build products and then deciding whether to adopt them, CHCs could help shape those products and services from the start. Facktor Ventures is putting safety-net organizations closer to the source of the capital, with hopes of producing technology that works better for the people and providers who need it most. 

  • Shionogi Adds to Its Rare Disease Strategy With $2B IntraBio Acquisition

    Shionogi Adds to Its Rare Disease Strategy With $2B IntraBio Acquisition

    The growth strategy of Shionogi & Co. is picking up a new piece through the $2 billion acquisition of IntraBio, a biotech company that brings a drug approved in two rare indications along with experience and expertise that complement the Japanese firm’s pipeline of drugs for rare neurological diseases.

    The main IntraBio asset in the deal announced Monday is levacetylleucine, brand name Aqneursa. The FDA initially approved this drug in 2024 as a treatment for the neurological manifestations of Niemann-Pick disease type C, a rare inherited enzyme deficiency. It’s one of just two FDA-approved therapies for this disorder. Last month, the FDA expanded Aqneursa’s label to include ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T), making it the first approved therapy for this rare neurodegenerative disorder.

    Osaka, Japan-based Shionogi established a commercial presence in rare disease through a business deal earlier this year, the $2.5 billion acquisition of global rights to Radicava, an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis drug developed by Tanabe Pharma. Shionogi’s other rare disease drug candidates are also from business deals.

    S-606001, currently in mid-stage clinical development for the rare enzyme deficiency Pompe disease, was licensed from Maze Therapeutics in 2024. Zatolmilast came from Shionogi’s 2020 Tetra Therapeutics acquisition. In May, Shionogi disclosed that this oral small molecule failed two Phase 3 tests in Fragile X syndrome, a genetic disorder that leads to intellectual disability and developmental delays. A separate mid-stage study is still evaluating the molecule in Jordan syndrome, a rare neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Privately held IntraBio was founded in 2015. Its scientific founders hailed from the University of Oxford and the University of Munich, where they discovered and developed small molecules that modulate lysosomal function and intracellular calcium signaling. Initially based in Oxford, U.K., IntraBio relocated to Austin, Texas, in 2024.

    Aqneursa is a modified form of L-leucine, an essential amino acid sourced from food that the body needs for building and repairing muscle and for enabling cells to produce energy. IntraBio’s version of the amino acid is modified in a way intended to help it cross membranes, including the blood-brain barrier. But Aqneursa’s label states that the drug’s mechanism of action for treating Niemann Pick and A-T is unknown. The company has said this drug has potential applications in a range of rare and common neurological disorders. According to Shionogi, Aqneursa generated $67.8 million in revenue in fiscal 2025.

    Shionogi’s largest source of revenue is royalties from HIV drugs marketed by ViiV Healthcare, a company majority owned by GSK. Earlier this year, Shionogi increased its minority ownership stake in ViiV from 10% to 21.7%. Those HIV medicines are part of a broader Shionogi business strategy with a 2030 target date for achieving growth goals. Another goal in this strategy is entering the rare disease business overseas.

    Beyond Aqneursa’s FDA approvals, the drug also received European Commission approval early this year for Niemann Pick disease type C. An additional European regulatory review is ongoing in A-T. In a prepared statement, Shionogi CEO Isao Teshirogi said the IntraBio acquisition shows his company’s commitment to building a global business in rare disease.

    “Bringing Aqneursa to Shionogi after our acquisition of Radicava will deepen our commitment to rare disease communities, expand our capabilities and strengthen our portfolio as we advance future innovation for patients with significant unmet needs,” he said.

    The IntraBio acquisition still needs to clear regulatory reviews. Shionogi said it expects the transaction will close by the end of this year.

    Photo: Soichiro Koriyama/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

  • Trump Administration Announces $90 Payments to Help Cover Medicare Part B Premiums

    Trump Administration Announces $90 Payments to Help Cover Medicare Part B Premiums

    Little pink ceramic piggy bank pattern on the left side on yellow background. Concept of saving money, savings.

    On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the federal government is making one-time payments of $90 per person for more than 20 million people to help them pay for Medicare Part B premiums.

    These payments are coming from the Medicare Improvement Fund, which is meant to make improvements to the Medicare fee-for-service program and has been given $2 billion by Congress. Eligible seniors will receive the payment via a direct deposit in early October. 

    According to a fact sheet, those whose premiums are paid by Medicaid or who pay an Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount don’t qualify for payments. Those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans also aren’t eligible.

    This one-time payment likely won’t do much when it comes to offsetting rising healthcare costs, noted Juliette Cubanski, vice president and director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, in a recent post.

    Currently, Medicare’s standard Part B premium is $2,435 and is expected to increase by $79 annually for 2027, according to KFF. This means that “this increase alone would consume most of the $90 payment,” Cubanski noted. In addition, beneficiaries will likely see healthcare costs rise in other ways, such as deductibles and cost sharing for medical and drug benefits.

