By Daree Allen Nieves, Healthtech UX Content Designer and Strategist, Ree Writes, LLC
LinkedIn: Daree A.
I attended the CES 2026 Digital Health Summit in Las Vegas for the first time, and sharing the hard truths about why technically sound products keep failing in the real world for patients, caregivers, and patient advocacy organizations. If you’re building, buying, or implementing healthcare technology, these insights can help you close the gap between what you build and what your users actually need.
The UX Crisis Hiding in Plain Sight
Randy Rutta from the National Health Council opened the Patient Voices First session with a story of a major pharmaceutical company that launched inhalable insulin with complete confidence. The technology worked and clinical trials validated efficacy. But it flopped because they never asked patients if they’d actually use it. People managing diabetes need precision, but something sprayed into your lungs doesn’t feel precise, even if the pharmacokinetics prove it is. Not to mention, the patients hated the inhaler design itself. The user experience (UX) failed before the drug ever had a chance to succeed. They spent millions on development and launch for a product that solved a technical problem, without solving the user problem. Simple focus groups during the design phase would have caught both issues.
When product design puts users at risk
Another story Randy shared hit even harder: A Black woman refused to wear her prescribed health monitoring device because the bulky black device clipped to her waistband made her afraid of being stopped by police. Her hands would instinctively go to her waist when she saw police officers, creating exactly the scenario she feared. She said, “If it came in pink, it would have changed everything for me.” This isn’t about aesthetics or inclusion for inclusion’s sake. It’s about recognizing that product design decisions can literally put certain user populations at risk. Randy also mentioned patients with eczema and psoriasis who can’t wear certain devices because adhesives or materials irritate sensitive skin. Some product teams might argue this is a minor edge case, but it’s actually a deal-breaker for entire patient populations. If your wearable assumes all skin tolerates the same materials, you’ve just eliminated a significant portion of your addressable market.
The business case for early user involvement
Alice Pomponio from American Cancer Society’s venture capital arm sees patterns across her portfolio. The companies that succeed think beyond short-term product development metrics to long-term systemic impact. She challenged healthtech founders: “What is not only the short-term product development strategy, but also the longer-term healthcare systemic step change you’re planning to deliver?” Her advice is to get patient voices around your cap table, and diversify your board perspective. Even with a well-intentioned management team, if your board doesn’t support patient-centered decisions, you’ll miss opportunities to make cost-effective strategic choices during the design phase. As Alice put it, it’s significantly cheaper to fix UX problems during the design phase than during M&A negotiations when your product-market fit (or lack thereof) determines your acquisition price.
Women’s Health Technology Has a Data Problem
Maya Friedman from Tidepool dropped a statistic that 70% of women with type 1 diabetes experience insulin sensitivity changes around their menstrual cycles, but there are zero clinical guidelines addressing this reality. No algorithms account for it, and no automated insulin delivery systems adapt to it. Women have to manually adjust their diabetes management systems every single month to account for their periods, because the technology assumes their bodies work like men’s bodies.
The missing data sets
Maya referenced “The Library of Missing Data Sets,” which is an art exhibition that features hundreds of empty filing cabinets labeled with data that doesn’t exist across industries. The healthcare filing cabinets are particularly bare when it comes to women’s health data outside of pregnancy and contraception. As AI becomes more prevalent in healthcare, these data gaps will replicate existing biases at scale. Maya argues every healthcare technology company needs infrastructure for data collection at the intersection of women’s health as a core business requirement. Tidepool partnered with Oura to build what Maya describes as the largest longitudinal data set combining diabetes device data with biometric data from the same individuals. They’re distributing Oura rings to thousands of users already on the Tidepool platform. The data will include:
- Continuous glucose monitoring data
- Activity tracking and sleep patterns
- Menstrual cycle data
- Contextual health surveys
This is what user-centered design infrastructure looks like when you take women’s health seriously.
