American investors love drama. So it is no surprise that Theranos is causing a stir. Just two months ago this blood diagnostics company — created a decade ago by Stanford dropout Elizabeth Holmes — was an investor darling valued at $9bn. Now, however, it faces allegations that its testing techniques were not as novel as claimed, and the company has become a lightning rod for wider investor concerns about the sky-high valuations now seen in Silicon Valley.

But investors should not let the Theranos furore distract them from the bigger issue: something new is developing in medical diagnostics. Dozens of other start-ups are emerging in different medical niches (Sage Bionetworks, We Are Curious and Patients Like Me are just a few). They could change how US healthcare is done, just as Uber has transformed our idea of what a “taxi” is.

At issue is the question of who controls medical data. In decades past, it was considered a hallmark of American culture that rugged individuals — that is, consumers — liked to exercise their rights. But in one area, health, they have appeared willing to let doctors control their records and keep them private.

Three factors look likely to change this. First, the cost of medical diagnostics has tumbled dramatically, making it more accessible for individuals, and enabling them to circumvent doctors and traditional healthcare companies. Not only are start-ups such as Theranos carrying out blood tests at a fraction of the earlier cost; it is startling that DNA sequencing now costs about $1,000 per genome; in 2007 and 2001 the costs were $10m and $100m respectively.

Second, consumers have grown increasingly comfortable with the idea of managing their health in cyber space. According to the Pew Research Center, more than a third of consumers already check health matters online. And the spread of fitness gadgets such as Fitbit and Jawbone has helped reinforce this change, showing consumers what can be done with their smartphones alone.

Third, consumer attitudes to the privacy of digital data more broadly may be changing. Until recently, it was assumed by the healthcare establishment that patients would resist putting too much data online or sharing it too widely. But it is already clear consumers are less concerned about privacy than some activists might have hoped. Randall Stephenson, chief executive of US telecoms group AT&T, says his consumers will drop privacy restrictions on use of their mobile phone data (with marketing companies, say) in exchange for a $20 monthly discount on their bills. Medical diagnostic companies are betting consumers will be willing to share their healthcare data, too, if they get something “back” — be it cheaper services or the hope that the data are used to improve medical research.

If this bet is correct, it has fascinating implications. For one, if consumers — not doctors — control data, the medical industry might have to turn its model upside down. Instead of being arranged according to how doctors are trained (making sharp distinctions between, say, surgeons and physicians), services may be shaped by the way consumers define their own health, typically focusing on specific ailments and body parts.

More important still, if consumers allow their information to be placed (partly anonymously) on central databases, this might enable US medical researchers to take a commonsense step that has eluded them: to create population-wide databases for research purposes. These already exist in places such as Iceland. But in America medical data are fragmented, in part because of privacy concerns but also because powerful commercial interests have prevented collaboration. If the trend towards consumer-controlled diagnostics accelerates, however, the dynamic could change; so much so that Brian Druker, director of the Oregon Health and Science University thinks that by 2020 America will have its first unified databank of cancer records.

There are big obstacles to this. One is that not all states allow consumers access to, let alone control of, their data. Another is that consumer trust in digital healthcare data will stay high only if the networks are guarded against cyber attacks; that is a big if, given recent high-profile hacks. Then there is the problem plaguing Theranos — namely that many consumers do not know how to validate the quality of their “diagnostics”.

But history shows that when American consumers are given a sense of agency — and a chance to act with their wallets — disintermediation can sometimes happen surprisingly fast. Just look at Uber. Whatever happens next with Ms Holmes, the real story behind the Theranos story is still an early stage.