Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z

Why Gen Z Is Losing Trust in Traditional Healthcare—and What Doctors Must Do to Win It Back

Opinion

From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

Ask people how much they expect to change over the next 10 years, and most will say “not much.” Ask them how much they’ve changed in the past decade, and the answer flips. Regardless of age, the past always feels more transformative than the future.

This blind spot has a name: the end-of-history illusion. The result is a persistent illusion that life, and the values and behaviors that shape it, will remain unchanged.


The illusion plays out not just individually, but generationally. Older generations assume that younger ones will follow the traditional, familiar paths. And, of course, they never do. Most of the time, those differences are harmless. However, when leaders in politics, the military, and medicine repeat the same mistakes, the consequences prove far more severe.

The high cost of ignoring change

Two recent events reveal what happens when institutions fail to recognize that the world around them has undergone significant changes.

In New York City, a little-known 33-year-old Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, defeated a former governor and establishment favorite in the mayoral primary. Despite being massively outspent on TV advertising, Mamdani won by embracing Instagram, short video,s and grassroots tactics to mobilize voters.

Half a world away, in Ukraine, the most effective weapon against the Russian military hasn’t been fighter jets or tanks but cheap, camera-mounted drones. Some cost only a few hundred dollars, yet they’ve repeatedly destroyed military hardware worth millions. Analysts warn that future wars will be shaped by low-cost, decentralized technologies rather than the armaments of the past. It’s a shift that traditional military powers (including the U.S.) have been slow to embrace.

These aren’t just political or military anecdotes. They’re cautionary tales about individuals and institutions that assumed yesterday’s strategies would deliver tomorrow’s results — and failed when they didn’t.

Medicine now faces the same risk. For decades, physicians assumed their title and training guaranteed patient trust. Likewise, public health agencies like the CDC and CMS believed their official guidance would be accepted without question.

Today, younger generations increasingly tune them out. With Gen Z and Millennials comprising more than 40% of the U.S. population, if healthcare professionals and leaders fail to adapt to a changing world, their voices will go unheard, and their influence will be lost.

3 ways to win the battle of attention, trust

While Boomers and Gen Xers continue to rely on information from medical experts, younger generations now turn to TikTok videos, Reddit threads, Google reviews — and increasingly to large language models like ChatGPT and Claude — for healthcare decisions. Whether physicians and public health officials consider these sources credible is irrelevant. Gen Z and Millennial patients already do.

This schism isn’t about one generation being right and another wrong. It’s the classic pattern of cultural evolution, creating a generational mismatch. If the medical profession fails to (a) recognize its existence and (b) close the gap, then these patterns will solidify, and the health of our nation will deteriorate. Here are three opportunities to begin the process:

1. Share decisions, don’t just give orders

For decades, doctors and government agencies have been trained to “tell” patients the right answer. And many patients still want that.

But for Gen Zs and Millennials, a top-down approach backfires. Studies confirm that when a clinician’s style doesn’t match a patient’s expectations, trust and adherence decline. By contrast, share in decision-making (i.e., presenting options and inviting patients into the process) has been shown to improve understanding and outcomes. For younger generations, especially, that principle applies whether the setting is a doctor’s office or a public policy health campaign.

2. Speak their language (digitally)

Boomers and Gen X may still tolerate phone trees and paper handouts. Gen Z and Millennials don’t. These patients expect text reminders, digital scheduling, and mobile apps, not voicemail.

Public health agencies face a similar challenge. Even the clearest message will be missed if it’s delivered through the wrong channel. Agencies and physicians alike must meet younger audiences where they’re at, communicating in ways that resonate loudly: fast, visual, and mobile-first.

3. Make access easy, even if continuity is difficult

Older generations tend to value long-term relationships with a personal physician. Younger generations prioritize speed, convenience, and flexibility.

They are more likely to choose urgent care, telemedicine, or even GenAI-powered tools for routine or embarrassing problems. If health systems and agencies don’t adapt, they risk losing these patients altogether. Expanding telehealth, offering asynchronous communication, and designing digital intake tools aren’t luxuries. They’re essential if the next generation is to receive timely preventive and acute care.

Similarly, public agencies like the CDC and CMS will need to meet the needs of younger patients where they are. Think: short videos, Instagram stories, and plain-language guidance on the issues that matter most to them (e.g., mental health, dermatology, sexual health).

Just as politicians must adjust strategies to win elections and generals need to revise tactics to win wars, doctors and governmental agencies will need to evolve their approach if they seek to improve the nation’s health and achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less