Friday, October 24, 2025

AMA's New Adventure in "Center for Digital Medicine" - Does It Remind of "HEALTH2047" ?? (AI)

 I think ten to twenty years ago the AMA announced with much fanfare it was essentially getting into venture capital. (I think was branded with a number like Venture 2075 or such ??). Can you identify this?

ChatGPT said:

What you’re likely remembering is the initiative led by the American Medical Association (AMA) called Health2047, Inc..

Here’s a summary of what I found:

Thus, while I didn’t locate a branded name like “Venture 2075”, the correct name seems to be Health2047 (reflecting the year 2047 rather than 2075). The AMA’s venture studio arm is the AMA → Health2047 vehicle.

If you like, I can check whether there was also a “Venture 2075” style initiative (or a similarly‐named fund) within or adjacent to AMA. Would you like me to dig for that?

You said:
Yes Health2047z. I think it fizzled out despite the launching buzz.
ChatGPT said:

You’re referring to Health2047 — the venture-studio / innovation subsidiary of the American Medical Association (AMA) launched back in 2016. health2047.com+3health2047.com+3American Medical Association+3

Here’s a summary of what I found — and whether it looks like it “fizzled out” (spoiler: not exactly, but perhaps it didn’t reach blockbuster status either).

✅ What Health2047 was meant to do

  • Health2047 was founded in 2016 by the AMA as a “venture studio” to build and back early-stage healthcare companies, with the goal of transforming the U.S. health system by the AMA’s 200th anniversary in 2047. health2047.com+2American Medical Association+2

  • The expressed focus was on three strategic pillars: data liquidity, chronic disease, and productivity (i.e., reducing physician/patient burdens, improving workflows). health2047.com+1

  • The AMA announced in 2016 a $15 million investment to launch Health2047. American Medical Association+1

  • In 2018 they announced a follow-on investment of ~$27.2 million from the AMA into Health2047. health2047.com+1

  • They spun out or backed a number of portfolio companies: e.g., Zing Health (a Medicare Advantage-focused startup) and others. health2047.com+1

🤔 Has it “fizzled”?

That depends on what you mean by “fizzled”. On one hand, yes, it didn’t become an enormous, household-name venture fund dominating digital health in the way some VCs are described. On the other hand, there is still evidence of activity.

Signs of continued activity:

  • As recently as 2024/2025 there are articles profiling Health2047’s work and its portfolio companies. For example: “How this venture firm is making health tech work for physicians” (July 2025). American Medical Association

  • Their website is active and lists ongoing ventures, leadership, process, portfolio, etc. health2047.com+2health2047.com+2

  • They continue to invest/spin out companies. For instance, the startup HEAL Security, backed by Health2047, launched with a healthcare cybersecurity focus (pre-seed investment ~US$4.6 m) in 2024. health2047.com+1

Signs of less-than-expected scale:

  • There’s no large public fanfare recently of major exits or blockbuster valuations tied to Health2047 that I found.

  • Venture studios often promise “transformative” change-at-system-scale, which is hard in healthcare, and the real results tend to take much longer (and face regulatory, adoption, reimbursement, behavior-change barriers).

  • The AMA’s role is more as a founding partner / strategic backer rather than as a massive standalone VC fund with hundreds of portfolio companies.

🔍 My judgment

So yes — one could say the initiative did not achieve a runaway success (in the sense of a widely publicized, large-scale VC juggernaut) and thus might feel like it “fizzled” relative to the initial hype. But I would qualify that with: it is still active, still backing companies, still working to fulfill its mission, but operating in a tough space (healthcare innovation) where scale and visibility are inherently harder.

If you like, I can dig up metrics for Health2047 (number of companies spun out, total capital invested, exits) to get a clearer picture of “how it turned out.” Do you want that?

You said:
Yes!!
ChatGPT said:

Here are the publicly available metrics and summary of Health2047 (the venture-studio backed by the American Medical Association) — with commentary on strengths and gaps.

✅ Key Metrics

  • Founded in 2016 by the AMA. Health2047+2American Medical Association+2

  • Focus areas defined as: data liquidity, chronic disease, and productivity. Health2047

  • Portfolio companies listed include: Zing Health, Phenomix Sciences, HEAL Security, Medcurio, ScholarRx, SiteBridge Research among others. Health2047+2Health2047+2

  • An article in 2023 states: “we now have 10 portfolio companies, and several of which are out for Series A funding next year.” American Medical Association

  • Financial/tracking data: According to CB Insights:

    • “Total Raised” by Health2047 itself (as an entity) ~ US$ 42.2 million. CB Insights+1

    • Health2047 is noted to have made “8 Investments” according to CB Insights. CB Insights+1

    • As of 2021, CB Insights cites “5 Portfolio Exits” for Health2047. CB Insights

  • Example deal: The portfolio company HEAL Security launched from stealth Jan 2024, with Health2047 investing ~US$ 2.3 m of a ~$4.6 m pre-seed round. PR Newswire+1

⚠️ Observations / Gaps (“what the metrics don’t clearly show”)

  • The number of portfolio companies is still modest (≈ 10 as of ~2023) rather than dozens or hundreds.

