# Healthcare Technology Market Research Report - United States

**Generated on:** 2026-09-04 20:20:20.570391  
**Industry:** Healthcare Technology  
**Geography:** United States  
**Details:** Do market research on onepathhealth.com

---

# OnePath Connect: A Promising API With Proof Gaps

## Executive Summary

- **Product Wedge**: OnePath Connect combines FHIR-native storage, consent, clinical AI, document processing, coaching, health scoring, and medication workflows in one API [4] -> position the company as an intelligence layer for health-data products, not as a generic interoperability vendor.
- **Adoption Tailwind**: In 2024, 81% of US hospitals enabled API-based patient access and 70% enabled FHIR-app access [9] -> target organizations that already have standardized data access but still struggle to turn records into useful workflows.
- **Large but Uncertain Market**: Published estimates place the 2025 US healthcare AI market between **$11.66B and $18.1B**, a roughly 55% spread, while the broader US healthcare IT market is estimated at **$117.6B** [21][19][16] -> use bottom-up buyer and usage data rather than a top-down market forecast to value OnePath.
- **Commercial Proof Gap**: The company names Marist College as its first institutional academic partnership, but the reviewed materials disclose no revenue, customer count, production volume, case-study outcomes, funding, valuation, or clinical-validation results [5][4] -> treat OnePath as an early commercial-stage vendor until reference customers and operating metrics are verified.
- **Scale-Based Competition**: Redox reports 19B+ transactions in the prior 12 months and 12,000+ connected organizations, while Particle advertises access to 320M+ patient records [11][14] -> OnePath should avoid competing on network breadth and instead prove that its AI layer produces faster, safer, more useful outputs.
- **Regulatory Boundary**: FDA treatment depends on each software function and whether it satisfies the Non-Device Clinical Decision Support criteria; the guidance does not establish OnePath's classification [7] -> complete a function-by-function regulatory assessment before marketing clinical recommendations or patient-facing decision support.
- **Trust Requirement**: OnePath claims HIPAA compliance, requires a BAA for production use, and reports that SOC 2 is still in progress [4] -> completing independent security assurance is likely a prerequisite for major payer, EHR, and health-system contracts.
- **GTM Priority**: OnePath lists health plans, EHRs, telehealth providers, care managers, wellness platforms, and corporate programs as targets [2] -> begin with one or two workflows where AI summaries or coaching can deliver measurable time-to-value, then expand into adjacent modules.

**Overall assessment:** OnePath Connect has a timely architecture and an appealing consolidation thesis. Its opportunity is credible, but its investability and enterprise readiness remain unproven because public evidence is concentrated on product claims rather than customer outcomes, security attestations, or financial traction.

## Scope and Company Snapshot

This report evaluates OnePath Health in the United States as of September 4, 2026. The analysis covers the company, product, addressable market, demand signals, competitors, business model, regulation, risks, and strategic options. Market estimates are presented as directional ranges because healthcare IT and healthcare AI reports use different definitions and should not be added together.

| Attribute | Finding | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Company | OnePath Health, Inc., operator of OnePath Connect [1] | Early-stage US healthcare technology company |
| Founded and location | Founded in 2024; headquarters listed as New York, New York [18] | Recent entrant in a market with established platforms |
| Development timeline | Design began in fall 2024; first working systems launched in Q1 2025; the platform scaled during 2025; the Marist partnership began in spring 2026; OnePath Connect was scheduled for summer 2026 [5] | Fast development cycle, but limited time for longitudinal proof |
| Core offer | HIPAA-compliant, FHIR-native API for embedding AI-powered clinical intelligence [4] | Combines interoperability and application intelligence |
| Named leadership | Michael Parrinello, Founder and CEO; Thomas Alaimo, CTO; Dr. Ketan Badani, CMO; Malcolm Laurie, Product Development Director; Edward Brown, Chief Data Officer [4] | Mix of medtech, clinical, product, and machine-learning backgrounds |
| Named partnership | Marist College, described as the first institutional academic partnership [5] | Useful validation signal, but not equivalent to a scaled commercial deployment |
| Financing and financials | Funding, revenue, valuation, ownership, and pricing are not disclosed in the reviewed company materials [4] | Material diligence gap; undisclosed must not be interpreted as zero |
| Security status | HIPAA and FHIR R4 claims; SOC 2 described as in progress [4] | Promising baseline, not yet a complete enterprise assurance package |

The company is better classified as a **healthcare AI infrastructure vendor** than as a care-delivery provider. Its buyers appear to be organizations building patient, clinician, or member experiences, while the API operates below those experiences as a data, consent, and intelligence layer.

