Healthcare AI today: Action plan arguments, ways to monetize GenAI in healthcare, more
News and views you ought to know about:
- POINT: AI holds great promise for healthcare, and President Trump’s action plan is a good first step. “The Trump administration’s AI Action Plan, released last week, is an exciting and welcome development. It evinces close attention to building public and professional trust for AI technology through transparent and ethical oversite and to accelerate national standards for safety, performance and interoperability. ...
- “AI isn’t just the future of healthcare, it is very much the present. The government’s new AI Action Plan is an encouraging step forward to bring some of these issues to the forefront while AI health technology is still in its infancy. As physicians, we have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to work today to ensure that AI transform health care and not merely automate inefficiencies. We are excited to build on that momentum and work together to create a future where innovation enhances every patient encounter and augments every physician’s care.”
- John Whyte, MD, MPH, chief executive officer of the American Medical Association, and Margaret Lozovatsky, MD, the AMA’s chief medical information officer, writing in The Hill
- John Whyte, MD, MPH, chief executive officer of the American Medical Association, and Margaret Lozovatsky, MD, the AMA’s chief medical information officer, writing in The Hill
- “AI isn’t just the future of healthcare, it is very much the present. The government’s new AI Action Plan is an encouraging step forward to bring some of these issues to the forefront while AI health technology is still in its infancy. As physicians, we have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to work today to ensure that AI transform health care and not merely automate inefficiencies. We are excited to build on that momentum and work together to create a future where innovation enhances every patient encounter and augments every physician’s care.”
- COUNTERPOINT: President Trump has decided to let the AI gang run free and wild. What could go wrong? “The net result of Trump’s ‘AI Action’ plan is that tech firms will be allowed to develop AI free from bothersome regulations and safeguards. Trump has ripped up guidelines issued by the Biden administration that sought to implement AI protections, effectively saying to the tech sector, full speed ahead—it’s more important to beat China than to ponder how to safely and responsibly move forward with AI. …
- “Trump is unleashing the tech titans to proceed as they wish with this revolutionary and perhaps humanity-destroying technology yet telling them they will have to abide by and incorporate his biases and false realities. It’s a deal with the devil—to which the companies are saying, ‘Fine.’ They get to amass fortunes, and Trump, the wannabe autocrat, gets to control what AI ‘thinks.’ What’s at risk is merely civilization as we know it—and the truth.”
- David Corn, Washington bureau chief at Mother Jones
- David Corn, Washington bureau chief at Mother Jones
- “Trump is unleashing the tech titans to proceed as they wish with this revolutionary and perhaps humanity-destroying technology yet telling them they will have to abide by and incorporate his biases and false realities. It’s a deal with the devil—to which the companies are saying, ‘Fine.’ They get to amass fortunes, and Trump, the wannabe autocrat, gets to control what AI ‘thinks.’ What’s at risk is merely civilization as we know it—and the truth.”
- Or maybe the White House’s AI Action Plan will spur a mix of positive opportunities, negative challenges—and neutral adjustments. That’s about how some legal experts see things. In the coming months, healthcare entities “should expect to see agency activity to implement the Plan in addition to federal AI initiatives and opportunities,” write four watchers with the D.C.-based law firm Crowell & Moring. “In addition to monitoring developments coming out of the AI Action Plan, these entities should also begin examining their AI governance plans as well as identifying state law compliance obligations to harmonize compliance efforts.” Their brief is here.
- In pursuing the monetization of generative AI, healthcare stakeholders may have to choose between two competing options. One is led by AI vendors vying for first FDA approvals of products in their categories. That’s pretty much how things work now. The other is led by clinicians. It would allow patients to use readily available, inexpensive large language models to manage their chronic diseases and assess new symptoms.
- In what Robert Pearl, MD, calls the “entrepreneurial tech” model, the current system makes it expensive to develop tools this way. It’s costly to train the models and no cheap affair to get them OK’d for the U.S. market. Plus the companies may face lawsuits that are pricey to defend against and can be even more exorbitant if the plaintiffs win. “Still, if successful, these tools would likely command high prices and deliver substantial profits.”
- In an innovative system stressing clinician-led GenAI education, clinicians, educators or national specialty societies would pick the paths and share in the benefits. Such a system would be less lucrative for industry but more empowering for patients and healthcare professionals alike. “Unlike startup models that require tens of millions in funding and FDA approval, these educational tools could be developed and deployed quickly by doctors and other clinicians,” Pearl writes. “Because they teach patients how to use existing tools rather than offer direct medical advice, they would avoid many regulatory burdens and face reduced legal liability. And with 40% of physicians already working part-time or in gig roles, there are hundreds, or likely thousands, of experts ready to contribute.”
- Pearl, a Stanford professor, bestselling author and former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group, notes that the two paths could represent a both/and choice rather than an either/or situation. Forbes published his piece fleshing out some pros and cons of each way Aug. 4.
- In what Robert Pearl, MD, calls the “entrepreneurial tech” model, the current system makes it expensive to develop tools this way. It’s costly to train the models and no cheap affair to get them OK’d for the U.S. market. Plus the companies may face lawsuits that are pricey to defend against and can be even more exorbitant if the plaintiffs win. “Still, if successful, these tools would likely command high prices and deliver substantial profits.”
- AI adoption is greatly outpacing AI security and governance. There’s nothing new in that observation, but a new IBM report puts numbers to the scope of the problem across all involved industries and economic sectors. And some of the figures are frightening. Of the 13% of 600 organizations breached from March 2024 through February of this year, a shocking 97% reported having no controls in place for AI access. “As a result, 60% of AI-related security incidents led to compromised data and 31% led to operational disruption,” the IBM analysts write. As always, healthcare breaches were the costliest. Victimized organizations lost an average $7.42 recovering, and they took the longest to identify and contain break-ins. At an average 279 days, those reactive steps too more than five weeks longer than the overall average, 241 days. Download the report.
- From AIin.Healthcare’s sibling news outlets:
- Radiology Business: Imaging AI vendor earns nationwide UnitedHealthcare coverage, sets $1.3B value ahead of IPO
- Health Imaging: ‘Revolutionary’ AI risk assessment tool earns FDA’s Breakthrough Device designation
- Cardiovascular Business: CCTA could make invasive angiography a thing of the past
- Radiology Business: Imaging AI vendor earns nationwide UnitedHealthcare coverage, sets $1.3B value ahead of IPO
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.