Digital transformation in pharma is increasingly moving beyond the question of which technologies a company should adopt. The more important question is what those technologies deliver for the business.
For a pharmaceutical business, investments in automation, analytics, digital infrastructure and other technologies need to be connected to measurable improvements in efficiency, quality, compliance, customer experience and decision-making. Piramal Pharma Limited‘s
provide a documented example of how technology can be connected to business objectives.
What business problem should technology solve?
Technology investments are most useful when they are linked to a defined business requirement.
In pharmaceutical manufacturing, this can include improving process visibility, reducing manual intervention, strengthening quality controls or making operational data available for faster decision-making. Across business functions, the objectives can include improving customer experience, streamlining processes and increasing productivity.
Piramal Pharma’s Project Catalyst was launched as a digital transformation journey aimed at supporting profitable growth through improved customer experience, supplier collaboration, workforce productivity and operational efficiency. The company’s FY2022 annual report says the programme was designed around digital ERP, edge applications, hyper-automation and data analytics, with a three-year roadmap covering more than 50 initiatives across its entities.
By FY2023, the programme had covered three business units, 15 functions and more than 500 participants. PPL reported 15 initiatives, four business-specific digital roadmaps, a Digital Transformation Office and Centres of Excellence covering automation, analytics, IoT, ERP and infrastructure.
The underlying principle is clear: technology adoption needs to begin with a specific business or operational requirement.
Which measures capture efficiency, quality and adoption?
Measuring digital transformation requires more than counting the number of systems implemented. Companies need metrics that show whether technology is improving the processes it was introduced to support.
Piramal Pharma’s reported initiatives provide several examples. Its FY2023 annual report says quality processes were digitised across manufacturing sites, while quality-control laboratory productivity analytics were introduced at Indian and international sites to track turnaround times, improve benchmarking and reduce overall manufacturing time.
The company also reported the deployment of an AI-powered Capex Bot across manufacturing sites. According to its FY2022 annual report, the tool simplified the capital-expenditure approval process and reduced average approval lead time by 72%.
Other documented initiatives included a Manufacturing Execution System at one site to digitally control, monitor and document manufacturing processes in real time through the manufacturing cycle, as well as data analytics initiatives designed to automate business KPIs and support faster decision-making.
These examples illustrate why measures such as turnaround time, approval lead time, process automation and data availability can provide a clearer picture of digital transformation than technology deployment alone.
How can companies demonstrate sustained results?
The value of digital transformation depends on whether new systems become embedded in day-to-day operations.
That requires continued adoption, reliable data, appropriate infrastructure and alignment between technology teams and business functions. It also requires companies to monitor whether improvements are sustained after implementation.
Piramal Pharma’s FY2023 reporting described continued investment in IT infrastructure, including cloud-native infrastructure, network and server upgrades, and digital tools intended to improve efficiency, quality, compliance and security. The company also reported collaborations with technology institutions and service providers to develop and deploy new technologies.
Its sustainability reporting subsequently showed continued digital transformation through Catalyst NxGen, based on S/4HANA, alongside 17 governance dashboards intended to enhance agility and scalability.
This continuity matters because transformation is not a one-time implementation exercise. The relevant question is whether technology continues to support measurable business and operational objectives over time.
From technology adoption to business results
For pharma manufacturing, digital transformation can be assessed through indicators such as production efficiency, quality performance, process turnaround times, automation, data accuracy and compliance.
At the enterprise level, companies can also track customer experience, process efficiency, supply-chain visibility, decision-making speed and user adoption. The appropriate metrics will vary according to the business problem each technology initiative is designed to address.
Piramal Pharma’s reported technology initiatives span manufacturing, quality, supply chain, infrastructure and business functions. Its FY2023 annual report specifically identifies analytics, automation and digital technologies as tools to improve the drug-development process, manufacturing operations and supply-chain optimisation.
For healthcare innovation, the measurement challenge is particularly important because technology operates alongside requirements for data integrity, quality and regulatory compliance. Piramal Pharma’s sustainability reporting identifies technology and automation as one of the areas within its broader ESG framework, alongside operational excellence and product excellence.
The broader takeaway for investors and technology leaders is that digital transformation should ultimately be evaluated through business outcomes. Technology adoption is only the starting point. The more meaningful measures are whether the technology improves defined processes, strengthens quality and compliance, supports better decisions and delivers sustained operational value.
For Piramal Pharma Limited, the progression from Project Catalyst to subsequent digital initiatives illustrates how technology can move from an IT function towards an organisation-wide business capability, with outcomes tracked through specific operational and performance measures
Disclaimer: The above content is non-editorial, and TIL hereby disclaims any and all warranties, expressed or implied, relating to it, and does not guarantee, vouch for or necessarily endorse any of the content.
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.
Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about ETHealthworld industry right on your smartphone!
A cadre of elite techies, financiers, and high-level Trump administration officials have spent a year quietly charting an extraordinary and rapid campaign to persuade Americans to use apps and other artificial intelligence-powered tools to manage their healthcare and medical records.
