{"id":466843,"date":"2026-02-13T19:45:09","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T19:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/466843\/"},"modified":"2026-02-13T19:45:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T19:45:09","slug":"wellness-feels-like-its-losing-all-meaning-in-health-tech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/466843\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Wellness\u2019 feels like it\u2019s losing all meaning in health tech"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is Optimizer<\/a>, a weekly newsletter sent every Friday from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song<\/a> that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they\u2019re going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For the past week, I\u2019ve been thinking about the fact that Oura has gone to Washington.<\/p>\n

The Oura Ring has always had an influential clientele<\/a>, but it\u2019s apparently now a popular accessory<\/a> in Capitol Hill. Earlier this week, Politico ran a story<\/a> about how the smart ring maker is lobbying legislators for less wearable regulation. Specifically, the article notes that Oura has floated the idea of creating a \u201cdigital health screener\u201d classification for so-called low-risk wearable and health features that would be exempt from the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s clearance process.<\/p>\n

Oura CEO Tom Hale actually outlined the idea in a Wall Street Journal op-ed<\/a> back in December. In it, Hale contends that wearables don\u2019t fit within the FDA\u2019s current regulatory framework, which broadly divides health tech into two categories: wellness and medical devices.<\/p>\n

He has a point. The line between wellness and medical devices isn\u2019t as clear as it ought to be. Wellness features are generally defined by the FDA as for educational or entertainment purposes. As such, they don\u2019t require oversight. For example, features like step counts, sleep quality, or your resting heart rate all fall under the wellness umbrella. The definition of a medical device is also broad. Generally, it refers to a device that is meant to help diagnose, treat, prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease, illness, or condition. They\u2019re classified by risk levels. For example, a tongue depressor is a low-risk device, while a pacemaker is a high-risk one. Wearables typically live in a gray area between wellness and medical devices, and are considered to pose a low-to-moderate risk. Where things get tricky is advanced, diagnostic-adjacent features.<\/p>\n

\"Person<\/a><\/p>\n

The Oura Ring has a Symptom Radar feature that falls in the gray area between wellness and medical features.<\/p>\n

Back in 2018, Apple introduced an EKG sensor to the Apple Watch Series 4. It was a watershed moment in wearables history. Where smartwatches were once an expensive fitness tracking luxury, they morphed into potentially lifesaving devices because now the Apple Watch could potentially flag \u2014 though not diagnose \u2014 atrial fibrillation. That feature, and many since, required FDA clearance because it could potentially inform medical treatment. So while the Apple Watch in and of itself is not a medical device, it has features that the FDA has said require closer scrutiny to ensure safety.<\/p>\n

The problem is that getting FDA clearance is a royal pain in the butt. Wearable makers often have to conduct strict accuracy testing and make sure features are HIPAA-compliant<\/a> to ensure private, secure health data protocols. Those results have to be presented to the FDA for review. It can take years and several millions of dollars to obtain clearance \u2014 resources that smaller companies simply may not have. At CES 2026, I finally saw the taint bandaid<\/a> \u2014 a wearable solution for premature ejaculation that took six years and required multiple rounds of funding to get FDA clearance. The result is you end up with a lot of health tech vaporware<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To avoid this regulatory quagmire, wearable makers often release features under the wellness moniker. That means either nerfing insights to the point where they\u2019re not that useful or accepting that new features will take forever to get to market. If they make it to market.<\/p>\n

So, I can see Hale\u2019s point in advocating for a digital health screener category. In the op-ed, Hale describes this as \u201csoftware features that can warn users of trouble but stop short of diagnoses.\u201d Ideally, he says the new classification would have \u201cclear guidelines\u201d with straightforward labeling, explicit disclaimers, and performance standards for accuracy and reliability.<\/p>\n

