Most people have experienced episodic GI trouble—enough to know how disruptive it can be. But for the one in five U.S. adults with conditions like irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the disruption is chronic and can affect every dimension of daily life. Yet patients frequently lack access to the coordinated, specialized care they need. The good news is that virtual GI solutions can meaningfully help by reducing symptoms and improving quality of life for patients.

Among PHTI’s six assessments to date, the GI solutions stand out for delivering higher net savings—thousands of dollars per engaged member, compared to a few hundred for other digital health categories. That savings potential, combined with demonstrated health improvements, should give purchasers a compelling reason to act. Yet our savings estimates are a fraction of company claims, underscoring the need for more robust, sober economic evidence to inform purchasing decisions.

This report also highlights a tension in the digital health market: whether to choose targeted, disease-specific solutions or broader chronic condition platforms. The GI conditions in this report require distinct treatment approaches. Effective IBS care, including gut-brain behavioral therapy, nutritional counseling, and always-on support, can be delivered directly to patients through lower-cost, “wraparound solutions” that complement but may not directly integrate with care from a patient’s doctor. For the large population of people with IBS, wraparound solutions deliver strong clinical benefit and the highest per-user savings.

IBD is a different clinical challenge. Effective treatment must be led by a gastroenterologist who can perform diagnostic procedures, prescribe and manage biologics, and prevent the flare-ups that drive disease progression. Wraparound solutions may help patients with IBD manage symptoms, but they do not address the underlying inflammation and tissue damage. “Clinician-led solutions” can close access gaps by delivering more intensive, specialized care virtually, but at a higher price point.

This creates a purchasing dilemma. Wraparound solutions are cost effective for the much larger IBS population but insufficient for patients with IBD. Clinician-led solutions can effectively serve both conditions, but they may be more than what many patients with IBS need. There is no one-size-fits-all answer; purchasers must weigh their contracting preferences, network access, and budget constraints carefully. Regardless of their choice, integrating a virtual GI solution is likely to deliver health benefits to patients and savings to payers.