About AI Health Uncut
AI Health Uncut is an independent publication investigating healthcare AI & digital health products and companies, and the money, incentives, and people behind them.
Published at FixHealth.ai, it goes beyond the hype to examine what is actually happening inside one of healthcare’s most exciting, expensive, and frequently overpromised industries.
I write about healthcare technology differently from most industry publications.
I don’t rewrite press releases. I don’t assume that a large funding round means a company is successful. I don’t assume that “AI-powered” means the AI works. And I don’t confuse a compelling founder story with evidence.
I look under the hood.
That means examining clinical evidence, published research, product performance, regulatory claims, financial statements, valuations, business models, investor incentives, lawsuits, contracts, corporate filings, and what employees, clinicians, customers, investors, and other people close to these companies say is actually happening.
Sometimes the conclusion is positive. Sometimes it isn’t.
Either way, the goal is the same:
Figure out what is real.
Brutally honest reviews of healthcare AI
Healthcare AI is full of extraordinary claims.
Models outperform doctors. AI discovers drugs. Autonomous agents replace administrative work. Clinical copilots transform medicine. Companies announce enormous revenue numbers, eye-popping valuations, and partnerships with some of the biggest names in healthcare.
Some of those claims will prove justified.
Others won’t.
AI Health Uncut looks at the evidence behind them.
I review healthcare AI products and companies the way I would have analyzed an investment earlier in my career.
Strip away the narrative. Identify the assets. Examine the economics. Test the assumptions. Look at what management is emphasizing, and what it isn’t. Then ask whether the evidence actually supports the story being sold.
That can mean digging into an AI model’s accuracy on real clinical cases rather than relying on benchmark scores.
It can mean asking whether “ARR” represents durable recurring revenue or an aggressively presented growth metric.
It can mean comparing a company’s valuation with the economics of businesses that actually survived long enough to become public.
It can mean looking at what happened to the last generation of heavily funded digital health companies after the hype disappeared.
And sometimes it means asking a very simple question:
What exactly are investors, customers, or potential acquirers buying?
Follow the money
A lot of what happens in healthcare makes considerably more sense once you understand the financial incentives.
So AI Health Uncut doesn’t cover AI in isolation.
I write about venture capital, private equity, health systems, insurers, EHR companies, revenue-cycle businesses, digital health startups, pharmaceutical companies, publishers, and the increasingly complicated relationships between them.
Who owns what? Who invested? Who gets paid? Who bears the risk? Who benefits if the technology is adopted? Who benefits if it fails?
And who benefits if everyone simply believes that it works?
Healthcare technology cannot be understood without healthcare economics.
Valuations matter. Capital structures matter. Business models matter. Investor incentives matter. The difference between actual revenue and a creatively defined financial metric matters.
And when billions of dollars are flowing into healthcare companies based on claims about technology, growth, efficiency, or clinical performance, I think somebody should be asking whether the numbers make sense.
Investigation, not access journalism
I’m interested in information that companies would prefer not to put in a press release.
That includes internal documents, employee accounts, financial information, contracts, investor materials, litigation, regulatory records, archived webpages, and firsthand accounts from people inside healthcare and technology companies.
And a surprising amount of my reporting starts with one person noticing that something doesn’t look right.
Most of my investigations start with a tip from someone like you.
Someone sees something unethical, misleading, financially questionable, or simply weird and decides to tell me about it.
From there, I try to verify the information independently.
I speak with other people who have firsthand knowledge. I look for documents. I examine public records, regulatory filings, lawsuits, academic papers, financial disclosures, archived websites, corporate relationships, investor histories, and whatever other evidence is available.
Then I build the rest of the picture.
I call this “mosaic theory” research.
One piece of information rarely tells you very much. But combine an employee account with a lawsuit, a regulatory filing, a clinical study, a contract, a funding announcement, financial data, an archived webpage, a LinkedIn trail, and several independent conversations, and a very different picture can emerge.
I’ve been doing this kind of investigative work for about three years.
Some of the most important investigations I’ve published would never have existed without someone inside the industry deciding to speak up.
So if you see something unethical, misleading, or even just weird anywhere in healthtech, do not stay silent.
Tell a newspaper. Tell another journalist. Tell me.
You can contact me through Signal, WhatsApp, email, or whatever method you prefer.
I take source confidentiality extremely seriously. I do not identify confidential sources without their permission, subject to applicable legal obligations.
And you don’t need to know that a law was broken before contacting a journalist.
Sometimes the most useful message I receive is simply:
“I don’t know exactly what is going on here, but this doesn’t look right.”
That is enough.
If you believe a law may have been broken, consider contacting the appropriate regulator or law-enforcement agency. In the U.S., suspected federal crimes can be reported through the FBI at tips.fbi.gov.
Sometimes a tip turns into a major investigation. Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes what initially looks insignificant turns out to be the missing piece of a much larger story.
That’s why I want to hear about the weird stuff too.
Who I am
I’m Sergei Polevikov, founder and editor of AI Health Uncut.
My background is an unusual mixture of quantitative finance, statistics, technology, entrepreneurship, healthcare AI, and investigative research.
I spent more than 15 years working in quantitative investment research, where skepticism about models isn’t optional.
You learn very quickly that a model can be mathematically elegant, statistically convincing, and completely useless once it encounters the real world.
You also learn not to fall in love with a narrative.
Numbers have to reconcile. Assumptions have to survive scrutiny. And when an investment story sounds too good to be true, you start pulling it apart rather than admiring the presentation.