But, from the consumer standpoint, that\u2019s what FDA clearance already does. FDA-cleared health features always come with warnings that they\u2019re not intended to diagnose conditions or replace a doctor. Going through the process also requires companies to prove safety and accuracy. So what exactly is this difference being proposed here? Hale\u2019s op-ed implies it\u2019s a streamlined process to save companies time and money.<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom the consumer perspective, it should feel the same,\u201d says Dr. Ricky Bloomfield, Oura\u2019s chief medical officer. \u201cWe would never expect consumers to have to figure out what FDA categories mean and all that complexity. They just want a product that works reliably, that is accurate, easy to use and helps them improve their health. On the bottom line, it\u2019s up to companies like Oura to work with the FDA to figure out the best path for these products so that we can be very clear about what they do and then get it to them as quickly as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bloomfield went on to clarify that the process, in Oura\u2019s view, isn\u2019t meant to obscure or negate vigorous accuracy testing. He says that Oura would continue to publish accuracy metrics from their testing for transparency. Instead, it\u2019s meant to combine some of the rigor of a medical device, with the ease of a lower-risk to accommodate all the ways health tech has evolved in the past decade.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the main points here is that technology is moving so quickly that oftentimes, the FDA can\u2019t move as quickly as the technology does,\u201d says Bloomfield.<\/p>\n

I have several concerns. Does adding a third classification actually clarify the difference between wellness and medical devices? I regularly have to explain the difference to readers, laypersons, and sometimes, even seasoned tech experts. I often see people conflating FDA clearance with FDA approval \u2014 the former is for moderate-risk medical devices, while the latter is for the highest-risk class and drugs. Adding a third, nebulously different classification? That makes me nervous in an age when wellness influencers often muddle facts but have an incredibly broad reach.<\/p>\n

Wearable-induced health anxiety is also a real risk. In Optimizer, I\u2019ve frequently<\/a> written<\/a> about the dark side of overloading people with dozens of biomarkers and metrics. That\u2019s without factoring in features that flag hard-to-spot conditions like atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, or hypertension. One study<\/a> found that 20 percent of wearable users reported feeling \u201cintense fear and anxiety\u201d when receiving an irregular heart rhythm notification, while 15 percent reported feeling \u201canxious, scared, or concerned\u201d when receiving abnormal heart rate alerts. In another<\/a>, wearable anxiety spurred a 70-year-old smartwatch user into taking 916 EKG readings<\/a> in a year.<\/p>\n

Some people might say, \u201cWell, anxious people should know better and avoid wearables,\u201d but that\u2019s disingenuous. The marketing narratives all say these devices might save your life<\/a>. That they can help you live longer and healthier. They might even tell you when you\u2019re about to get sick. Most people would like to avoid death for as long as humanly possible \u2014 what\u2019s a little anxiety if a little gadget promises to make that possible?<\/p>\n

\"Close<\/a><\/p>\n

Stress tracking, like the one Whoop has here, is often considered a wellness feature since it\u2019s \u2018for your information.\u2019 <\/p>\n

It\u2019s also alarming to see the narrative that wearables can help individuals \u201ctake control\u201d of their health. It\u2019s a concept that RFK Jr. touted widely last year<\/a> after stating he hoped every American would eventually don a wearable. Self quantification can be helpful. However, it alone isn\u2019t enough to \u201ctake control\u201d of your health. Data is nice. You still have to see a doctor. Even if you consider the upsides \u2014 faster innovation, continuous monitoring for tricky-to-catch conditions \u2014 it\u2019s unnerving to see suggestions for relaxed regulations at a time when we\u2019re asking wearables to do more and more.<\/p>\n

Speaking of doctors, I\u2019ve spoken to several in my reporting over the years. The majority appreciate what wearables can do, especially in the research space. I\u2019ve also spoken with plenty who are more skeptical and wary of false positives. But even if everything were perfect, incorporating wearable data into an actual diagnosis or treatment plan isn\u2019t always a straightforward path. I began noticing health issues after I started tracking my data with a Fitbit in 2014. It took 11 years and six doctors for me to actually find proper diagnoses, a physician who took me seriously, and a treatment plan. Mine is far from an extraordinary story.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not saying Oura\u2019s wrong for pointing out a valid problem in the existing clearance process. I\u2019m not even saying its proposal is a bad idea. I\u2019m merely suggesting that perhaps regulation isn\u2019t necessarily the main or only problem here. Good regulation hinges on accurately discerning what is and isn\u2019t a low-risk health feature. To me, the bigger issue is whether we\u2019re losing the plot on how to clearly communicate the difference between wellness and medicine.<\/p>\n