    Cubanski also compared these $90 payments to a similar proposal announced by Trump ahead of the 2020 election, which involved a $200 drug card to offset out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

    “The cards were to be provided under a Section 402 demonstration designed to test whether lowering out-of-pocket drug costs would improve medication adherence, reduce unnecessary health care use, and lower Medicare spending,” Cubanski said. “Ultimately, the drug cards were never sent, amid questions about the design of the experiment and its nearly $8 billion projected cost.”

    Cubanski noted that the $90 payments will mostly deplete the Medicare Improvement Fund.

    These payments also come after the Trump administration announced in September $500 refunds per person to nearly 1 million Americans with Affordable Care Act coverage. One healthcare expert previously told MedCity News that these checks will do little to address healthcare affordability.

    “There is no question that $500 matters to a family struggling to pay its bills, and Americans are struggling,” said Dr. Adam Brown, an emergency physician and founder of ABIG Health. “Healthcare costs are a significant part of that burden. But we have to put this refund into context. For someone paying the full cost of an ACA plan, $500 doesn’t even cover one month’s average premium. … Ultimately, we shouldn’t confuse a check with a healthcare affordability strategy.”

    Photo: DBenitostock, Getty Images

  • The Biggest Healthcare Fix Might Not Come From a Vendor

    The Biggest Healthcare Fix Might Not Come From a Vendor

    Healthcare has one recurring diagnosis when it comes to software: the people who see the problem most clearly are almost never the ones allowed to fix it. A front-desk lead knows exactly which scheduling step causes no-shows. A billing manager can tell you, to the minute, where a claim stalls. But turning that knowledge into a working tool has always required someone else, like a developer, a vendor, or a build queue.

    Vibe coding is starting to close that gap, and we’re seeing the successes beginning to emerge in dental tech. The idea is simple: describe what you want in plain language, and an AI system generates a working version of it, refined through conversation instead of code. It’s spread quickly across general software development. What’s less understood is what happens when it reaches an industry where the stakes and regulations are much higher.

    Why healthcare needed this more than most

    For twenty years, fixing a broken workflow has followed the same script. A clinician or administrator flags the problem, hands it off to a software team, and waits, often a year or more, for something to come back. What comes back rarely matches what was described, because something always gets lost in the handoff between the person who understands the problem and the person who has to build around a secondhand account of it.

    That handoff exists because coding ability has always gated who gets to build software. Knowing what’s wrong and knowing how to fix it in code have been two separate jobs, held by two different people. Vibe coding doesn’t erase the second job. It shrinks how much of it you need on day one, which means far more people can now act directly on problems they already understand instead of routing that understanding through someone else.

    That distinction matters most in an industry where the shortage was never insight. Ask anyone working the floor of a dental practice or a billing office what’s actually broken, and they’ll answer instantly. It’s the 20-minute hold with an insurer. It’s the note written twice: once for the chart, once for the payor. It’s the referral that vanishes into a fax or email and resurfaces three weeks later. Nobody has ever needed convincing on what to fix. What they’ve lacked is a way to act on it themselves, in something close to real time instead of on a vendor’s roadmap.

    Faster, but also different

    The old chain — request, prioritization meeting, development sprint, rollout — usually delivered a solution well after the problem had stopped being anyone’s top concern. Vibe coding shortens that chain by letting the person who lives inside the workflow build the first working version of the fix, often in less time than it used to take to write up the request.

    In an industry where administrative burden is a leading driver of clinician burnout, that’s not just a speed gain. It changes who gets to build, and how much distance sits between spotting a problem and doing something about it.

    Guardrails have to come first, not after

    None of this holds up if it’s treated as a way around rigor. Healthcare data carries real consequences when it’s handled carelessly, and a tool that makes it easy for a non-engineer to build something can just as easily make it easy for that same person to build something unsafe, unless the guardrails are already there before they start.

    That responsibility doesn’t disappear. It relocates. It moves off the individual builder and onto the platform they’re building on. Permissions, data boundaries, and security can’t be configuration steps left to a first-time builder. They have to be the default setting, invisible until something goes wrong. Clinical accuracy carries its own version of this: automating a claims dashboard is a low-risk build, but a tool touching clinical documentation or decision support is a different category entirely, and no amount of conversational ease should let it skip validation.

    The organizations that get this right won’t be the ones that threw the door open widest. They’ll be the ones that made opening it safe in the first place.

    Already taking shape

    We’re seeing this show up in small, unglamorous ways like a dental clinic manager building the exact claims view her team needs instead of waiting on a vendor’s one-size-fits-all dashboard, or a practice leader building a reporting layout that matches how her organization actually runs, rather than reshaping her operations to fit someone else’s software. None of these, on their own, looks like a revolution. Together, they point to a new default: the person who spots the problem is the one who builds the solution, instead of a request sitting in a queue for someone who has to imagine it from a distance.

    That shift is likely to outlast any single new app healthcare adopts this year. The industry was never short on people who understood what needed fixing. What it lacked was a way to let that understanding go straight to work, without a long wait for someone else’s turn, and without trading one risk for another in the process.

    Photo: Tom Werner, Getty Images

    This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.