Blog

Nelson Advisors Partner Lloyd Price interviewed by Healthcare Business International regarding hims &amp; hers acquisition of Australian Digital Health platform EucalyptusLloyd Price, partner at M&amp;A advisory firm Nelson Advisors, a consultancy that focuses exclusively on the healthcare technology (healthtech) and medical technology (medtech) sectors, tells HBI the acquisition serves both defensive and offensive purposes.“Strategically, it hedges against rising US regulatory risks surrounding compounded GLP‑1 drugs and DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising, which have already impacted Hims through investigations and strained partnerships,” Price tells us.The move comes amid scrutiny of Hims &amp; Hers’ compounded GLP-1 offerings, including a withdrawn copy of the compounded version of weight loss pill Wegovy from Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk, which triggered action from the Food and Drug Administration and a patent lawsuit. Despite strong growth in 2025, where the company recorded a 59% year- over-year growth in revenue to $2.35 billion, shares fell over 7% due to weaker than expected 2026 guidance.Strategic buyers are increasingly using acquisitions to expand into new markets and patient populations, as shown by Hims’ purchase of Eucalyptus, rather than traditional and local market-focused ‘buy and build’ strategies. Buyers now prefer scaled, multi‑condition platforms with strong regulatory, clinical, and data credentials over small point solutions, Price tells us.In the last few months, I have heard the phrase “Venture Capital has seeded and built the digital health market, private equity will now scale and make the market…” says Price.“High‑growth verticals like metabolic health, behavioural health, community care, and women’s health sit at the centre of a lot of PE fund interest in Europe, the US, and Asia.Top acquisition targets will be multi‑market‑ready platforms with clinical and regulatory sophistication, well evidenced and demonstrable financial or operational ROI — not just strong user engagement,” he tells us. However, rather than paying high, upfront cash multiples like before 2021, investors now prefer more structured deals with earn‑outs tied to recurring revenue, margin growth, and increasing regulatory strength, as per Price.“The Hims–Eucalyptus deal exemplifies this range, with a mix of headline and performance‑linked valuation through earn‑outs. As M&amp;A activity rebounds, top‑tier healthtech assets are expected to see modest multiple expansion driven by quality and competition, while weaker assets will stay in discounted, highly structured deal territory,” Price tells HBI.Source: <a href="https://www.healthcarebusinessinternational.com/hims-hers-acquires-australian-digital-health-platform-eucalyptus/#advancedSearchQueryAnchor">https://www.healthcarebusinessinternational.com/hims-hers-acquires-australian-digital-health-platform-eucalyptus/#advancedSearchQueryAnchor</a>

Nelson Advisors interviewed by Healthcare Business International regarding hims & hers acquisition of Eucalyptus

Is this the end of the road for Patient Portals and patient engagement platforms in the UK?NHS England is proposing to remove much of the current market for third‑party patient engagement portals by pulling core hospital appointment management into the national NHS App, with an estimated saving of around £11M a year.Source: <a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/confusing-nhs-app-functions-to-be-standardised/7041174.article">https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/confusing-nhs-app-functions-to-be-standardised/7041174.article</a>What HSJ is reportingHSJ reports that NHS England plans to “dismantle” the existing patient engagement portal supplier market by standardising functions and delivering key appointment features directly via the NHS App, rather than via multiple local portals.The move is framed as a cost‑saving and simplification measure, with internal estimates suggesting it could save roughly £11m annually across the system.Context: NHS App as default front doorGovernment and NHSE policy over the last 2–3 years has been to make the NHS App the primary “front door” for patient communication and appointment management, including through the Wayfinder/Secondary Care Integration Programme.By April 2025, more than 80–90% of hospitals were already exposing appointment services through the NHS App, which has tens of millions of registered users and is credited with reducing missed appointments and saving staff time.Implications for portal suppliersHSJ notes that NHSE has effectively “put patient engagement portal suppliers on notice” by signalling that core appointment functionality will be handled centrally, rather than procured locally from multiple vendors. ​ In this model, local and third‑party systems are expected to act more as back‑end “engines” feeding data and workflows into the NHS App, rather than as standalone patient‑facing portals in their own right.

