The Latest

The PremiseMetrics were born as tools of accountability. They promised to render the invisible work of science visible — to measure contribution, efficiency, and impact in a fair and standardized way. But as in all systems where measurement becomes identity, the instrument has consumed the intent. What began as an aid to judgment has become its replacement. In modern research, to be good is to be measurable, and what cannot be counted ceases to count. This transformation is not merely administrative; it is moral. It converts the pursuit of truth into the pursuit of indicators — citation counts, h-indexes, impact factors, altmetrics. Each of these, originally designed to illuminate influence, now distorts it. Metrics have become moral proxies, absolving institutions of the need for discernment. The Distortion Once metrics become ends rather than means, corruption is no longer an aberration — it is compliance. Scientists learn to optimize the visible signals of productivity: fragmented publications (“salami slicing”), reciprocal citations, and strategic authorship. The logic of the market invades the logic of inquiry. In such an environment, genuine discovery is penalized if it cannot be quickly or widely measured. The long, uncertain pursuit of fundamental understanding — the kind of work that often changes the world decades later — is devalued. Systems designed for fairness end up rewarding conformity, creating a moral inversion: the metrics of virtue replace the virtues themselves. The Consequence The ethical consequence of this metricization is alienation. Researchers begin to experience their own work not as calling, but as calibration. The joy of discovery yields to the anxiety of performance. Academic communities fracture into citation cartels and metric-driven tribes, each vying for algorithmic visibility. The result is epistemic inflation: a glut of measurable output with diminishing intellectual value. Metrics, which once promised to democratize recognition, now amplify inequality. Elite institutions, already advantaged, dominate the statistical landscape, their prestige self-perpetuating through the very indicators meant to neutralize it. The Way ForwardMetrics must return to their moral context — as instruments of stewardship, not judgment. Institutions can reclaim ethical balance by reintroducing qualitative assessment: peer evaluation that values originality and contribution over volume and reach. Funding agencies can weight integrity disclosures and replication efforts equally with publication counts. Above all, the research community must remember that measurement without meaning is not accountability; it is abdication. To measure science ethically is to measure its service to understanding, not its reflection in the mirror of itself. Selected References RegenMed (2025). Genuine Medical Research Has Lost Its Way. White Paper, 2025.Hicks, D., et al. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. Biagioli, M., & Lippman, A. (Eds.). (2020). Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. MIT Press. Muller, J. Z. (2018). The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton University Press. Moher, D., et al. (2018). Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure. eLife, 7:e33638. Wilsdon, J. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. HEFCE. Get involved or learn more — contact us today!If you are interested in contributing to this important initiative or learning more about how you can be involved, please contact us.‍‍

The Myth of Ownership Modern data law pretends that information can be owned like property. Yet ownership implies exclusion — the right to deny access — while medical truth gains power only through sharing. This paradox defines medicine’s moral tension: knowledge demands openness, but ethics demands control.Circle resolves this not by redefining ownership, but by redefining consent as the true source of value. Every tokenized record within Circle exists only by virtue of an unbroken chain of permission.Possession may confer control, but consent confers legitimacy.Consent as the First Currency In primitive societies, trade required mutual recognition — a handshake, an oath, a gesture of trust. In digital societies, that gesture must be cryptographic: consent recorded, validated, and traceable. Circle’s architecture encodes each act of permission as metadata inseparable from the data it authorizes. This design transforms consent from formality to currency — a transactional unit of moral energy that powers the entire system. Without consent, data cannot circulate; with it, it accrues integrity. The Fragility of Forgetting Healthcare systems today treat consent as disposable: a checkbox, a signature, a line on a clipboard. Once recorded, it vanishes — lost in institutional memory, untraceable to the patient. Circle makes consent immortal. Each act of permission lives as an immutable record, visible to all authorized participants. Its persistence gives moral gravity to every data transaction — the knowledge that the individual remains present in the system that uses their truth. Consent becomes the patient’s enduring voice. The Economics of Permission In conventional data markets, value accrues to collectors, not contributors. But if consent itself is a measurable input, then the individual regains a share of the market they sustain. Each verified act of permission becomes a form of participatory equity. The more one’s data is ethically reused, the greater the return — financial, reputational, or clinical. Circle rebalances the moral economy: those who enable truth finally share in its yield. Consent as Continuous Relationship Permission is not a one-time transaction; it is an ongoing dialogue between person and system. Circle’s federated consent model honors that dialogue: patients may adjust, revoke, or refine their permissions without breaking the data’s lineage. This transforms consent from contract to relationship — dynamic, living, and mutual. Ethics evolves at the same pace as knowledge. The Moral Outcome Consent is the moral weight that prevents truth from drifting into exploitation. It ensures that transparency does not become exposure, and that participation remains dignity, not data extraction. In the Circle economy, consent is both gravity and guarantee — the invisible force that holds value in moral orbit. Without consent, data is weightless. With it, it becomes human truth with mass.