## One API Combines Data, Intelligence, and Workflow

OnePath's architecture covers more of the application stack than a basic FHIR server. The company describes eight capability domains: onboarding and consent, structured health data, lab-document processing, AI health insights, conversational AI, goals and care plans, health scoring, and medication lifecycle management [4]. Its documented product flow includes patient onboarding, FHIR Observation storage, AI extraction from laboratory documents, longitudinal summaries, record-grounded coaching, goal generation, composite scores, and medication or refill tracking [4].

| Product layer | OnePath capability | Buyer value hypothesis | Principal risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data foundation | FHIR R4-native storage with LOINC and SNOMED CT alignment [4] | Reduces normalization work | Standards compliance does not guarantee source-data completeness |
| Identity and consent | Consent-bound authentication, per-partner data isolation, and audit trails [4] | Supports multi-tenant enterprise deployment | Buyers will need penetration tests, access-control evidence, and incident procedures |
| Document intelligence | AI extraction of structured information from laboratory PDFs [4] | Converts unstructured inputs into workflow-ready records | Extraction errors can propagate into summaries and decisions |
| Clinical intelligence | Longitudinal summaries, insights, and health scoring [4] | Makes records more usable | Clinical validity, bias, and FDA status are not publicly established |
| Engagement | Record-grounded coaching, goals, and plans [2] | Adds a patient or member experience without a separate AI stack | Patient-facing outputs raise safety and privacy exposure |
| Medication workflow | Medication creation, order tracking, and refill lookup [4] | Extends the API from analysis into operational workflow | Reliability and integration dependencies become more consequential |

Several capabilities, including goals, health scoring, and medication lifecycle functions, are labeled beta [4]. AI insights are cached for six hours [4], which may be reasonable for coaching but requires use-case-specific scrutiny where more current information matters.

### Case study: Marist College validates breadth, not outcomes

OnePath describes Marist College as its first institutional academic partnership and as evidence that demand extends beyond clinical organizations [5]. The case supports the company's claim that its infrastructure can serve universities, wellness programs, and other organizations working with health data.

However, the published material does not provide user counts, deployment status, measured outcomes, implementation time, renewal evidence, or revenue from the relationship. The strategic lesson is that the partnership is a useful design and market-discovery case, but it should not yet be treated as proof of product-market fit. OnePath should turn it into a quantified case study covering integration time, engagement, staff hours saved, data quality, safety events, and renewal intent.

## US Demand Is Real, but the Serviceable Market Must Be Built Bottom-Up

The strongest demand signal is not a market-research forecast but the spread of standardized access. In 2024, 99% of US hospitals allowed patients to view health information electronically, 96% enabled downloads, 84% enabled third-party transmission, 81% supported API-based app access, and 70% supported FHIR apps [9]. Yet only 56% enabled record import from other organizations and 62% accepted patient-generated data, leaving an integration and workflow gap [9].

| Market indicator | Published metric | Interpretation for OnePath |
|---|---:|---|
| US healthcare IT | **$117.6B in 2025**, forecast to **$352.5B by 2034**, with a published **12.58% CAGR** [16] | Broad ceiling that includes many categories OnePath does not address |
| US healthcare AI, estimate 1 | **$18.1B in 2025**, projected to **$222.9B by 2033** [21] | Demonstrates investor and buyer interest, but uses a broad category |
| US healthcare AI, estimate 2 | **$11.66B in 2025** [19] | The 55% difference from estimate 1 shows definition risk |
| Hospital API access | **81%** support app access; **70%** support FHIR apps in 2024 [9] | Standardized data access is becoming common infrastructure |
| Advanced patient data flow | **56%** support external-record import; **62%** accept patient-generated data [9] | Bidirectional, longitudinal workflows remain less mature |
| Physician AI use | **80%** report professional AI use, up from **65% in 2023**; **85%** want involvement in adoption decisions [22] | Adoption is high, but clinician governance is essential |

From 2021 to 2024, hospitals with all foundational digital-engagement capabilities rose from 72% to 80%, while those with emerging capabilities rose from 65% to 85% [9]. Adoption remains uneven: smaller, rural, non-teaching, critical-access, and independent hospitals lag, and hospitals using the leading EHR vendor report higher API and FHIR-app access [9].