Algorithms need to be cycle-aware
Maya’s immediate technical priority is building algorithms that aren’t “cycle agnostic.” Current continuous glucose monitoring systems typically use 72-hour learning horizons. That’s irrelevant for users whose bodies operate on 28-30 day hormonal cycles. As she put it: “Women are not just tiny men. We have different needs. We need to display different data. We need algorithms that are potentially different for women versus men.” Yes, that means maintaining multiple product versions. Yes, it’s more expensive. But it’s also addressing actual market need instead of forcing half the population to adapt to technology designed for the other half. Maya’s longer-term vision includes AI models that are dynamic across different reproductive milestones. What does an algorithm look like for someone in perimenopause who isn’t having regular periods? What are the appropriate learning horizons for that system? These are UX questions with significant technical implications. Her moonshot: A fully closed-loop insulin delivery system that accounts for PCOS, type 1 diabetes, and menstrual cycles without requiring patient interaction. Technology that doesn’t make women choose between managing their health and having time for anything else.
Accessibility as UX Foundation, Not Compliance Checkbox
Peter Kaldes, CEO of Next50 Foundation, delivered what should be a wake-up call to product designers: “Guess what? You still have a point of view over 50. You still have buying power at 60. You can still use your iPhone at 70, and you need really great technology in the 80s and your 90s.” He called out the age bias among product designers who assume older adults are technology Luddites. The data proves this assumption completely wrong. “The buying power of those over 50 is actually a little more powerful right now than younger generations.”
Start with your own company
Peter’s frustration was evident when describing conversations with healthtech companies who ask where to find older users for testing: “First of all, start with your company, and second, start partnering with community organizations that have access to all these people. This is not hard. It’s just getting people out of their comfort zone and getting them to address the facts.” AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan reinforced this point. Over 70% of Americans 50+ believe technology will improve their lives, but 60% feel tech isn’t designed for them. Her challenge to developers: “Personalize it and think about what do we want for ourselves. Everyone is aging in this audience, and if you’re not aging, the alternative is not a good one.”
Dual generational use is smart UX
Peter highlighted technologies that serve multiple generations without stigmatizing any users:
- Hearing assistance embedded in glasses to avoid the stigma of hearing aids
- AI tools coordinating appointments alongside transportation and housing options
- Sneakers designed to prevent falls that look like athletic shoes (no medical aesthetic or visible velcro)
- Financial fraud protection that helps older adults without infantilizing them
If it’s good for older adults, it’s often good for everyone. That’s the accessibility-to-mainstream pipeline that smart product teams leverage.
The curb cut effect
Griffen Stapp from Ability Central emphasized something product teams consistently miss: Products products designed for the general population rarely get adapted later for accessibility, but products designed FOR the disability community often get adopted by the general population:
- The classic example is curb cuts. They’re essential for wheelchair users, but they also help parents with strollers, delivery workers with hand trucks, travelers with rolling luggage, and anyone with temporary mobility limitations.
- Closed captioning helps deaf users, but it also helps people watching videos in noisy environments, practicing language skills, or absorbing information better through text.
Build accessibility into your product from day one, or you’re leaving both market impact and revenue on the table.
Adaptable frameworks over one-size-fits-all
Jack Walters, co-founder of HapWare (winner of the CTA Foundation Innovation Challenge), explained their design philosophy: “Not everyone’s going to have similar care or similar treatments, so you need to be able to adapt to all those different types of needs and necessities in the community.” HapWare involves the disability community in design from the start, learning common pain points and anticipating when certain issues might emerge. That’s how you build solutions that actually solve problems instead of creating new friction for users to work around.
Continuous Monitoring Teaches Us About UX Feedback Loops
The “Always On” panel featured executives from Dexcom, Oura, and Rimidi discussing continuous health monitoring. Beyond the technology specifics, their insights revealed fundamental UX principles that apply across healthcare technology.
Personalized baselines matter more than population averages
Tom Hale, CEO of Oura, explained why continuous data collection enables better user experience: “Normal isn’t 98.6 degrees. Normal is what’s normal for you, and being able to see that deviation from the baseline allows us to make predictions.” Oura’s “symptom radar” looks at temperature, heart rate variability, respiratory rate, and other biometrics to predict when users might be getting sick, days before symptoms appear. That’s the intervention window where behavior changes actually matter. This represents a fundamental UX shift: from telling users how they compare to population averages to showing them how they compare to their own baselines. That’s personalization that users can actually act on.