  • Amount of capital deployed (US$42m+ for the entity) is small compared to many healthcare/tech venture funds.

  • Public visibility of large successful exits or very high valuations appears limited (at least from publicly available data).

  • Given the ambition (“transform healthcare by 2047”) the scale of measurable impact is still emerging rather than clearly epoch-changing.

  • Some metrics such as internal returns (IRR), full exit valuations, number of companies achieving scale or acquisition, are either private/non-public or not easily found.

🎯 My Summary Judgment

Health2047 is active, has made meaningful progress (spun out companies, funded early‐stage ventures, leveraged AMA’s network). But in terms of scale (number of companies, capital, big exits) it remains relatively modest — which may contribute to the impression that it “fizzled” relative to initial hype. In other words: not failed, but not blockbuster either (yet).

If you like, I can check any exits of portfolio companies (who was acquired, when, for how much) to dig deeper into outcomes.

You said:
Newly, this month, AMA is announcing a big new Center for Digital Health & AI, to be headed by an SVP (an indication of seriousness.). But it also reminded me of initial 2047 hype.
ChatGPT said:

Exactly — that’s a perceptive connection.

The AMA’s new Center for Digital Health and AI, announced in October 2025, marks a return to the kind of bold, structural initiative the AMA last attempted with Health2047 in 2016. And you’re right: the tone of this announcement — with CEO John Whyte calling it one of his first major acts, the AMA allocating “millions of dollars” to launch it, and the search for a Senior Vice President to lead the Center — is strikingly similar to the fanfare around Health2047’s debut.

Here’s how they line up in context:

FeatureHealth2047 (2016)Center for Digital Health & AI (2025)
Core ConceptVenture studio to build health-tech companies that could transform the system by AMA’s bicentennial (2047).Policy + education + advocacy + implementation hub to shape how AI and digital tools are used in clinical practice.
LeadershipCEO Doug Given (Silicon Valley entrepreneur); oversight from AMA Board.Will be led by a new Senior Vice President reporting directly to AMA CEO John Whyte.
Financial ScopeAMA initial $15 M investment, later $27 M follow-on.“Millions of dollars” pledged up front (exact figure undisclosed).
Tone at Launch“Integrated innovation company… building the future of medicine.”“Center of excellence for augmented intelligence… to ensure AI supports physicians, not replaces them.”
Ecosystem FocusExternal startups and venture creation.Internal policy influence, regulatory engagement, and physician-education infrastructure.

In short:

  • Health2047 was the AMA’s foray into venture capitalism and company formation — building the next generation of tools.

  • The 2025 Center is more of a strategic-policy and professional-development pivot — ensuring AI’s adoption aligns with physician practice, reimbursement, and ethics.

Both reflect the AMA’s periodic urge to re-establish leadership in technological transformation. The main difference is that the new Center stays closer to the AMA’s core competencies (advocacy, policy, physician education), whereas Health2047 tried to operate in a Silicon Valley business environment — a domain that demanded different skills and risk tolerance.

If you’d like, I can summarize the press and commentary so far on the new Center — including early reactions from STAT News, MedTech Dive, and AMA’s own channels — to show how this initiative is being positioned relative to Health2047’s legacy. Would you like that?

You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:

Here’s a detailed summary of how the American Medical Association (AMA) is positioning its new initiative the Center for Digital Health and AI — and how it compares to prior ventures like Health2047.

✅ What the AMA is announcing

Key points from the press release

Interpretation of the initiative

  • The appointment of a Senior Vice President to head the Center (reported in your prompt) signals that the AMA intends this to be a high-level strategic endeavor, not merely a working group or advisory committee.

  • By aligning around workflow, education, policy, and collaboration (rather than purely venture funding / company formation), the AMA appears to play to its strengths (physician advocacy, policy, education) rather than occupy the traditional VC‐studio role.

  • The initiative leverages a moment of increased physician readiness for AI/digital tools (per AMA’s own survey data) — so timing is good.

  • The explicit focus on “physicians having a say” suggests an attempt to influence how digital health/AI technologies are designed and deployed, rather than just passively adopt them.

⚠️ Comparison with Health2047 and context

  • The earlier Health2047 effort (launched ~2016) was more of a venture studio: building companies, creating startups, investing in innovation with a long-term vision of transforming the health system by the AMA’s 200th anniversary in 2047.

  • In contrast, the new Center is less about founding companies and more about shaping the ecosystem around digital health/AI (policy, education, workflow, collaboration).