The practical market definition is therefore narrower than either healthcare IT or healthcare AI. OnePath's serviceable market consists of US health plans, digital-health vendors, telehealth companies, care-management platforms, EHR vendors, and selected wellness programs that already possess or can lawfully access health data, need intelligence or engagement functions, and prefer buying infrastructure over building it.

A defensible revenue SAM cannot be calculated from public information because OnePath discloses neither pricing nor an eligible-customer count. Management should estimate it bottom-up as:

`eligible target accounts x expected annual platform fee + expected API or patient usage revenue`

This model should be segmented by buyer type because payer, EHR, telehealth, and wellness purchasing behavior differs substantially.

## Redox, Particle, Zus, 1upHealth, and Metriport Define the Battlefield

OnePath competes across overlapping layers rather than against a single identical rival. The relevant comparison is whether a buyer needs connectivity, a longitudinal data store, retrieval from national networks, payer workflows, AI-derived insight, or a combined stack.

| Company | Primary position | Public scale or proof | Relative implication for OnePath |
|---|---|---|---|
| OnePath Connect | FHIR data layer plus clinical AI, coaching, scores, goals, and medications [4] | Marist is the only named institutional partnership in reviewed materials [5] | Broad feature integration, but limited proof |
| Redox | Healthcare interoperability and integration network | 19B+ transactions in the prior 12 months, 12,000+ connected organizations, 14,000+ integrations, and reach into 95% of top US News hospitals [11] | Strong connection and enterprise-distribution moat |
| Particle Health | Nationwide clinical-data retrieval and actionable insights | 320M+ records, 160,000 health systems, practices, and clinics, and average national matching for 90% of patients [14] | Strong data-access and network moat; also offers AI summaries |
| Zus Health | Shared, multi-tenant FHIR-native data platform | HIPAA-compliant and SOC 2 Type 2 compliant; supports external-network ingestion and sharing [12] | Mature shared-data and security positioning |
| 1upHealth | FHIR-first payer data platform | Covers ingestion, normalization, storage, exchange, analytics, and activation; targets national and multi-line payers [13] | Stronger payer specialization and enterprise workflow depth |
| Metriport | Open-source, universal FHIR-native API and data infrastructure | Color Health moved from dashboard pilot to full API production in two weeks [15]; platform combines HIE, pharmacy, lab, and ADT feeds [15] | Developer-speed and open-source transparency create a strong wedge |

The table shows three competitive moats. Redox has integration distribution, Particle has record and network reach, and Zus and 1upHealth have focused enterprise data platforms. Metriport uses open source and implementation speed. OnePath's potential moat is neither raw network reach nor basic FHIR conformance; it is the orchestration of data, consent, AI, coaching, and operational modules through one integration.

### Case study: Scale versus implementation speed

Redox demonstrates the scale end-state: billions of transactions and thousands of integrations create switching costs and operating knowledge [11]. Particle demonstrates a similar advantage in data retrieval, claiming access to hundreds of millions of records through one API [14]. A new entrant cannot quickly reproduce these networks.

Metriport illustrates a more attainable competitive route. Its published Color Health example reports a two-week move from dashboard pilot to full API production [15]. For OnePath, the actionable lesson is to make implementation speed, not feature count, the initial proof point. A credible case showing production deployment in days, followed by validated AI quality and workflow savings, would be more persuasive than a longer feature list.

## B2B API Economics Depend on Integration Proof and Expansion

OnePath appears to use a sales-led B2B model. Prospects request partner access; production requires an executed BAA, while a synthetic-data sandbox can be used without real PHI [4]. The company says a BAA and credentials can be prepared within one business day, but it does not publish prices, subscriptions, usage limits, implementation charges, or minimum commitments [5].

A sensible commercial structure would be an enterprise platform fee plus usage-based charges for records, documents, AI calls, or covered lives, with implementation and premium-support options. This is a recommendation, not a disclosed OnePath price. Pricing should reward expansion while protecting the company from variable model, storage, support, and data-network costs.