Immediate feedback drives behavior change
Jake Leach from Dexcom shared a pivotal study from the early days of continuous glucose monitoring. For years, diabetes management relied on episodic finger pricks—painful, limited, and providing only snapshot data. They ran a study where patients wore continuous glucose sensors, but researchers didn’t show patients the data for a week. They just collected baseline information. Then they turned on the display showing real-time glucose levels. Within a day, people started making behavior changes based solely on seeing their own patterns. No doctor intervention. No health coaching. Just visibility into their own data in a format they could understand and act on. That’s the power of good UX design: Put actionable information in users’ hands in a format that makes the right action obvious.
The clinical workflow challenge
Lucienne Ide from Rimidi left clinical practice because of frustration with how EHRs got implemented. She expected digital records with clinical decision support layered on top; technology that would help her make better decisions faster. Instead, she got data dumps with no insights. She said, “I don’t know a single doctor who’s saying, ‘If only I had more data, I would be a better clinician.'” Doctors have plenty of data, but they lack of clinical decision support that turns data into actionable insights. Healthcare technology companies often treat data collection as the end goal. But for clinician users, data is worthless without context, analysis, and clear next steps. Tom also described what doctors actually want from wearable devices: Information presented “as if it was written by another doctor—basically, a consult. Here’s what I know about this patient in clinical terms, and this is the information you need.” That’s the UX responsibility of device companies: Don’t just collect data and dump it on clinicians. Provide insights that save them time and improve their decision-making.
Three UX Principles Healthcare Technology Must Embrace
After two days of sessions featuring patient advocates, clinicians, and healthtech executives, three principles emerged consistently.
- Design WITH users, not FOR them
Patient involvement can’t start after your MVP is built. Bring patients, caregivers, and clinicians into the design process from day one. As Randy emphasized: “Come to us, and we will broker that relationship, because in the end, you’ll be more successful, and the patient community will get a better result.”
Patient advocacy organizations exist specifically to facilitate these connections. Use them. - Treat accessibility as feature set, not compliance
Accessibility requirements aren’t limitations, they’re opportunities to expand your addressable market. The curb cut effect is real: What you design for users with specific needs often becomes valuable for your entire user base. Peter Kaldes said it directly: “This is not hard. It’s just getting people out of their comfort zone and getting them to address the facts.” The buying power of older adults exceeds younger generations. The disability community represents a significant market. Design for them from the start. - Personalization means adapting to user baselines, not population averages
Healthcare technology has spent decades telling users how they compare to population norms. Continuous monitoring (RPM) enables a better approach: Show users how they compare to their own baselines, then give them actionable insights based on deviations from their personal normal. The future of patient-centered design is tech that adapts to individual patterns instead of forcing individuals to understand their deviation from generic standards.
Next Steps for Healthcare IT Decision-Makers
If you’re evaluating healthcare technology vendors, ask the following questions about user involvement, data and algorithms, and accessibility.
User involvement:
- When did you first involve patients/clinicians in your design process?
- How many users with diverse needs have tested your product?
- What design changes resulted from user feedback?
Data and algorithms:
- Does your algorithm account for biological differences across populations?
- Can your system adapt to individual baselines instead of just population averages?
- What clinical decision support do you provide, not just data collection?
Accessibility:
- Did you design for accessibility from day one, or retrofit later?
- What user populations have you specifically designed for?
- How does your product avoid stigmatizing users who need assistance?
Vendors who can answer these questions convincingly are building for real users.
The Bottom Line
Healthcare technology has UX issues masquerading as an adoption problem: Instead of blaming users for not engaging with your products, the real issue is you haven’t designed products worth engaging with. The patient voices at CES 2026 aren’t asking for some radical innovation. They’re asking for basic user-centered design:
- Ask us what we actually need before you build it
- Design for diverse bodies, not just the average case
- Make technology work for us instead of making us work around technology
- Give us insights we can act on, not data we can’t interpret
Until healthcare technology companies treat patients, caregivers, and clinicians as users deserving world-class UX, we’ll keep seeing technically impressive products fail in the real world. The solutions are known, frameworks exist, and patient advocacy organizations are ready to help. All we need is the consideration and effort to design your solutions more inclusively.