Blog

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>

Cheat Sheet for HealthTech and MedTech Founders: Understanding Participating v Non Participating Preferences

Global health system leaders enter 2026 cautiously optimistic, expecting revenue and margin improvement while wrestling with stubborn pressures on costs, workforce, and cyber risk. Executives outside the US are notably more upbeat, prioritizing care model transformation toward outpatient, virtual, and preventive care, whereas US systems remain constrained by fee‑for‑service incentives that still reward treatment over prevention. Across markets, leaders see generative and agentic AI as an important operational lever, especially for workflow automation, workforce optimisation and patient engagement, but not yet a strategic game‑changer, with adoption limited, regulation still evolving and ROI only beginning to materialise. At the same time, escalating cyber threats and data‑privacy expectations are pushing boards to allocate cyber budgets on par with AI and digital health investments, underscoring that technology deployment must be matched by resilience and trust. Against this backdrop, the central challenge for 2026 is to harness digital and AI tools in business models that are financially sustainable, workforce‑friendly and oriented toward whole‑health and preventive outcomes rather than episodic reactive care.10 Key Points from Deloitte's 2026 Global Health Care Outlook1. Health system executives in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US are broadly optimistic about 2026, but US leaders are significantly more cautious and more likely to report a negative or uncertain outlook than peers. 2. Non‑US leaders are bullish on financial performance: about 70% expect operating revenue and margins to rise in 2026, and only a small minority anticipate significant cost increases. 3. To support revenue growth, executives plan to invest in core business technologies, expand digital and AI tools, and focus heavily on workforce engagement and retention to drive productivity. 4. AI is seen more as an efficiency lever than a 2026 strategic game‑changer: roughly 30% of health systems operate gen AI at scale in selected areas, only 2% have enterprise‑wide deployment, and most do not expect transformational AI impact within 2026. 5. Cost savings are expected primarily from AI‑driven workflow automation (cited by 64%), predictive workforce analytics (55%), and tech‑enabled patient engagement and remote monitoring (49%), alongside care model shifts toward outpatient and digital services. 6. Preventive and proactive care are rising priorities outside the US: 45% of non‑US executives see care model transformation as a leading 2026 trend and 38% expect a strong focus on prevention and early detection, versus only 7% in the US, where fee‑for‑service still favors treatment volume. 7. Workforce shortages are the top concern globally, with the WHO projecting a 4.5 million nurse shortfall by 2030 and some countries (e.g., the UK) expecting large shares of clinicians to leave practice within five years, pushing leaders to prioritize productivity and retention. 8. Cybersecurity and data privacy are critical board‑level issues, especially outside the US: nearly half of non‑US executives name cyber as a top 2026 concern and plan to allocate about 14% of tech budgets to cyber, comparable to gen AI and digital health platforms. 9. Regulatory uncertainty is slowing AI uptake: the EU AI Act imposes stringent risk management on AI tools, Canada lacks a dedicated AI law after its federal proposal stalled, and Australia is still developing guardrails, forcing many systems to rely on existing privacy frameworks. 10. Despite near‑term caution, AI in health care is on a steep growth trajectory (projected market expansion from about $39 billion in 2025 to $504 billion by 2032, with North America holding roughly half of 2024 share), and executives expect gen AI/agentic AI to consume around 19% of tech budgets as they shift care toward virtual, home‑ and community‑based, and preventive models.Source: <a href="https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/life-sciences-and-health-care-industry-outlooks/2026-global-health-care-outlook.html" data-mce-href="https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/life-sciences-and-health-care-industry-outlooks/2026-global-health-care-outlook.html">https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/health-care/life-sciences-and-health-care-industry-outlooks/2026-global-health-care-outlook.html</a>

