Abstract luminous skyline of geometric towers rising from a calm horizon against a deep navy sky
Founder PerspectiveOct 16, 20267 min read

Healthcare Trends to Watch Heading Into 2027: A Founder's Perspective

A founder's opinion on five healthcare trends to watch heading into 2027, with plain notes on what the evidence and the FDA currently say about regenerative care.

Seth Berge

Written by

Seth Berge

Founder & CEO, Regenerative Revival

The five healthcare trends I'm watching closely heading into 2027 are growing patient interest in regenerative medicine as something to discuss with a clinician, a wider public conversation about hormone therapy and peptides, patients who research their own care, practical uses of AI for administrative work, and trust that is built locally. This is a founder's opinion piece. It is not medical advice, and it is not a summary of clinical evidence.

I founded Regenerative Revival in 2018, and I've spent years thinking about what people want from their care. In my view, patient expectations of healthcare are shifting, and the change isn't happening in a hospital boardroom. It's happening in the space between what patients are asking for and how care has traditionally been delivered. Because this is my perspective, I'll also say plainly where the science and the regulations stand on the topics I touch.

1. Why Are More Patients Asking About Regenerative Medicine?

For many long-standing health concerns, conventional care, including physical therapy, weight management, medication, and when needed surgery, is the right place to start. Some people who have lived with a condition for years still wonder what else might be worth discussing with a clinician. I believe that question is part of why many people are asking about regenerative medicine.

Regenerative medicine is a field that studies biologic therapies, such as cell-derived products and exosomes, for their potential effects on inflammation and cell signaling, mostly in laboratory and early clinical research. Enthusiasm can run ahead of evidence, so here is where things stand:

  • •Research is ongoing. Published studies vary in size and quality, individual results vary, and no outcome is guaranteed.
  • •Regulatory status. As of this writing, the FDA has not approved any exosome product, or any Wharton's Jelly-derived product for joint, soft-tissue, or other orthopedic conditions. These products are unapproved, and their use for those conditions is considered investigational.
  • •Approved stem cell products are specific. The FDA has approved some stem cell-based products for particular conditions, such as cord blood-derived blood-forming (hematopoietic) products and, since December 2024, Ryoncil, a bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for pediatric steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. None of these is approved for joint or soft-tissue conditions. The FDA keeps a current list of approved cellular and gene therapy products.
  • •Candidacy is a clinical decision. Not everyone is a candidate, and a consultation can end with a "no."
  • My opinion is that interest in this area will keep growing, and that patients are well served when it is matched by rigorous research. The FDA's consumer alert on regenerative medicine products (originally issued in July 2020; its list of approved stem cell products predates the December 2024 Ryoncil approval) is a good independent read, and you can learn about our stem cell therapy program on our site.

    2. Why Are Peptides and Hormone Therapy Getting More Attention?

    In my experience, peptide therapy has mostly been a niche topic, and hormone therapy conversations have often stayed in specialist offices. Over the past several years I've seen more everyday people asking questions about their energy, recovery, and long-term health. I expect that conversation to keep growing in the year ahead.

    Growing interest is not the same as settled evidence, and these two categories are very different. Hormone therapy has recognized medical uses for specific, diagnosed conditions, and it carries risks that call for clinician follow-up and, for some therapies such as testosterone, lab monitoring. For many peptides, human research is more limited. Neither is a shortcut, and neither is right for everyone. A few plain facts are worth knowing:

  • •Compounded medications are not FDA-approved. The FDA does not verify the safety, effectiveness, or quality of compounded drugs before they are marketed. See the FDA's compounding Q&A.
  • •Not FDA-approved as offered here. The peptides, compounded hormones, and NAD+ injection and sublingual products offered through our telehealth programs are not FDA-approved for the uses they are marketed for.
  • •"Bioidentical" describes a hormone's structure, not its approval status. Many products sold as "bioidentical hormones" are compounded drugs, which are not FDA-approved. The FDA has approved drugs that contain hormones identical to those the body makes, but for menopause it says it has no evidence that compounded "bioidentical" products are safer or more effective than FDA-approved hormone therapy. See the FDA's menopause and hormones information, which focuses on menopause.
  • At Regenerative Revival, licensed clinicians prescribe and monitor these therapies by telehealth in the states where they are licensed and where telehealth prescribing is permitted for that therapy, so availability varies by state and by therapy. Prescriptions are based on labs and a clinical review. Compounded medications are dispensed by state-licensed pharmacy partners, and care is physician-supervised through Arora Health Group.

    3. Why Are Patients Researching Their Own Care, and Why Does Transparency Matter?

    This is a trend I think has real implications for how providers communicate. Many people now come to a consultation having read about their options, watched explainer videos, and formed real opinions. I think that is a good thing. It means the providers who earn trust going forward will be the ones willing to explain the "why" behind a recommendation in plain language, not just the "what."

    Research is only as useful as its sources, and online claims about regenerative medicine vary widely in quality. If you're doing your own reading, start with independent organizations such as the FDA and the ISSCR's patient resources, and then bring your questions to a licensed clinician.

    Transparency also means being upfront about what is investigational, where products come from, and what is still unknown. Our Wharton's Jelly materials come from tissue banks accredited by the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB). AATB accreditation is a quality standard for tissue banking; it is not FDA approval. Patients should feel free to ask any provider, including us, the same questions. That is also why we publish educational content like this, so you can read up on the questions to ask any provider before you decide.

    4. How Is AI Changing Administrative Work in Healthcare?

    In my view, a useful role for AI in healthcare is administrative support, not replacing the human relationship. Used carefully, it can reduce operational drag so clinicians and staff can spend more time on the parts of the job that require a human.

    Two guardrails matter to me:

  • •Clinical judgment stays with licensed clinicians. Whether someone is a candidate for any therapy is a clinical decision, never something software decides, and clinical content should be reviewed by qualified people before it reaches patients.
  • •Health information needs careful handling. Any tool that touches patient information must meet applicable privacy and security requirements.
  • My advice to any founder in this space: automate repetitive administrative tasks thoughtfully, and protect the parts of the patient relationship that can't be automated.

    5. Why Does Trust Still Start Local in Healthcare?

    Healthcare is still fundamentally a trust business, and trust starts small: a local referral, a provider who returns a phone call, a clinician who answers questions honestly. Even as we've grown, I believe the things that count are the unglamorous ones, such as responsiveness, clear communication, and word of mouth from people who felt well cared for.

    I'd add one caution. Personal stories can be powerful, but they are not evidence, and one person's experience does not predict another's. Individual results vary. The healthcare brands I expect to do well are the ones that earn trust through service and honesty rather than promises of outcomes.

    For us, that has meant pairing telehealth with in-home regenerative care where available (availability varies by location), supported by a network of 100+ licensed clinicians. You can read more about how that works in our concierge care model and on our about page.

    What Do These Healthcare Trends Have in Common?

    If there's a single thread running through these trends, I think it's that patients increasingly want more agency, more transparency, and honest conversations about what to realistically expect. I believe the healthcare organizations that listen to that will be well positioned for the next decade. That is my opinion. Whether any specific therapy is appropriate for you is a separate question, answered one patient and one clinician at a time.

    Start With a Conversation

    If you're curious whether a regenerative, hormone, peptide, or NAD+ program is worth discussing with a clinician, the 2-minute consult quiz is an easy place to start. You can also contact the team with questions first. This article reflects the author's personal views and is for general education only, and individual results vary.

    Ready to take the next step?

    Take The 2-Minute Quiz
    Related Articles