​In recent years, developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have impacted many aspects of daily life, and hold the potential to revolutionize entire industries. This includes the possibility of broad adoption of AI tools to help transform the delivery of healthcare.

While there promise and potential of using AI in medicine is vast, it also presents a unique set of considerations, particularly when it comes to behavioral health services. Behavioral health care in the US has faced challenges dating back many decades, long before the advent of AI. Despite medical advances in a number of areas, a person's ability to access quality behavioral health care is still largely determined by where they live, what type of insurance coverage they have, and their socioeconomic status. These hurdles create real barriers that prevent those in need from accessing vital support services.

AI has provided health system leaders with tools to address a number of these challenges. AI services can, for example, facilitate screening services and symptom monitoring processes. AI tools can also help individuals access mental health support between visits with a primary clinician. Many American businesses use AI chatbots to engage with customers. Mental health care providers can use AI tools to similar ends, providing 24/7 support powered by large language models (LLM).

While companies like OpenAI and Google provide scalable LLMs, organizations such as Ellipsis Health have developed more specialized services capable of analyzing vocal biomarkers that can help mental health professionals key in on an individual's mental state. While helpful, these tools are not infallible, nor can they replicate the sensitivity and nuance of a trained mental health services provider. For instance, LLMs cannot interpret body language. Studies suggest AI tools provide the best results when interacting with individuals living with mild to moderate depression or anxiety symptoms.

An increasing number of companies are releasing digital cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) tools capable of addressing symptoms of depression. The most advanced tools can produce results comparable to those associated with short-term, human-delivered therapy. While AI shows great promise in the field of mental health care, it bears repeating that AI is still a developing area with many limitations. Behavioral health is a wide, diverse medical field characterized by a diversity of complex, nuanced conditions, many of which carry high-risk symptoms. AI is not effective or recommended when it comes to dealing with individuals living with post-traumatic stress disorder or severe depression. Although health professionals can train LLMs to monitor for keywords and phrases, they should not rely on AI to pick up on suicidal ideation, self-harm, and other mental health conditions that pose an immediate risk to patient health.
Traditional CBT services and other forms of therapeutic care are rooted in a foundation of trust and personal connection that develops over time between a person and their care provider. AI tools are not yet capable of replicating this connection and therefore cannot function as the central care resource for humans in need of mental health services. Put more clearly, decades of studies suggest that the human-to-human interactions that occur during therapy sessions play a significant role in positive treatment outcomes, something even the most knowledgeable and sensitive AI system cannot currently replicate.

In closing, while artificial intelligence offers exciting possibilities for expanding access and improving efficiency in behavioral health, its role must remain supportive rather than substitutive. The future of effective behavioral health care will depend on thoughtfully integrating AI tools into a system still grounded in human empathy, clinical judgment, and trust. By combining the scalability and precision of technology with the compassion and insight of trained professionals, the healthcare community can create a more responsive, equitable, and person-centered model of behavioral health care—one that harnesses innovation without losing the essential human connection at its core.

​The advent of telehealth services and artificial intelligence-powered health technology has provided Americans with a depth of options for learning about, monitoring, and receiving treatment for many health conditions. In 2024, more than half of Americans reported that they had used telehealth services at least once. This is in part driven by the upsurge in use during the COVID-19 pandemic, when The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted a marked increase – with telemedicine usage leaping from 15.4 percent in 2019 to 86.5 percent in 2021.

As telehealth options continue to grow, Americans must understand when to use digital resources to assess their health, when to contact a healthcare provider, and when to seek immediate attention. The average person has often wondered how and when to seek medical treatment. Some of the most common questions doctors receive range from "Do I need to call my doctor?", "Should I visit urgent care?", and, more recently, "Do I need to go to the emergency room (ER), or can I use telehealth services?"

In some cases, the answer is obvious. Deep wounds, injuries that involve severe head trauma, and chronic illnesses all demand medical intervention. Although "better safe than sorry" may sound prudent, seeking emergency medical care for a condition doctors can assess via a telehealth platform can have consequences. Uninsured Americans on average spend from $2,400 to $2,600 on ER services, according to GoodRx. Most patients spend about two hours waiting for emergency health services, but ER wait times can span up to nearly five hours.