10 Key Points from Deloitte's 2026 Global Health Care Outlook

Several notable themes have emerged in European HealthTech and MedTech over the past week, spanning funding, regulation, and structural market drivers.Startup and funding highlightsDanish startup Hemi Health, a female‑led HealthTech company focused on migraine and concussion care, raised around €4 million to expand internationally, underlining ongoing investor appetite for neuro and specialty‑care digital therapeutics. At EU level, major public‑private funding channels continue to open for digital health and AI in care delivery, including the Innovative Health Initiative’s 2026 Call 12 and other Horizon Europe “Health” calls, which are now live and targeting large, cross‑border digital and AI projects. Regulation and policy The European Commission’s late‑2025 MDR/IVDR simplification package remains central to 2026 discussions, with current commentary emphasising proposed reforms to notified‑body processes, clearer recertification timelines and tighter software and cybersecurity rules for digital MedTech and SaMD.​ In parallel, the EU AI Act’s high‑risk framework is beginning to bite in clinical AI, effectively steering investment away from opaque “black‑box” tools towards explainable “glass‑box” architectures that can meet transparency and human‑oversight requirements in healthcare settings. Data infrastructure and EHDS This week’s analysis continues to frame 2026 as a preparation year for the European Health Data Space, with a growing focus on EHDS‑ready data, anonymisation, governance and cross‑border data‑sharing as foundations for AI training and clinical validation. EU‑level programmes such as Horizon Europe and HADEA‑managed calls are actively channeling non‑dilutive capital into backend “plumbing” infrastructure: interoperability layers, real‑time monitoring platforms, remote surgical support and hospital cybersecurity, all designed to align with EHDS‑style data flows. Market structure and M&amp;A tone Current 2026 outlooks stress “Regulatory Darwinism” as a key force in European HealthTech and MedTech, with MDR/IVDR and the AI Act together creating a compliance moat that many smaller companies cannot clear, setting up a pipeline for distressed or regulatory‑driven M&amp;A. Investors and strategics are watching larger European MedTech champions and robotics players closely as bellwethers for scalable hardware Deep Tech under tightening regulation and capital discipline, with consolidation expected where regulatory infrastructure and data assets confer structural advantage.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>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;European MedTech this week is dominated by regulatory tightening in Brussels, growing cybersecurity and software obligations, and ongoing early‑stage funding and industrial “maturity” themes.MDR/IVDR and Brussels activity The Commission’s late‑2025 MDR/IVDR simplification package is now driving 2026 discussions, with proposals to streamline notified‑body oversight, add clearer recertification timelines and improve predictability for launches and renewals. Legal and policy analysis emphasises that these amendments aim to keep safety standards intact while reducing administrative burden and harmonising practices across member states. Software, AI and cybersecurity rules Fresh commentary this month highlights draft MDR/IVDR revisions that sharpen rules for digital MedTech: more detailed software classification, extended “well‑established technology” concepts to certain digital products, and explicit integration of cybersecurity into general safety and performance requirements. The proposed framework would require reporting of actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe cyber incidents to CSIRTs and ENISA, aligning device rules with the new Cyber Resilience Act while avoiding double regulation via a lex specialis approach.​ Funding and industrialisation themes Venture outlooks for 2026 continue to frame European MedTech as entering an industrial maturity phase: less emphasis on speculative fragmentation, more on profitable efficiency, regulatory robustness and data moats around devices and diagnostics. EU‑level funding programmes remain important for MedTech, with Horizon Europe and related calls backing multinational clinical studies of breakthrough or orphan devices, plus subsidised testing and validation services for AI and robotics in healthcare.​ Notable company and capital flows Recent weeks’ dealflow remains tilted toward regulated device adjacencies such as AMR diagnostics, cardiology and robotics, with rounds like ShanX Medtech’s roughly €24 million financing cited as emblematic of where capital is concentrating early‑2026.​ Investors are also backing enabling infrastructure around MedTech clinical trials, illustrated by Biorce’s approximately €48.6 million Series A for AI‑enabled trial tooling, which underpins faster protocol execution for both device and pharma studies.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> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Nelson Advisors

Blog

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...

10 Key Points from Deloitte's 2026 Global Health Care Out...

This Week in European MedTech and HealthTech: 20th Februa...