\"Person<\/a><\/p>\n

This is another example of a gray area. The glucose data in the Oura app comes from an over-the-counter CGM that\u2019s been given the okay from the FDA. But the insights are wellness features. <\/p>\n

Who gets to make that judgment call? Medical experts, lobbyists with deep pockets, or science-challenged wellness hacks who assert beef tallow is an adequate substitute for sunscreen? Tech companies that may want to help make the public healthier, but are ultimately beholden to investors?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll point to a recent scenario with Whoop, another wearable company that Politico says has doubled its lobbying spending. Last summer, the company launched a blood pressure feature. The FDA sent a warning letter, saying the feature\u2019s design was misleading and required clearance. Whoop countered saying it was a wellness feature. Reviewing the feature myself, it seemed to fall in a confusing gray area. Providing high or low blood pressure estimates could mislead customers into thinking they have hypertension (or hypotension). That could lead them to take certain actions, assuming a diagnosis, because Whoop\u2019s marketing made it seem like its algorithm was scientifically validated. At the same time, there were clear disclaimers that this wasn\u2019t a diagnostic tool. Then, in January, the FDA released further guidance<\/a> saying blood pressure features were fine if they were just simply providing information \u2014 in other words, if it were for wellness purposes.<\/p>\n

When I ask Bloomfield about this, he says the updated guidance was a step in the right direction but acknowledges that there\u2019s still a lot of discussion left before this becomes a reality. For example, Bloomfield pointed out that January was the first time the FDA guidance on this category has been updated since 2019. One of the areas Oura\u2019s interested in discussing further is the ability for digital screening features to actually name what they\u2019re flagging. For example, Oura\u2019s Symptom Radar feature<\/a> has to remain vague under the current guidance. Instead of saying \u201cHey, you\u2019re falling ill,\u201d it can only say \u201cWe\u2019re detecting early signs of changes in your health.\u201d Bloomfield maintains that is still useful for consumers, but that a degree of specificity could be helpful for other screening.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an area where even the experts have differing opinions on these things,\u201d he says. \u201cWe\u2019re all trying to figure this out together\u2026 Healthcare is a team sport and we need to work together to make sure we do the right thing for everyone.\u201d<\/p>\n

A lot of what Bloomfield says makes sense, though I strongly believe it\u2019s important for the average consumer to understand what companies mean when they market something as a \u201cwellness\u201d feature versus a medical one. Mulling it all over, it\u2019s clear something needs to change. Wellness as a concept has already been teetering on the edge. I\u2019m afraid it won\u2019t be long before it loses its meaning completely.<\/p>\n

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Victoria SongClose\"Victoria<\/p>\n

Victoria Song<\/p>\n

Senior Reviewer, Wearable Tech<\/p>\n

Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All by Victoria Song<\/a><\/p>\n

ColumnClose<\/p>\n

Column<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Column<\/a><\/p>\n

GadgetsClose<\/p>\n

Gadgets<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Gadgets<\/a><\/p>\n

HealthClose<\/p>\n

Health<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Health<\/a><\/p>\n

OptimizerClose<\/p>\n

Optimizer<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Optimizer<\/a><\/p>\n

ScienceClose<\/p>\n

Science<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Science<\/a><\/p>\n

WearableClose<\/p>\n

Wearable<\/p>\n

Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.<\/p>\n

FollowFollow<\/p>\n

See All Wearable<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent every Friday from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":466844,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[38965,166,97,252,253,108411,79,173],"class_list":["post-466843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health-care","tag-column","tag-gadgets","tag-health","tag-health-care","tag-healthcare","tag-optimizer","tag-science","tag-wearable"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/466843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=466843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/466843\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/466844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=466843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=466843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=466843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}