The Regulatory Catalyst: Collapsing the Two-Tier SystemThe U.S. biosimilar market, valued at approximately $7.7 billion in 2025, is entering a period of exponential acceleration. While biologics represent a high-margin innovation play, biosimilars are the volume-driven "generic" engine of the 2026 health economy, with a projected CAGR of 18% through 2034.This growth is being triggered by a profound shift in FDA policy under Commissioner Marty Makary. Historically, a biosimilar could only be substituted for a brand-name biologic at the pharmacy if the manufacturer completed expensive "switching studies." These trials required patients to alternate multiple times between the original drug and the biosimilar to prove no loss of efficacy—a process that cost between $100 million and $300 million and added five to eight years to the development timeline.In 2026, the FDA has finalized guidance that removes the requirement for these human switching studies. The agency’s new position is that modern analytical methods are now precise enough to determine equivalence without redundant clinical testing. Consequently, the FDA is moving toward a model where all biosimilars are interchangeable by default, allowing for automatic substitution at the point of sale, just like small-molecule generic pills.The Evidence Gap: The "Trust Gap" in Automatic SubstitutionWhile the regulatory "red tape" has been removed, a significant Evidence Gap remains. Brand-name manufacturers have historically used the lack of an interchangeable designation to sow doubt among physicians and patients regarding the safety of switching. Even as the FDA streamlines the process, the clinical community still demands proof that these drugs perform identically in the "real world".Legacy data systems—reliant on Administrative Proxies (Data Exhaust)—cannot bridge this trust gap. For a biosimilar to capture meaningful market share in a competitive oncology or immunology landscape, the manufacturer and the clinical network must provide Verified Clinical Veracity that goes beyond the lab and into the clinic.The Circle Solution: Engineering the Evidence for VolumeThe Circles platform provides the necessary Regulatory-Grade Governance to dominate the new biosimilar landscape. By using Observational Protocols (OPs), Circles enable clinicians to track the real-world impact of biosimilar substitution with a level of precision that traditional EHR systems cannot match.Audit-Ready "Ground Truth": Circles capture Standardized Longitudinal Scores (e.g., patient-reported outcomes and objective laboratory markers) directly at the clinical node. This provides the permanent, timestamped audit trail needed to prove clinical equivalence to skeptical physicians and payers.Insurable Risk Modeling: By monitoring the "switch" in real-time, Circles provide Insurable Integrity for the medical director and the MSO board. It provides the safety data required to defend against any claims of diminished efficacy, effectively Surgical-Delay Proofing the transition to lower-cost biosimilar protocols.Outcome Engineering: For biosimilar manufacturers, Circles offer a way to bypass the "reproducibility crisis" of the past. They create a Strategic Monopoly on high-veracity outcome data, ensuring their product is the preferred choice for Value-Based Contracting.Strategic Outcome: Valuation via Tech-Enabled ScaleIn the new 2026 biosimilar era, the clinical organization is no longer just a "purchaser" of drugs; it is a producer of Regulatory-Grade Evidence. By adopting Circles, an MSO reclassifies itself from a low-margin "Service Business" into a Tech-Enabled Asset.The value of the enterprise is driven by its ability to prove that its high-volume biosimilar utilization is delivering identical clinical outcomes to the expensive reference biologic. This Multiple Expansion (moving from 6–8x to 12–15x) is the direct result of owning the "Ground Truth" in a market where the FDA has traded pre-market trials for real-world veracity.

