Who used CMS’s health chat to discuss Medicare apps and records?

The industry discussions also took place in meetings. In February 2026, a Food and Drug Administration listening session on conversational AI included representatives from at least 35 industry organizations. KFF reported that the session was not on the FDA’s public calendar and was closed to the public.

Amy Gleason, CMS’s chief product officer for its Office of Health Technology and Products, described the initiative to CBS News as “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration.” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said the goal was “We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare.”

The balance of voices matters because government decisions can affect which products reach patients and how companies seek access to health information. Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer and Harvard Medical School research specialist who reviewed Slack messages, told KFF Health News the group resembled a federal advisory committee in some respects and raised concerns about industry influence.

Federal law requires covered advisory committees to provide public notice, hold open meetings and make records accessible. CMS declined to answer KFF’s questions about the workspace’s legality, the outlet reported.

How could the Medicare App Library influence trust?

CMS officials discussed promoting apps through the Medicare App Library, which featured about two dozen commercial apps at the time of KFF’s report. At an April 7, 2026, meeting with technology representatives, senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor discussed how promotion on Medicare.gov could affect beneficiaries’ trust in an app.

Taylor told industry participants, “If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CBS News reported. Her comment highlights how a government directory can shape a beneficiary’s view of a commercial product.

KFF reported that Jacob Shiff, the CMS Innovation Center’s chief AI and technology officer, presented the directory to industry participants as a way to help successful companies grow. Officials also discussed whether apps listed in the library could receive priority in a payment initiative.

The library and the payment model are separate. CMS’s voluntary ACCESS Model tests outcome-aligned payments for technology-supported care addressing chronic conditions; a directory listing is not itself a payment decision. That distinction matters as public promotion and federal payment policy may influence which companies attract patients and compete for public funds.

CMS says the broader ecosystem is intended to improve access to health information and digital tools. Its public-facing directory therefore carries weight for beneficiaries deciding whether to explore an app, and for companies seeking visibility in Medicare’s orbit.

What did vendors seek for medical-record access?

Technology vendors also advocated for a change involving TEFCA, the federal framework for exchanging health information. KFF reported that they argued apps requesting records after a user’s consent should be treated as acting on the patient’s behalf, and sought a route to broader access. The proposal was an industry position, not an adopted policy.

The debate concerns both access and control. Apps can help people retrieve their own information, while the terms of an app’s permission determine what records it can request. Clear consent and limits matter when federal policy helps set the connection between personal health records and commercial services.

What concerns have clinicians raised?

The American Medical Association has questioned whether some tools have enough evidence behind them and who bears responsibility if they give incorrect information. CEO John Whyte told CBS News, “Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime” and “We don’t have enough data about them.” KFF also reported that Whyte raised liability concerns.

CMS presents the ecosystem as a way to improve access to digital tools. At the same time, officials discussed the trust Medicare’s name can lend to apps, while vendors pressed for changes to how apps could seek records. Public visibility into product review and the agency’s decisions is central to understanding how those policies affect patients.

CMS’s ACCESS Model is a voluntary 10-year program that the agency says began July 5, 2026. Its development, alongside the app directory and industry proposals on records, leaves federal officials with decisions about how digital health services enter care and how their performance is assessed.