While patients should strive to avoid costly, time-consuming medical care whenever they can, the greater issue involves the nation's worsening physician shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects the shortage to surpass 40,000 primary care doctors by 2036. Spending time in an ER for a condition that requires little to no treatment can divert critical, potentially life-saving medical care from patients in desperate need. With these issues in mind, patients can take a few steps to assess their health issues and determine whether they should call a doctor and make an appointment, use telehealth services for a more immediate assessment, or seek immediate care.

As a general rule of thumb, sudden and severe symptoms almost always demand immediate medical are. These symptoms may include unexplained and severe chest pain, sudden abdominal pain, or weakness on one side of the body. Individuals should also treat sudden changes to vision or speech as medical emergencies. Patients must also learn to differentiate between emergency care and urgent care. Urgent care centers provide similar services to emergency rooms, but with a focus on minor, non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries that still carry time-sensitive needs. Urgent care providers can assist patients with allergic reactions, minor burns, wounds that require stitches, and conditions of similar severity.

If a person feels ill but stable, they should consider using telehealth services. For example, a person concerned about their flu-like symptoms but who does not feel critically ill can discuss concerns with a virtual healthcare provider. Telehealth platforms not only save patients time and money, but also prevent them from spreading their illness to other patients in an ER or emergency care center. Finally, Americans should not forget to take advantage of a knowledgeable primary care physician. While it is not uncommon to go up to 12 months without seeing a primary care physician, these professionals are familiar with their patients' medical histories and possess considerable insight into whether an individual's symptoms represent a minor, major, or severe health problem.

As healthcare options continue to expand, patients must learn how to navigate between primary care, telehealth, urgent care, and emergency services. While life-threatening conditions demand immediate ER visits, many non-emergency issues can be addressed through urgent care or telehealth, saving patients both time and money while reducing strain on overcrowded healthcare systems. Telehealth, in particular, offers convenience and accessibility for stable conditions, while primary care physicians remain a vital resource for long-term health management and accurate diagnosis. By understanding when and how to use these different services, Americans can make informed decisions that improve outcomes and preserve critical medical resources.

​A Brown University School of Public Health study published in 2025 found that avoidable mortality rose in every state between 2009 and 2021. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), preventable premature deaths increased across several categories, including cardiovascular disease and chronic lower respiratory diseases. Americans can reduce these and other causes of premature death by understanding and practicing preventive healthcare.

Premature, avoidable deaths are defined as those occurring before age 75 that could have been prevented or treated within a functioning health system. They fall into two categories: preventable causes, which should not occur in an effective healthcare system, and treatable (or amenable) causes, which could be managed through timely diagnosis and treatment. Understanding these distinctions helps highlight the role of prevention in modern health systems.

Preventive healthcare, also known as prophylaxis, is dedicated to avoiding disease and maintaining overall wellness. Specialists in this field consider a wide range of influences, including genetic predisposition, lifestyle habits, and environmental conditions. By addressing risk factors early and consistently, preventive healthcare reduces the likelihood of illness and its impact on quality of life.

Preventive strategies are often grouped into primal, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. Primal prevention, sometimes considered distinct from the others, begins before birth and may overlap with prenatal care, aiming to minimize early-life risk factors. Primary prevention focuses on stopping disease before it occurs. Common strategies include immunizations, healthy diet and exercise, and avoiding tobacco use. These measures build resilience within individuals and communities, lowering the probability of disease development.

Secondary prevention intervenes once a risk factor or condition is already present but before it causes major health consequences. For example, managing hypertension reduces the likelihood of advanced cardiovascular disease. Tertiary prevention, by contrast, involves slowing or halting disease progression after symptoms appear. Rehabilitation programs, medical treatments, and surgical procedures all fall into this category.

A fourth category, quaternary prevention, protects patients from excessive medicalization and unnecessary procedures. This level underscores the importance of ensuring that healthcare interventions themselves do not create harm or lead to avoidable costs. Together, these levels form a comprehensive approach to reducing both premature mortality and the overall burden of disease.

Preventive healthcare plays a critical role in lowering avoidable deaths, improving quality of life, and reducing the financial strain of disease—estimated at $730 billion annually in the United States. By emphasizing prevention at every stage, health systems can move beyond reactive treatment models and instead foster long-term wellness, resilience, and healthier communities.