The best initial customers are likely telehealth and care-management platforms. Their workflows align closely with OnePath's record-grounded conversational AI, summaries, goals, and plan-management features [2]. They may also move faster than large health plans or EHR vendors, where procurement, security, integration testing, and contracting can lengthen the sales cycle.

Recommended commercial sequence:

1. **Land with one workflow:** laboratory-document extraction and clinical summary, or record-grounded coaching.
2. **Prove implementation speed:** measure days to sandbox, BAA, first production patient, and stable production volume.
3. **Prove operational ROI:** quantify minutes saved per chart, percentage of records successfully normalized, support tickets, model-review burden, and user completion rates.
4. **Prove safety:** publish extraction accuracy, hallucination rate, subgroup performance, escalation behavior, and adverse-event handling.
5. **Expand modules:** add goals, health scores, medications, and bidirectional workflows after trust is established.
6. **Move upmarket:** use reference deployments to pursue health plans, EHR vendors, and employer-benefit platforms.

Core metrics should include annual recurring revenue, contracted annual value, gross retention, net revenue retention, gross margin by feature, API volume, active covered lives, time to production, uptime, latency, AI acceptance or override rate, implementation cost, sales cycle, renewal rate, and concentration among the five largest customers. None of these metrics is publicly disclosed, making them priority diligence items.

## HIPAA Is Only the Starting Line

OnePath's regulatory exposure depends on its role in each deployment and on the intended use of each function. A BAA and FHIR implementation do not independently establish safety, FDA status, information-blocking compliance, or compliance with consumer-health privacy rules.

| Area | Applicable evidence | OnePath implication |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA Security Rule | Covered entities and business associates must use appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for electronic PHI [20] | Obtain independent control assurance, maintain risk analysis, access controls, incident response, and vendor oversight |
| Contractual HIPAA | OnePath requires an executed BAA before production access; sandbox use cannot include real PHI without one [3] | Positive contracting control, but execution must match policy |
| Information blocking | The rule covers specified actors and practices likely to interfere with access, exchange, or use of EHI, subject to exceptions [6] | Determine whether OnePath or each customer is an actor and document applicable exceptions |
| Algorithm transparency | HTI-1 establishes transparency requirements for AI and predictive algorithms that are part of certified health IT [8] | Even where not directly covered, buyers may expect model cards, intended-use statements, validation, and risk management |
| FDA clinical software | Some CDS functions are excluded from the device definition, but FDA policies continue to apply to device functions, including patient or caregiver uses [7] | Classify summaries, scores, coaching, and medication functions separately |
| FTC breach rule | The amended rule can apply to health apps and similar products; qualifying breaches may require notice within 60 days and violations may carry civil penalties [10] | Consumer or wellness deployments need a HIPAA-plus-FTC privacy analysis |
| Contract allocation | OnePath states that AI outputs are not medical advice and places responsibility for their use on partners; service is provided as-is [3] | Disclaimers reduce neither clinical harm nor enterprise buyer concern |

The privacy policy says OnePath collects partner details, API logs, website logs, and PHI; uses data to operate, support, enforce limits, manage compliance, communicate, and improve the platform; and may share data with service providers, legal authorities, or in a business transfer [1]. PHI retention follows the BAA, while other data is retained during the relationship and for an unspecified reasonable period [1]. The policy does not state a detailed rights process, fixed retention period, or breach-notification timeline [1].

The terms also cap aggregate liability at fees paid in the three months preceding a claim and disclaim indirect and consequential damages [3]. Such clauses are common risk allocation tools, but sophisticated healthcare buyers may negotiate higher security, privacy, and clinical-risk caps, stronger service levels, cyber-insurance requirements, audit rights, and explicit model-governance commitments.