The Market Catalyst: The 51% Spend CrisisBy early 2026, biologics have become the primary economic driver of U.S. healthcare. While these complex, large-molecule treatments represent only 5% of all prescriptions, they now account for an staggering 51% of total drug spending as of late 2025. The U.S. biologics market is currently valued at approximately $203.6 billion, with projections indicating it will exceed $483 billion by 2034.Commissioner Marty Makary has identified this concentration of spend as a systemic inefficiency, often referring to the high cost of biologics as a barrier to patient access. In response, the FDA has initiated a pivot toward "Analytical Veracity." For new biologics—particularly monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which account for nearly 70% of the market share — the agency is beginning to replace multi-year human trials with advanced laboratory characterization and real-time monitoring.The Evidence Gap: The High-Stakes Licensing RiskAs the FDA accelerates the approval of these molecules through the National Priority Voucher and other fast-track programs, the primary risk for manufacturers and clinicians moves from "regulatory approval" to "market sustainability". When a biologic with a six-figure annual price tag is approved on an accelerated timeline, payers — both public and private — demand more than a preliminary snapshot; they demand Verified Clinical Veracity.Legacy healthcare data systems fail this test. Most existing data consists of Administrative Proxies (Data Exhaust) captured for billing, which lacks the clinical depth to prove long-term efficacy or address the "Measurement-to-Management Gap" that stalls value-based transitions. Without Audit-Ready "Ground Truth", high-value biologics face the constant threat of "reimbursement limbo".The Circle Solution: Building the Infrastructure of EvidenceThe Circles platform provides the Regulatory-Grade Governance required to secure these high-valuation assets across any specialty, from oncology to immunology. By defining the data architecture via Observational Protocols (OPs) before the biologic is administered, Circles ensure that every patient encounter generates a high-fidelity dataset.Outcome Engineering: Circles capture Standardized Longitudinal Scores (e.g., functional assessments and metabolic markers) at the point of care, providing the permanent audit trail necessary to justify premium pricing to payers.Insurable Integrity: By providing Verified Clinical Veracity, Circles create a "shield" for the clinical node, making billing errors or protocol deviations technically impossible and ensuring the data is ready for federal scrutiny.Strategic Monopoly: High-volume, high-veracity data sets within a Circle enable the use of Synthetic Control Arms (SCAs), which can supplement or even replace traditional clinical trials, creating a strategic advantage for manufacturers and clinical networks alike.Strategic Outcome: Valuation via Tech-Enabled AssetsIn the legacy model, biologics were a "pass-through" cost for clinics. In the 2026 regulatory environment, the data generated by these treatments is the asset. By utilizing Circles to provide Insurable Integrity, a Management Services Organization (MSO) reclassifies itself as a Tech-Enabled Asset.This shift is the primary driver for Multiple Expansion, moving an organization from a standard 6–8x service multiple to a 12–15x asset multiple. The value is no longer in the administration of the drug, but in the "Ground Truth" evidence that secures its place in the market.

The Regulatory Catalyst: The 2026 Quality Cap and "Safety of Care" MandatesIn 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shifted from rewarding "participation" in quality reporting to enforcing strict performance-based "Quality Caps". Under the new 4-star and 5-star cap system, reimbursement for outpatient procedures is no longer guaranteed by volume or necessity alone; it is gated by a facility’s ability to remain within specific "Safety of Care" measure groups.This transition has been accelerated by the 2026 "Site-Neutral" rollout, which aggressively targets musculoskeletal and surgical specialties. For the healthcare executive, the risk is no longer just a reduction in the fee schedule; it is the "Surgical-Delay" — a state where procedures are stalled or denied because the provider cannot meet the increasingly high threshold of pre-operative and post-operative outcome evidence.The Evidence Gap: The Flaw in "Quality Reporting"The primary obstacle to clinical and financial success in 2026 is the reliance on retrospective "Quality Reporting." Traditional systems capture data weeks or months after a procedure, often relying on administrative staff to extract "Data Exhaust" from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) notes.This creates a "Measurement-to-Management Gap." Retrospective data is inherently defensive; it attempts to justify a past action using incomplete records. In an environment where CMS and private payers are utilizing AI to identify safety and efficacy signals in real-time, these "Administrative Proxies" are insufficient to prevent reimbursement denials or justify surgical necessity.The Circle Solution: Surgical-Delay Proofing via Outcome EngineeringThe Circles platform provides the infrastructure to navigate these mandates through Outcome Engineering. By implementing Regulatory-Grade Governance at the point of care, Circles ensure that the evidence required for reimbursement is generated simultaneously with the clinical encounter.Surgical-Delay Proof: Circles capture Standardized Longitudinal Scores (e.g., functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes, and pain scales) using Observational Protocols (OPs). This creates a real-time, "Surgical-Delay Proof" record that preempts payer inquiries by providing the "Ground Truth" of medical necessity and procedural success.Verified Clinical Veracity: Because data is captured within defined clinical guardrails, the resulting dataset possesses Verified Clinical Veracity. This allows the clinical node to meet the CMS 5-star threshold with absolute certainty, securing the highest possible reimbursement tiers.Insurable Integrity: Circles transform clinical documentation into an asset with Insurable Integrity. For MSOs and surgical centers, this data serves as a permanent audit trail that protects against the "repayment risk" associated with federal audits of high-volume surgical programs.Strategic Outcome: Achieving the Valuation PremiumAs Value-Based Contracting becomes the standard in 2026, the ability to provide Audit-Ready "Ground Truth" is the single greatest driver of enterprise value. Organizations that remain tied to legacy EHR reporting will continue to see their margins eroded by quality caps and administrative friction.In contrast, organizations that utilize Circles to provide Verified Clinical Veracity are reclassified as Tech-Enabled Assets. This shift allows an MSO to move from a 6–8x service multiple to a 12–15x tech-enabled asset multiple. The valuation expansion is driven by the fact that the organization is no longer just a provider of care, but a producer of the high-veracity evidence that the global healthcare market—from CMS to private equity—now demands.