Healthcare AI today: State-level regulation, a doubled budget, White House vs. CHAI, more

News and views you ought to know about:

• California, Illinois, Nevada and Texas. There’s your answer should anyone ask which states are burning to regulate healthcare AI while Washington fiddles. Measures between the four vary. Generally speaking, what all four have in common is guarding the public against providers’ a.) inappropriate use of clinician-free services and b.) misleading messaging about how the technology is being used. To wit: 
   
  • California laws prohibit AI systems from implying the presence of licensed medical oversight where none exists and create new compliance considerations by giving the state professional licensing boards direct authority to investigate violations.
     
  • Illinois law prohibits the use of AI in providing mental health and therapeutic decision making unless an individual, corporation or entity falls under an exemption.
     
  • Nevada’s law prohibits AI providers from utilizing AI systems to provide or claim to provide professional mental or behavioral healthcare.
     
  • Texas laws require providers to disclose AI use in clinical care and maintain oversight of AI-generated medical records.
     
  • The bulleted roundup is verbatim from a Sept. 29 post authored by attorneys with Fenwick, a multistate firm headquartered in Silicon Valley. Its clients tend to be companies selling high-tech products and services in various sectors, including healthcare and life sciences. The post is aimed mainly at that audience. Its body fleshes out each state’s approach to healthcare AI regulation. 
     
  • The emphasis on clear disclosure and transparency in emerging AI lawmaking “creates opportunities for companies to build competitive advantages through proactive compliance,” the authors of the post observe. “Healthtech companies and products that clearly communicate AI capabilities and limitations, implement explainable decision pathways and engage licensed practitioners in development processes may find stronger market acceptance as regulatory scrutiny intensifies.”
     
    • And:
       
  • “The future belongs not to the fastest AI innovators but to those who earn and maintain public trust through responsible development and deployment practices.”
     
  • Sure, the post is intended to charm healthtech companies into hiring a law firm, preferably Fenwick, for help navigating the regulatory landscape. That doesn’t mean it’s not of interest to all healthcare AI stakeholders. Read the whole thing.
     
• Here’s another multistate law firm keeping a keen eye on healthcare AI. Jones Walker, which has roots in New Orleans but operates as far north as New York, suggests success in the present regulatory environment belongs to the collaboratively inclined. Provider organizations, technology developers and regulatory bodies all need to “maintain vigilance regarding compliance obligations while advocating for regulatory frameworks that protect patients without unnecessarily hindering innovation,” write the attorney-authors of substantive commentary posted Oct. 2 by the National Law Review. “Organizations that can navigate the complex and evolving regulatory environment while delivering demonstrable clinical value will continue to find opportunities for growth and impact in this dynamic sector.”
   
• The first Trump administration established the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. The second one is doubling its budget. Part of the NIH, the CCDI exists to take a bite out of pediatric cancer rates by collecting and analyzing data en route to designing earlier diagnostics, better treatments and superior prevention strategies. It’s been operating on an allowance of $50M. Now it’ll have $100M to steward for its admirable mission. As part of the upped ante, CCDI will bring in partners from the private sector who are adept at using AI to solve problems. Particular areas of concentration for that arm of the initiative will include ongoing research and new clinical trials. 
   
  • The move has prompted vocal cheerleading from HHS Secretary Kennedy, NIH Director Bhattacharya and Anthony Letai, MD, PhD, who was sworn in as the new director of the National Cancer Institute Sept. 29. “Our efforts have helped us learn from every child and better understand childhood cancer, reduce its risk, develop better treatments and improve survivorship for children, teens and young adults with cancer,” Letai said at a Sept. 30 ceremony. “I cannot think of a better way to begin my tenure at NCI than to redouble our efforts to support our youngest patients and their families facing rare leukemias and other cancers.”
     
• The White House is not a fan of the Coalition for Health AI. The disapproval is making for a point/counterpoint conversation that bears following. “They don’t speak for us,” says Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill. He says CHAI is a threat to become a “cartel,” picking winners and losers among healthcare AI suppliers. Counters CHAI via CEO Brian Anderson: “Everything we do is voluntary, not required.” He adds that O’Neill has it wrong if he thinks CHAI is pressuring any entity to join it. 
   
  • The spat is playing out at Politico, which obtained the quotes by speaking separately to both sides. The center-left outlet reports Anderson expressed an openness to receiving feedback, including from Team Trump. In fact, Anderson says he believes CHAI “can be a resource as President Donald Trump considers how to handle AI’s growth.” Your move, White House. 
     
• Meanwhile, in the Senate … A pair of Republicans is peppering AI company heads with questions about the use of artificially knowledgeable chatbots by young people. A particular concern of the lawmakers is AI’s potential for goading youth to harm themselves even to the point of suicide. In letters sent Sept. 30 to the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, Character.AI, and Alphabet, GOP Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana—co-chairs of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee—demand answers. 
   
  • “That AI would have the capability to encourage, instruct, or convince a user—in one of the most recent cases a fourteen-year-old—to end his life is deeply troubling,” the senators write. “Reports indicate that teenagers were able to get AI chatbots to respond to questions, including how to hide evidence of self-harm, sexually explicit conversations, and even ignoring specific comments related to suicide.” The center-right National Review has good coverage. 
     
• Also worthwhile from this week:
   
  • Patients are diagnosing themselves with home tests, devices and chatbots (The Wall Street Journal) 
     
  • AI in healthcare risk [assessments] could exclude 5 billion people; here’s what we can do about it (World Economic Forum) 
     
  • Fake North Korean IT workers sneaking into healthcare, finance and AI (The Register)
     
• Noteworthy research news:
   
  • Virtual reality can reduce anxiety in patients undergoing interventional cardiovascular procedure (American College of Cardiology)
     
  • AI can strengthen pandemic preparedness (Technical University of Denmark)
     
  • Can AI persuade you to go vegan—or harm yourself? (University of British Columbia)
     
• From AIin.Healthcare’s sibling news outlets:
   
  • Radiology Business: Radiology Partners supplements regular breast screenings with as-needed—and AI-aided—cardiology referrals
     
  • Radiology Business: Google's Gemini answers patients' IR questions with greater accuracy, more empathy than providers
     
  • Radiology Business: RSNA readying ‘launchpad’ to help innovators take flight with fresh ideas