End of the road for Patient Portals and patient engagement platforms in the UK?

Pitchfest is the start-up competition at Digital Health Rewired, where innovative digital health companies pitch live in front of NHS leaders, investors and industry peers.Following competitive online heats, eight start-ups have progressed to the live final at #Rewired26.Meet the finalists: • Ben Whately, Astron Health • Lloyd Humphreys, Cogniss • Valentina Milanova, Daye • Matt Kearney, Into-Action.Health Ltd • Grant Nolan, Jigsaw Medical 🧩 • Lucrezia Cester, LightHearted AI • Clint Schick, Mavis Technologies Limited • Andrew Darby-Smith, UpskillExpert judging panel:• Chris Chaney, Chief Executive, CW+ charity • Chris Sawyer, Innovation Lead, Digital Health, Innovate UK • Jon Hoeksma, CEO, Future Health Intelligence • Pei-Fen Lin, Clinical Director of Innovation, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London • Michael Morgan-Curran, CEO, Asclepius MedTech Limited • Sara Nelson, Programme Director, Digital Health London • Rowan Mould, Start Up Programme Manager, The Hill • Lloyd Price, Partner, Nelson Advisors • Mindy Simon, Co-Director, NHS Innovation Accelerator • Dillan Yogendra, Account Director, Silver Buck<a href="https://digitalhealthrewired.com/pitchfest/">https://digitalhealthrewired.com/pitchfest/</a>

Nelson Advisors joins expert judging panel for Digital Health Rewired Pitchfest 2026

The software sell-off and AI bubble fears are likely to create a more selective, valuation disciplined but still AI‑hungry environment for Digital Health, HealthTech and MedTech funding and M&amp;A across the rest of 2026.Big picture: what’s changed Listed software and software‑services are down c. 20–25% YTD, with c. USD 1tn of market cap wiped out and hedge funds materially short, which is pushing investors to reassess software and AI business models and compress multiples. At the same time, IT and AI capex are still growing strongly into 2026 (Gartner sees &gt;USD 6tn IT spend in 2026), so AI adoption and infrastructure build‑out are continuing even as “AI bubble” talk rises. HealthTech / MedTech strategics entered 2026 with expectations of an acceleration in M&amp;A, driven by better credit markets, easing antitrust in the US, and the need to acquire AI capabilities in RCM, provider ops and analytics. Funding: Digital Health &amp; HealthTech For the rest of 2026, expect:Tighter terms and lower valuations for generic SaaS‑like digital health: The public software derating will be used as a benchmark, driving lower revenue multiples for loss‑making workflow tools, point solutions and non‑differentiated SaaS. Capital rotation toward AI with proven ROI: In 2025, AI‑enabled digital health companies already captured a majority of VC dollars; that share is rising into 2026, but LPs and GPs are concentrating on use‑cases with measurable cost savings (RCM, billing, provider productivity) rather than speculative “AI platforms”. Longer diligence and more technical scrutiny: Investors are now explicitly testing AI defensibility (data moats, model performance, workflow integration) and resilience to disruption from hyperscalers / agentic tools, mirroring the discrimination now happening in listed software. Later‑stage rounds harder, earlier‑stage still active but smaller: Cross‑over and growth investors burned in software will demand clearer paths to profitability and payback periods in healthtech; seed and Series A will stay active but with smaller round sizes and stronger focus on regulatory / reimbursement path. Illustration: a Series C digital chronic‑care platform that would have raised at 12–14x NTM revenue in 2021–22 may now be guided toward 6–9x, with more structure (ratchets, liquidation preferences) and heavier evidence demands on outcomes and gross margin improvement, while an AI‑RCM or coding automation startup with strong unit economics can still command premium terms.M&amp;A: HealthTech &amp; MedTech Strategic and PE M&amp;A are likely to accelerate but become more barbelled and opportunistic:Strategics use the sell‑off to buy AI and software assets cheaper: Large payers, providers and MedTech OEMs already planned to buy AI‑enabled platforms in RCM, workflow automation and analytics; lower public and private valuations increase the universe of “digestible” targets and improve deal economics. Big Tech health bets become more disciplined: Interoperability and data‑exchange mandates in the US and elsewhere are still pushing Big Tech toward health data platforms, but the broader AI re‑rating will likely shift them from “growth at any price” to acquiring proven, scaled assets that slot into their cloud / data strategies. MedTech focuses on AI‑augmented devices and services: OEMs will keep acquiring AI‑enabled imaging, surgical planning, robotics software and post‑op monitoring platforms, as AI is now viewed as core infrastructure rather than optional add‑on; the derating in software helps de‑risk multiple paid on these targets. PE leans into carve‑outs and roll‑ups: With valuations down but AI adoption still necessary, PE will look to carve out under‑invested software units from corporates and build scaled platforms in RCM, rev‑ops, and specialty‑specific software, expecting to benefit from eventual multiple re‑expansion.Practical implications for 2026 strategy For the rest of 2026, this environment supports a “quality and efficiency” thesis:For founders: emphasise quantified ROI and defensibility (proprietary data, deep workflow integration, regulatory assets) over generic “AI” narratives; be prepared for down‑round optics but pursue strategic investors who value the asset in their P&amp;L. For acquirers: build pipelines around AI‑native assets in RCM, ops, and device‑adjacent software that are now cheaper relative to 2021–22, but subject them to stringent tech and reimbursement diligence. For investors: expect dispersion, winners with real AI leverage and healthcare economics still command healthy valuations and see exit routes via strategics, while “me‑too” digital health SaaS may face a lost vintageTo discuss how Nelson Advisors can help your HealthTech, MedTech, Health AI or Digital Health company, please email <a href="mailto:lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk" data-mce-href="mailto:lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk">lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk</a>

