Health misinformation is disrupting medical and public health expertise. Ann Somers Hogg, Director, Health Care, outlines how this is playing out and what leaders can do about it.
Transcript:
How did we get here? How did we not see it coming? How did we let it happen? You may ask yourself these questions if you’re being disrupted. Clayton Christensen called this the innovator’s dilemma. While incumbents chase profits offered by their best customers and focus on sustaining innovations, new companies enter at the bottom of the market, serving people at lower price points who don’t need all the bells and whistles—or who can’t access them due to cost, distance, or wait times. But eventually, these new companies improve and totally change the game. Think Amazon disrupting local bookstores or CVS MinuteClinics disrupting traditional primary care.
But disruption doesn’t just happen in business. Sometimes it happens on a much larger scale across entire populations. And that’s what has been happening in the world of public health. Health misinformation has long plagued progress. But looking through the lens of disruptive innovation, it’s clear why now is the time for leaders to act.
Health misinformation was initially considered inferior in performance to fact. But today, in the eyes of many consumers, it’s outperforming public health and medical expertise. We see this in falling childhood vaccination rates and the popularity of false claims on social media. To really understand its potential, let’s evaluate health misinformation through the Christensen Institute’s six-question test.
Question one: Does misinformation target non-consumers or those who don’t want everything offered by existing solutions? Yes. Misinformation appeals to people who don’t want to—or don’t have the ability to—read a scientific study, consult an expert, or go to the doctor.
Question two: Is misinformation not as good as existing information, as judged by historical measures of performance? Yes. Scientific expertise is rooted in rigorous testing, while misinformation requires no such standard.
Question three: Is misinformation simpler to use, more convenient, or more affordable? Absolutely. Its simplicity fuels its spread through free, easy-to-understand channels like informal conversations and online spaces. And with growing distrust in institutions, most Americans now rely on social media for their news.
Question four: Does misinformation have a technology enabler to carry it upmarket? Yes. Social media algorithms and decentralized media platforms make misinformation spread faster and wider. On top of that, the current administration actively promotes health misinformation as truth.
Question five: Is the technology paired with a business model that makes it sustainable? Yes. The barrier to entry for becoming a so-called expert is extremely low. Algorithms feed us more of what we watch, click, and engage with—meaning almost anyone can spread misinformation. The more we consume it, the more it circulates.
Question six: Do existing providers ignore misinformation and not feel threatened by it at the outset? Yes. Early on, medical and public health experts didn’t view misinformation as a serious threat. But as it became more accessible, convenient, personalized, and culturally acceptable, they began to push back. The question is: is this awareness too little, too late?
The answer is no. Being in the midst of disruption still means there’s a chance to slow its pace—or even reverse its success. So what can we do?
First, identify pathways to reestablish trust. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in healthcare institutions fell from 71% in 2020 to just 40% in 2024. If public health and medical experts want to regain dominance, they must rebuild America’s trust. Short-term campaigns on television and social media could help, while long-term investments in STEM programs and K–12 education could strengthen public understanding of the scientific method and how medical knowledge develops.
Second, reinstitute emergency stops. Platforms like Meta and X once had policies to flag misinformation, but many of those safeguards have been rolled back, fueling the fire. Restoring them is critical.
And finally, ensure that federal health leaders bring lived experience to their roles. Christensen’s “schools of experience” theory suggests the right leader isn’t always the one with the best pedigree, but the one who has lived through the lessons required to succeed. It’s not promising when the nation’s top health leader tells the Senate, “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.”
Disruption is a process that unfolds over decades. Health misinformation’s disruption of public health and medical expertise is already well underway—but we’re not powerless to stop it. Not yet.