## SWOT, Risk Priorities, and Scenarios

| SWOT category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Strengths | Broad single-API proposition; FHIR R4 and terminology alignment; integrated consent, audit, AI, coaching, scoring, and medication features; clinically experienced leadership [4] |
| Weaknesses | No published pricing, revenue, funding, customer count, uptime, validation, case-study outcomes, or completed SOC 2 [4] |
| Opportunities | High hospital API adoption, growing physician AI use, and incomplete advanced data-flow capabilities create demand for usable intelligence above standardized data [9][22] |
| Threats | Network-scale incumbents, enterprise security expectations, clinical-AI regulation, buyer consolidation, long sales cycles, model errors, and dependence on external data sources |

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Leading indicator | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise trust stalls sales | High | High | Security review delays; repeated SOC 2 objections | Complete SOC 2, publish controls, penetration-test summaries, uptime, and incident commitments |
| AI output produces clinical harm | Medium | Very high | High override or escalation rate; inconsistent subgroup performance | Function-level validation, human review, confidence display, auditability, and narrow intended use |
| Insufficient differentiation | High | High | Prospects compare OnePath only on FHIR price | Lead with measured workflow outcomes and integrated intelligence |
| Data-access dependency | Medium | High | Low match rate or incomplete longitudinal records | Diversify data sources, disclose provenance, and monitor completeness |
| Long enterprise sales cycle | High | Medium | Extended BAA, security, and procurement stages | Start with faster-moving digital-health and care-management buyers |
| Customer concentration | Medium | High | One partner dominates API volume or revenue | Build a repeatable segment playbook and cap bespoke development |

Three non-numeric scenarios are appropriate because the company publishes no financial baseline:

| Scenario | Conditions | Likely outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | SOC 2 completion, two or more credible production reference customers, validated AI quality, fast deployment, and measurable ROI | OnePath earns a differentiated intelligence-layer position and expands from digital-health vendors into payers and EHRs |
| Base | Product works but proof accumulates slowly; deployments remain smaller and require substantial support | Sustainable niche platform with selective modules and moderate enterprise penetration |
| Bear | Security assurance, data access, accuracy, or procurement problems persist; incumbents bundle similar AI functions | Pilot-heavy business with weak conversion, high services burden, and limited pricing power |

## Synthesis: OnePath Must Win on Intelligence, Speed, and Trust

| Dimension | OnePath | Scale incumbents | Focused platforms | Strategic conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanism | Combines storage, consent, clinical AI, coaching, and workflow | Redox and Particle emphasize connectivity and network reach | Zus and 1upHealth emphasize reusable enterprise data infrastructure; Metriport emphasizes open, fast integration | OnePath's differentiation must be the usefulness of outputs, not FHIR alone |
| Scope | Broad horizontal API across plans, EHRs, telehealth, care management, and wellness | Broad network access across many enterprise types | More focused on payer, shared-data, or developer workflows | Begin narrowly despite broad technical scope |
| Evidence base | Product detail and one named academic partnership | Billions of transactions or hundreds of millions of records [11][14] | Certifications and individual implementation examples [12][15] | Build measurable reference cases before claiming platform leadership |
| Trade-off | Consolidation reduces vendor count but increases dependence on one young supplier | Greater scale but potentially more complex and less differentiated at the AI layer | Stronger specialization but narrower workflow coverage | Modular contracts and exportability can reduce buyer lock-in concerns |
| Time horizon | Immediate need is trust and repeatable deployment | Incumbents optimize network density and enterprise expansion | Focused rivals deepen segment-specific capabilities | OnePath has a limited window to establish a defensible workflow wedge |

The central tension is that OnePath's greatest strength is also its largest risk. Combining many infrastructure and AI functions can shorten a customer's build path, but it expands the surface area that must be secure, clinically valid, reliable, and supportable. Competitors with narrower offers can point to mature networks, certifications, or highly specific workflows.

The recommended strategy is therefore **narrow commercialization on top of broad architecture**. OnePath should select a use case in which its complete stack matters, such as converting incoming laboratory data into a reviewed longitudinal summary and coaching plan. It should then publish implementation speed, normalization success, clinician-review time, model error rates, user engagement, and economic savings.

Priority actions for the next 12 to 18 months are:

1. Complete SOC 2 and publish a healthcare-enterprise security package.
2. Obtain two to five reference customers in one target segment.
3. Produce a function-level FDA and clinical-safety assessment.
4. Validate AI outputs against defined gold-standard datasets and report subgroup performance.
5. Publish uptime, latency, data-completeness, and implementation metrics.
6. Establish transparent packaging with platform, usage, and implementation components.
7. Convert Marist or another partner into a quantified case study.
8. Preserve modularity and exportability so buyers can adopt one feature without accepting full-stack lock-in.