Innovators in markets around the globe are working to develop advancements that create greater health system efficiencies that lead to better patient outcomes. The December 2023 article “Analyzing the Efficiency of Health Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature” involved a global search of relevant papers included on the PubMed and Google Scholar reference lists from 2000 to 2021 to assess the impact of these developments. The authors identified basic contributing factors in countries with varying GDPs, health systems, expenditures, and levels of care. ​

A key finding was that an estimated 20 to 40 percent of worldwide health system spending fails to reach intended uses due to inefficiency. This drains vital resources from health care provision and impedes efforts to attain goals such as universal health coverage. When high-efficiency practices are in place, policymakers, voters, taxpayers, and the organizations they represent feel more confident in allocating greater financial resources to health systems.

The authors focused their research on a specific type of efficiency known as technical efficiency – a measurable attribute that is essential in quantitatively assessing health system performance. Of 131 selected papers, 94 percent employed purely quantitative approaches, with the remainder employing mixed methods or qualitative (non-mathematical) approaches. Three of the qualitative papers involved surveys of stakeholders and their views on the sources and existence of inefficiencies in health systems. By contrast, quantitative approaches focused on numerical population and outcome distinctions, and graded system effectiveness through an inefficiency score on a scale of 1 to 100.
 
Many studies found that high population density resulted in increased technical efficiency. For example, in higher density health care catchment regions of Chile, the primary health care system displayed greater efficiency. A separate study that looked at 46 Asian countries found that countries with more than 200 people per square kilometer performed significantly better than those with 100 people per square kilometer or less. A key reason is that people needed to travel shorter distances to receive health care, which indicates that geographical proximity to care is a major factor in defining health system efficiency.

Interestingly, a number of studies found a negative association between system technical efficiency and population density. A study in Kenya theorized that lack of appropriate health care resources allocated to centers of higher population density led to compromised urban care. A study of municipalities in Finland presented similar findings, suggesting that bureaucratic inefficiency and care quality differences in urban neighborhoods could be factors.

In many studies, a country or region’s higher per capita income translated into greater technical efficiency. However, a significant number of studies found an opposite effect, with higher costs of care and higher levels of over-provision implicated in lower health system efficiency. This affected relatively high-income societies. Other factors contributing to increased health system efficiency included literacy and access to clean water and basic sanitation. When it came to financing care, health systems that relied on fragmented sources (e.g., multiple health insurance payers) were linked to lower health system efficiency. A higher share of public spending on health care had positive efficiency correlations, as did access to basic health insurance (or other prepayment health-financing mechanisms). Other policy factors increasing technical efficiency in countries such as El Salvador and China included generic prescribing, strong price regulation, and national essential drug list enforcement.

In sum, the literature highlights that health system efficiency is shaped by a complex interplay of demographic, economic, structural, and policy-related factors. While high population density and greater public investment can drive improvements, these benefits are not universal and may be offset by resource misallocation or bureaucratic inefficiencies. The findings underscore the need for tailored, context-specific strategies that reflect each system’s unique challenges and strengths. As global health systems strive toward universal coverage and improved outcomes, applying insights from both quantitative and qualitative research will be essential to designing more efficient, equitable, and sustainable models of care.

​Heart health is a major concern in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heart disease ranks as the leading cause of death in the US. Individuals can take various steps to mitigate their chances of developing heart disease, in addition to taking seasonal measures, such as wintertime heart health precautions.

Several aspects of the winter season, from the cold temperatures to the physical exertion necessitated by activities like shoveling snow, can place extra stress on a person's cardiovascular system. By learning about winter-specific heart health risks, individuals can adjust their behaviors and avoid high-risk situations.

The connection between the winter and increased heart attack risk is well-researched. The American Heart Association reports that more individuals die from heart attacks in the final week of December than at any other point in the year. The phenomenon is not limited to the US - reports from the prestigious British Medical Journal found that the number of heart attacks increases by 15 percent during the winter season.

The Holiday Season is an especially dangerous day for heart health. During this time, heart attack rates increase by 37 percent. Individuals over the age of 75 who are also living with diabetes or a pre-existing cardiovascular condition experience an even greater increase in their heart attack risk at the end of the year.