How could the Software sell off and AI bubble in early 2026 affect Digital Health, HealthTech and MedTech funding and M&A for the rest of 2026?

Gen Z is clearly helping to pull AI and digital health into the mainstream, but Boomers are not so much “left behind” as unevenly included, with structural and design choices making it harder for them to benefit at scale.What Gen Z is doing in AI health Gen Z patients and consumers are generally more willing to use AI-supported health tools, telehealth apps, and digital self‑management platforms, reflecting higher baseline tech comfort and smartphone saturation. Studies of Gen Z medical students and early‑career clinicians show high exposure to AI tools (over 70% in one survey) and strong belief that AI will be integral to diagnosis and workflow, even if they remain cautious about ethics and reliability. Young adults engaging with AI‑driven mHealth apps value usability, personalization, and “always‑on” access, but also articulate data privacy and trust concerns, suggesting they are enthusiastic early adopters rather than blindly optimistic. Where Boomers are lagging Older adults, including many Boomers, remain among the most resistant groups to digital health, despite being heavy users of healthcare and prime beneficiaries of remote monitoring, telehealth, and decision‑support. Systematic reviews highlight recurring barriers: limited digital literacy and confidence, interface complexity, poor connectivity, cost, privacy fears, and a strong preference for in‑person, relationship‑based care. A “legitimacy gap” often exists: many older adults feel that app‑ and AI‑mediated care lacks the authenticity and authority of face‑to‑face encounters, reinforcing withdrawal from digital channels over time. Evidence of a generational gap Telehealth satisfaction data show a clear generation gap: one US study reported higher satisfaction scores among Gen Y/Z users (~714/1,000) and significantly lower scores among Boomers and pre‑Boomers (~671), with the biggest gaps in digital channels and appointment scheduling. Broader telehealth surveys find younger generations most open to using virtual care (around three‑quarters willing) versus roughly half of seniors, who are less inclined to switch providers purely for digital access.​ Even when older adults do use digital health, they tend to restrict use to narrow tasks (eg, prescription renewals or chronic disease check‑ins) rather than broad substitution of in‑person care, unlike younger users who lean on it for convenience and mental health support.​ Are Boomers being “left behind”? In design terms, yes: many AI and digital health solutions are optimized around smartphone‑native, high‑literacy, always‑online users, which implicitly centers Gen Z and Millennials and marginalizes older adults with lower digital confidence. In outcome terms, older adults’ combination of high disease burden and lower digital adoption risks amplifying existing inequities, as AI‑enabled triage, monitoring, and personalization increasingly drive access, responsiveness, and guideline‑concordant care. However, Boomers are not uniformly resistant: when interfaces are simple, support is available, and clinicians endorse tools, older adults’ uptake improves, especially for chronic disease management and remote follow‑up. What it would take to close the gap Build age‑inclusive AI: larger fonts, voice interfaces, minimal steps, clear error recovery, and explicit human‑in‑the‑loop cues tailored to cognitive and sensory changes in later life. Provide structured on‑ramping: in‑clinic onboarding, caregiver involvement, phone support, and local training that focus on building self‑efficacy and addressing anxiety, not just handing out an app link. Use trusted clinical channels: older adults respond strongly to endorsement by their existing clinicians and to hybrid models where digital tools clearly complement, rather than replace, face‑to‑face care.To discuss how Nelson Advisors can help your HealthTech, MedTech, Health AI or Digital Health company, please email <a href="mailto:lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk">lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk</a>