I later moved into healthcare technology and co-founded WellAI, an AI healthcare company that eventually became part of Chart2Chart, a clinical AI company.That experience changed the way I look at healthcare AI.
I’ve seen the industry from several sides. As a founder trying to build products. As someone evaluating AI models. As a quantitative analyst thinking about business economics and valuations. As an academic reviewer examining scientific evidence. And now as an independent writer investigating the claims being made by one of the fastest-growing industries in healthcare.
That combination explains much of what you’ll find here.
I’m interested not just in whether an AI model performs well.
I want to know whether the experiment was designed properly, whether the benchmark reflects real clinical practice, whether the company can actually make money, whether its incentives align with patients and clinicians, and whether its valuation makes any sense.
I want to know whether the product solves a real problem.
And whether the story being marketed to investors, hospitals, physicians, and the public survives contact with the evidence.
I’m not interested in being liked by the companies I cover. I’m interested in getting the story right.
Why subscribe?
If you want another daily roundup of healthcare AI announcements regurgitated by ChatGPT, there are plenty of places to get one.
AI Health Uncut is for readers who want real insights.
The publication covers healthcare AI models and products, digital health companies, venture capital and private equity, valuations and business models, clinical evidence, regulatory developments, questionable financial incentives, healthcare fraud, EHRs, payers, health systems, and the people shaping the industry.
Some articles are investigations. Some are company deep dives. Some are brutally honest product reviews. Some analyze research papers or clinical studies. Some follow the money behind healthcare’s latest billion-dollar narrative.
Some ask whether a celebrated company is actually worth anything close to what investors say it is.
And occasionally I write about mistakes I made myself, because skepticism is considerably less useful when it is applied only to other people.
Free subscribers receive selected articles and updates.
Paid subscribers receive full access to AI Health Uncut investigations, research, analyses, company and product reviews, and the complete archives.
Every new edition is delivered directly to your inbox, so you won’t have to worry about missing anything.
Investigative reporting is expensive. It takes time to verify allegations, interview sources, analyze financial data, review documents, and sometimes seek legal advice before publication. There is also real legal risk involved.
Unlike writing another summary of a funding announcement, a serious investigation can consume weeks of work without any guarantee that it will result in a publishable story.
If you value this work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Your subscription helps keep independent investigative journalism alive. And yes, it helps keep the lights on.
Become a Founding Member
Founding Members are different.
They are the people who make it possible for AI Health Uncut to pursue ambitious investigations that may take weeks or months, require expensive research tools, involve legal review, and carry real financial and legal risk.
A regular paid subscription supports the publication.
A Founding Membership helps underwrite the journalism itself.
It gives me more freedom to pursue stories because they matter, not because they are easy, safe, fast, or guaranteed to generate traffic.
It helps pay for research databases, data acquisition, document retrieval, technical analysis, interviews, and legal review. Just as importantly, it helps fund the enormous amount of time that serious investigative work can consume before a single word is published.
It also helps keep AI Health Uncut independent.
No venture fund owns this publication. No health system controls its editorial agenda. No AI company decides what I investigate. No payer gets editorial veto power. And no sponsor gets to buy favorable coverage.
I don’t want to depend on the goodwill of the very companies I’m investigating.
That independence is only sustainable if readers are willing to support it.
Founding Members also help me provide complimentary subscriptions to students who want to learn about healthcare AI but may not have the means to pay for full access. Investing in the next generation of healthcare professionals, researchers, and entrepreneurs matters to me.
Founding Membership isn’t about getting your name on a wall or receiving special treatment.
It’s about believing that healthcare needs more independent scrutiny, better evidence, greater financial transparency, and journalists who are willing to ask uncomfortable questions.
If AI Health Uncut has helped you see a company, product, investor, business model, or healthcare narrative differently, and you want this work to continue and become more ambitious, I invite you to become a Founding Member.
Founding Members don’t just subscribe to AI Health Uncut. They help make it possible.
Share AI Health Uncut
If you find this work useful, please share AI Health Uncut with colleagues, friends, clinicians, researchers, investors, founders, and anyone who cares about the future of healthcare.
Independent publications grow largely because readers decide that something is worth passing along.
You don’t have to agree with every conclusion I reach.
In fact, I welcome informed disagreement.
But if you think healthcare AI deserves more critical scrutiny than it currently receives, help spread the word.
Independence, editorial standards, and disclosures
AI Health Uncut is an independent publication.
I do not promise favorable coverage to companies, investors, sponsors, advertisers, or anyone else.
When a financial, professional, advisory, investment, sponsorship, or other relationship is relevant to an article, I disclose it.
Sponsorship does not buy favorable editorial coverage. But I welcome like-minded sponsors who respect my editorial independence and don’t interfere with what I write.
Companies that are the subject of substantial investigative research are generally given an opportunity to respond when appropriate. Relevant, substantive responses may be incorporated into the reporting.
I distinguish documented facts from allegations, analysis, estimates, and opinion. When I make a mistake, I correct it.
The purpose of AI Health Uncut is not to attack companies.
It is not to cheerlead for them either.
The purpose is to examine claims, evidence, incentives, and economics as independently as possible and tell readers what I find.
The industry doesn’t need another cheerleader. It needs more accountability.
About the publication
AI Health Uncut is published and operated by AI Health LLC and is available at FixHealth.ai.
Articles are written and edited by Sergei Polevikov unless otherwise indicated.
© 2026 AI Health LLC. All rights reserved.
To find out more about the company that provides the tech for this newsletter, visit Substack.com.
