I'll throw in a slightly contrary opinion. I work for a health-insurance startup. And many of the people we cover are on extremely low fixed incomes. It's not

I'll throw in a slightly contrary opinion. I work for a health-insurance startup. And many of the people we cover are on extremely low fixed incomes. It's not unusual for them to be in situations where they have to choose which bill to pay this month and thus which utility will get shut off next month for non-payment. Their premiums are heavily subsidized and they only have insurance at all because of government programs, sometimes only because they're eligible for multiple programs which combine to help them out (and which are also constantly on the chopping block). So any kind of cellular phone, let alone a multi-hundred-dollar smartphone with service contract, is simply an unaffordable luxury for them. And that's why I worry about these kinds of efforts. More affluent people can benefit from smartphone-centric approaches, but a huge percentage of the US slips through the cracks when you do that. So solving America's health-care problem is not going to happen by focusing on people who have smartphones. That will just heighten the divide; the people who are already in a position to get good care will continue to get it, and the people who aren't will continue to get worse. If you want to avoid the grim-meathook-future problem, smartphone-centric (and, really, most tech-centric) approaches are unlikely to work.