  • The prior initiative generated hype (“venture studio backed by AMA”), and while it had meaningful activity, it may not have achieved blockbuster results (which you referenced). The new Center may be viewed in part as a strategic pivot — focusing on areas where the AMA can exert influence and align with physician interests.

  • One of the articles mentions the AMA pointing back to Health2047 when discussing clinical validation and innovation pipelines in digital health. American Medical Association

🧭 Potential implications and things to watch

  • Leadership and credibility: Who the SVP is, what their background is, how much autonomy/funding the Center has — these will matter for impact.

  • Metrics of success: Will the AMA define clear KPIs (for example, number of physicians trained, number of digital health tools clinically validated, policy/regulatory milestones achieved) and publicly report them? Transparency will boost accountability.

  • Alignment with physicians: Since the AMA emphasis is on workflow/physician-fit rather than pure tech hype, the initiative’s credibility will depend on tangible improvements in clinician experience.

  • Partnerships and influence: The ability of the Center to shape regulatory frameworks, engage with vendors/health systems, integrate with education and practice will determine whether it just talks vs. moves the needle.

  • Avoiding previous pitfalls: If one of Health2047’s issues was lack of scale or return‐on‐impact relative to hype, this new effort should avoid over-promising and aim for incremental wins.

  • Ecosystem context: Digital health & AI are fast-moving. Many vendors, startups, health systems are already engaged. The AMA’s move may give physicians a stronger voice, but the competition for attention and influence is high.

In short: Yes — your sense is correct. The AMA is launching a bold new structural initiative in the digital health/AI space, and the narrative around it does echo the earlier Health2047 hype. The difference is in focus: this time it’s more about influencing the ecosystem than building the companies.

If you like, I can pull together media commentary (both positive and skeptical) on the new Center (from industry news outlets, blogs, physicians) so we can assess how it’s being received externally.

You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:

Here’s a summary of media commentary on the launch of the American Medical Association (AMA)’s new AMA Center for Digital Health and AI — capturing both positive takes and the cautious/critical lenses.

👍 Positive / supportive commentary

  • According to the AMA’s own announcement, the Center will “put physicians at the center of shaping, guiding, and implementing technologies transforming medicine.” American Medical Association+2American Medical Association+2

  • In an article by MedCity News, the launch is framed as a strong move to elevate physician voice in tech, noting that “physicians are often left out of the conversation about how [AI and digital health] technologies should be implemented effectively.” MedCity News

  • In coverage by Becker’s Hospital Review, the Center is depicted as addressing physician concerns about AI (e.g., data privacy, reliability, safety) and aiming to ensure tools align with clinical workflows. Becker's Hospital Review

  • A key strength noted: the AMA has survey data showing a sharp rise in physician AI adoption (≈ 66% in 2024 vs. 38% in 2023) and a majority seeing advantages in AI use — so the timing of this launch appears strategic. Advisory Board+2American Medical Association+2

⚠️ Cautious / critical commentary

  • In a piece by STAT, the article highlights that the AMA is entering “the turbulent debate over AI regulation” with this new Center — meaning the AMA may face significant regulatory, policy, and credibility challenges. STAT

  • While the announcement emphasizes physician leadership, critics might ask: How different will this be from past initiatives (e.g., the earlier Health2047 venture studio) which generated hype but limited visible “blockbuster” outcomes? (You noted this yourself.)

  • The commentary points out that physician concerns remain: e.g., about 25-29% of physicians reported “concerns exceeding enthusiasm” for health AI in recent AMA surveys. American Medical Association+1

  • Questions remain regarding resourcing, execution, measurable outcomes, and the AMA’s ability to influence tech companies, workflow integration, regulatory frameworks and reimbursements.

🧐 My take: What to watch

  • Will physician workflow integration meaningfully improve? The AMA emphasises this as a focus area, but actual change in EHRs, AI tools, vendor behaviour and clinician burden will take time.

  • Leadership & funding clarity: The STAT article notes the AMA will spend “millions of dollars” and is recruiting a Senior Vice President to lead this Center. STAT How large is the budget, what are metrics, how independent will the Center act?

  • Transparency & outcomes: Will the AMA publish outcomes/metrics (e.g., number of tools influenced, number of physicians trained, policy/regulation wins)? Without this, the initiative risks being symbolic.

  • Distinctive from prior efforts: The AMA’s earlier plunge into innovation via Health2047 set a precedent. This new Center needs to avoid being perceived as more “initiative launch” than “impact delivery.”

  • Regulatory & vendor push-back: Since many AI/digital health companies may prefer lighter regulation or may have workflows/incentives that don’t align with clinician input, the AMA may face push-back or slow uptake.

If you like, I can pull direct quotes from physician thought-leaders and independent analysts (beyond trade press) reacting to the launch, so you can see the full spectrum of opinion (enthusiasm, skepticism, neutrality).

Posted by at