**Investment or partnership conclusion:** OnePath merits continued diligence as a promising, newly commercial healthcare AI infrastructure company. It does not yet merit assumptions of scaled product-market fit. The next valuation inflection points are independent security assurance, credible production references, validated clinical-AI performance, and demonstrated recurring revenue.

## Publicly Unanswered Diligence Questions

The following remain unanswered in the reviewed public evidence:

- Current revenue, contracted revenue, burn rate, runway, funding history, capitalization, and beneficial ownership.
- Customer count, production deployments, covered lives, API volume, retention, pipeline, and customer concentration.
- Pricing, minimum contract value, implementation fees, gross margin, cloud cost, and model-inference cost.
- SOC 2 target date, penetration-test results, cyber-insurance limits, uptime history, recovery objectives, and subprocessors.
- Model providers, training or fine-tuning practices, evaluation datasets, hallucination rate, extraction accuracy, subgroup performance, and human-oversight procedures.
- Data-source contracts, national-network access, patient-match rates, provenance coverage, and data-completeness metrics.
- FDA classification by function, state consumer-health privacy analysis, and plans for HTI-1-aligned algorithm transparency.
- Marist deployment scope, outcomes, commercial terms, renewal intent, and referenceability.

## References

1. *Privacy Policy — OnePath*. https://www.onepathhealth.com/privacy
2. *Use Cases — OnePath Connect*. https://www.onepathhealth.com/use-cases
3. *Terms of Service — OnePath*. https://www.onepathhealth.com/terms
4. *OnePath Connect — Healthcare AI Infrastructure*. https://www.onepathhealth.com/
5. *Company — OnePath*. https://www.onepathhealth.com/company
6. *Information Blocking - ONC - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology*. https://healthit.gov/information-blocking/
7. *Clinical Decision Support Software | FDA*. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/clinical-decision-support-software
8. *HTI-1 Final Rule - ONC - Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology*. https://healthit.gov/regulations/hti-rules/hti-1-final-rule/
9. *Growth of Health IT-Enabled Patient Engagement Capabilities Among U.S. Hospitals: 2021-2024 - ONC Health IT Research & Analysis*. https://healthit.gov/data/data-briefs/growth-health-it-enabled-patient-engagement-capabilities-among-us-hospitals-2021/
10. *Complying with FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule | Federal Trade Commission*. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-ftcs-health-breach-notification-rule-0
11. *About Redox - Redox*. https://redoxengine.com/company/
12. *Platform - Zus Health*. https://zushealth.com/platform
13. *1up Platform | Payer Interoperability Solutions at Scale*. https://1up.health/products/platform/
14. *Particle Health | Actionable Data for Healthcare Innovators*. https://www.particlehealth.com/
15. *API | Metriport*. https://www.metriport.com/platform/api
16. *U.S. Healthcare IT Market Size and Trends Report, 2034*. http://imarcgroup.com/united-states-healthcare-it-market
17. *CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule ...*. https://www.cms.gov/initiatives/burden-reduction/overview/interoperability/policies-regulations/cms-interoperability-prior-authorization-final-rule-cms-0057-f
18. *OnePATH Health*. https://www.linkedin.com/company/onepath-health
19. *Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Market Companies, Size ...*. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/artificial-intelligence-in-healthcare-market
20. *The Security Rule | HHS.gov*. http://hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/index.html
21. *U.S. Artificial Intelligence In Healthcare Market Report, 2033*. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-artificial-intelligence-healthcare-market-report
22. *than 80% of physicians use AI professionally: AMA survey*. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/more-80-physicians-use-ai-professionally-ama-survey
23. *How AI is reshaping digital health funding in 2026*. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/digital-health/digital-health-brought-74b-vc-funding-ai-powered-rebound-fuels-market
24. *Rock Health | We're powering the future of healthcare.*. https://rockhealth.com/
25. *H1 2025 market overview: Proof in the pudding*. https://rockhealth.com/insights/h1-2025-market-overview-proof-in-the-pudding/
26. *RockHealth.org | Rock Health*. http://rockhealth.org/
27. *2025 year-end digital health funding overview: A tale of two ...*. https://rockhealth.com/insights/2025-year-end-digital-health-funding-overview-a-tale-of-two-markets/