The winter cold can also exacerbate other health conditions that can, in turn, place greater stress on the cardiovascular system. For instance, respiratory conditions such as the flu and RSV are more common during the winter. The symptoms of these diseases can also contribute to cardiovascular complications. A report from UCLA Health found that a flu diagnosis can increase a person's heart attack risk by up to 600 percent. With this relationship in mind, anyone living at an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease should concerned about the possible impact of contracting the flu.

These are only a few examples of how the cold winter months impact the body and contribute to elevated heart attack risk. Constricted blood vessels represent another potential issue. A medical condition known as Raynaud's phenomenon describes how blood vessels constrict in cold temperatures, or as a response to physical stress. Constricted blood flow is a symptom of many heart diseases, including coronary microvascular disease and coronary artery disease, and can severely impact heart health.

As previously mentioned, shoveling snow can be an especially dangerous activity because it combines the challenges of cold weather with intense physical labor. The American Heart Association has published extensively about the dangerous combination of the cold and physical stress, including a comprehensive breakdown as part of the scientific statement, Exercise-Related Acute Cardiovascular Events and Potential Deleterious Adaptations Following Long-Term Exercise Training: Placing the Risks Into Perspective: An Update.

Shoveling heavy snow is especially dangerous for heart health, particularly when it comes to individuals who engage in very little physical activity. It is not unusual for a person with no history of heart issues to receive a diagnosis after a shoveling-related cardiovascular event. One study determined that men are 16 percent more likely to have a heart attack and 34 percent more likely to die following between seven and eight inches of heavy snowfall.
Individuals concerned about their cardiovascular health should discuss their physical limitations with a physician prior to shoveling snow, and it is important to schedule appointments for your annual physical with your primary care provider to ensure your general health and well-being.

​Historically, mental health services were limited to medical institutions, including 19th-century asylums and the early psychiatric hospitals of the 20th century. Mental health conditions were associated with various stigmas and were rarely discussed in public, resulting in a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of the disease, or support for an effective mental health system. Fortunately, changing opinions have greatly destigmatized mental health – resulting in new treatment modalities, a range of different medications, and recently, digital behavioral health services and home calls that further increase access.

The National Institutes of Health has published multiple articles and studies about the destigmatization of mental health conditions, and expanding treatment options. As the topic has gained more public momentum, medical professionals have had more opportunities to break down traditional barriers to care, including the development and expansion of in-home mental health services.

Mental health home care is a broad field of service and support that encompasses education, nursing services, and much more. In-home care provides the inherent advantage of taking place in a location where the patient, in most cases, will be most comfortable. Similarly, many individuals living with conditions such as depression or anxiety also live with mobility issues, financial difficulties, and a general fear of judgment regarding mental health treatment. House calls, as well as telemedicine sessions, help minimize these obstacles and provide patients with the care they need.

In-home mental health services include depression screenings. Depression is a mental health condition that has impacted nearly 30 percent of America's adult population at some point in their lives, according to Gallup News. Symptoms of depression, which include disturbed sleep patterns and persistent feelings of sadness and anxiety, can make it difficult to complete daily tasks, maintain a job, or perform at school.

A depression screening, or depression test, is a series of questions that can help medical professionals determine if a person's low mood is the result of something more than normal grief or sadness. A depression screening may be the first step toward a diagnosis and the development of a treatment plan that enables a individual to resume functioning at work, school, and in their everyday lives. By incorporating depression screenings into mobile health programs, healthcare providers can reach a patient population that might otherwise have been reluctant to seek out services. Mobile and in-home services are particularly helpful in rural regions, where mental health stigmas may be more common.

Depression screenings represent just one example of how in-home services can help overcome the isolation experienced by many Americans living with mental health conditions and further destigmatize treatment and care. Mobile units can provide an array of services in areas as diverse as medication management and individual and family therapy. Mobile mental health professionals can also provide crisis intervention services and suicide prevention and support.

While society has made meaningful progress in destigmatizing mental health, much work remains to ensure equitable access to care. In-home and mobile mental health services play a crucial role in bridging gaps—especially for individuals facing physical, economic, or cultural barriers to traditional treatment. As these models continue to expand, they hold the potential to not only reach underserved communities but also to transform how mental health care is delivered, making it more compassionate, personalized, and accessible for all.