Gen Z is leading the AI healthcare revolution. Are Boomers being left behind?

Non‑participating = investor gets either preference or pro‑rata; participating = investor gets preference plus pro‑rata, often with a cap.Participating means investors get their money back and then share the rest; non‑participating means they get their money back or share the rest, whichever is higher. For HealthTech and MedTech founders, that difference bites hardest in middling exits, not in unicorn outcomes.Core definitions Liquidation preference: The amount investors get paid before common shareholders (typically 1x of what they invested, sometimes 2x or 3x in tough markets). Participating preferred: Investor gets (1) their preference back off the top, then (2) also participates pro‑rata in the remaining pool – the “double dip”. Non‑participating preferred: Investor chooses between (1) taking their preference or (2) converting to common and taking their pro‑rata share; they do not get both. Capped participation: Participating preferred, but only until the investor has received a set multiple (e.g. 2–3x); above that, they stop participating and behave like non‑participating. Simple numerical example (1 round, 1x preference) Assume:Investor: £10m for 20% ownership, 1x preference Founders + ESOP: 80% Exit: £50m Non‑participating: Investor compares £10m (1x) vs 20% of £50m = £10m; if the pro‑rata share is higher, they convert, otherwise they take the preference. In a typical growth exit where the company is worth several times the money in, they almost always convert and just take their 20%. Participating: Investor first takes £10m, leaving £40m, then also takes 20% of that £40m (= £8m), for a total of £18m. Founders and employees share only £32m instead of £40m – that 20% difference is the “double dip”. Same headline valuation, but the participating structure shifts £8m from the common to the investor in this example.How it changes across exit sizes Rule of thumb for 1x preferences:Low exit (at or below money in):Both structures behave similarly; investors take their preference, common gets little or nothing. Mid‑range exit (2–5x money in):Participating hurts founders most here: investors recover their 1x then still take their full pro‑rata slice of the remaining upside. High exit (big win):The preference matters less; the company is far enough above the preference stack that investors usually convert (in non‑participating) and the economics converge. Each additional round of participating preferred stacks another layer of double‑dipping, worsening the founder outcome in anything but very large exits.Market norms founders should aim for: Default ask: 1x non‑participating preference – now considered standard and founder‑friendly in venture deals. Multiples: 2x–3x preferences are out there but are much more punitive and usually reserved for distressed or very investor‑friendly situations. Participating: Less common at seed/Series A in competitive deals; more likely to appear in later stages, structured rounds, or where the investor has strong leverage. UK/EU nuance: Local documents may phrase it slightly differently (e.g. “A ordinary” with preference), but the economic logic is the same: check if investors get both the preference and participation or have to choose.To discuss how Nelson Advisors can help your HealthTech, MedTech, Health AI or Digital Health company, please email <a href="mailto:lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk">lloyd@nelsonadvisors.co.uk</a>

Nelson Advisors

Blog

Nelson Advisors interviewed by Healthcare Business Intern...

End of the road for Patient Portals and patient engagemen...

Nelson Advisors joins expert judging panel for Digital He...

How could the Software sell off and AI bubble in early 20...

Gen Z is leading the AI healthcare revolution. Are Boomer...

Cheat Sheet for HealthTech and MedTech Founders: Understa...