As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.
In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.
But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.
“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.
KFF Health News reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency Amy Gleason.
The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “Health Technology Ecosystem.”
“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said in September at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”
Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched Medicare App Library would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library’s webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.
As Trump officials sell it, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.
Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.
“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”
CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.
“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”
The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.
The Conversation Begins
The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.
“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”
Gleason is best known for serving as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it gained access to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.
As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.
Documents have been reproduced from the CMS Health Tech Ecosystem Slack and highlighted by KFF Health News.
The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, a venture capital firm associated with Kennedy’s son Finn. While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.
The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.
The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”
Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of KFF Health News. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.
The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.
Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.
If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”
A ‘Sales Engine’
Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.
Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.
“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by KFF Health News. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”
This video recording was captured and excerpted by KFF Health News before it was removed from public view.
A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after KFF Health News asked about comments made during the meeting.
CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.
Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.
“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.
The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.
CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.
CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.
Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, self-described biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. The app says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.
“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a Google review in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”
In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.
“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”
‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’
What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.
Tech vendors have lobbied the government to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, or TEFCA.
A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a formal meeting in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.
On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.
Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.
“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.
Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.
“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”
Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from KFF Health News. In an interview, Valdes told KFF Health News that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”
Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.
One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.
“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.
Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “Kill the Clipboard,” also the title of a 2025 white paper co-authored by Howells that urges doctors’ offices to abandon paper records.
Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.
As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.
“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.
She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”
Healthcare has always run on two things at once: the care a clinician gives and the record that care leaves behind. One happens in the room, face to face, in the space of a few minutes. The other happens afterward, in the quiet time that most clinicians no longer have much of.
For years the second half of that job was treated as an afterthought, something to be squeezed into gaps between patients or carried home at the end of a long day. That view has changed. The record is now the foundation for nearly every decision that follows, and the tools that shape it have become part of how good care is delivered rather than a chore attached to it.
Recording Care Without Losing Time
Every consultation leaves behind a written account, and that account has to be built somewhere in a day that is already full. Medical dictation is where the strain shows most clearly, because speaking the details takes moments while turning them into a usable note takes far longer.
Speech-to-text software closes that gap by producing the written version at the same speed the clinician talks. A practice that wants the file complete before the next patient walks in can try OpenWhispr for medical dictation and spend the saved time reviewing rather than typing.
The Weight of Paperwork in Everyday Practice
Ask almost any clinician what wears them down, and the answer is rarely the medicine. It is the volume of writing that surrounds it: histories, plans, follow-up instructions, referral letters, insurance justifications, and the endless small confirmations that keep a patient’s file accurate. Each item is reasonable on its own.
Together they take up a share of the working day that few people outside the profession would guess at. Time spent writing is time not spent listening, and the effect is felt by patients as much as by staff. A visit that feels rushed is often a visit shortened by paperwork waiting at the other end of it.
Turning Patient Information Into Better Choices
Once information is recorded well, it becomes useful in ways that go beyond a single appointment. A complete, accurate file lets a clinician see patterns over time: a symptom that keeps returning, a treatment that never quite worked, a change that lines up with something else in the history. Good records support good judgment, and poor records quietly undermine it.
This is where documentation stops being administrative and starts being clinical. A note written carefully today is the evidence someone relies on next month, possibly a colleague who has never met the patient. The quality of that note shapes the quality of the decision that follows it.
Keeping Private Conversations Private
Patients say things in a consultation room that they would not say anywhere else. That trust is the basis of the whole relationship, and any tool that touches clinical information has to respect it completely. Confidentiality is not a feature to be added after the fact. It is the first requirement, and anything that fails it fails entirely, however useful it might be otherwise.
Practical questions matter here. Where does the information go? Who can reach it? How long is it kept, and who decides when it is deleted? Teams that ask these questions early, before a tool is embedded in daily routines, avoid difficult conversations later.
What Good Technology Feels Like to Use
The best clinical tools share a quality that is hard to describe but easy to recognize. They disappear. They do not demand attention, announce themselves, or require the user to remember a sequence of steps. They fit into the rhythm of the day so naturally that people stop noticing them.
Reliability is a large part of this. A tool that works nine times out of ten is not a tool anyone can lean on, because the tenth failure lands at the worst possible moment. Speed matters too, though not in the way marketing usually suggests. What clinicians need is not a system that is fast in ideal conditions, but one that behaves the same way on a busy afternoon as it did during the trial.
Where Careful Judgment Still Leads
Technology in healthcare is at its best when it handles the mechanical parts of the work and leaves the thinking where it belongs. Software can organize information, surface it quickly, and take the friction out of recording what happened. It cannot weigh a patient’s fears against the clinical picture, notice the hesitation behind an answer, or decide what matters most in a situation that does not fit the usual pattern.
That division is worth protecting. The purpose of every tool in a clinic is to return time and attention to the person who trained for years to use them well. When technology does that job properly, documentation stops competing with care and starts supporting it, and the decisions that follow are made by someone who had the time to think clearly.