Artificial intelligence Introducing STAT's generative AI tracker
Every provider, entrepreneur, and investor I've spoken to recently is convinced generative AI will fundamentally change health care over the next few years — they're just not exactly what that'll actually look like and where regulators and health systems will draw the line between exploring its potential and protecting patients from unintended downstream effects.
The uncertainty isn't stopping tech's biggest players — everyone from Microsoft and Google to Amazon — from trotting out the technology for health care customers today. And because we're still feeling out ethical and regulatory guidelines for responsibly deploying generative AI in health, it'll be up to the industry to keep tabs on the myriad experiments already underway.
To help you stay on top of generative AI's creep, my colleagues Casey Ross and Katie Palmer are cataloguing new applications in a tracker launched today.
"There is a lot of froth and hype out there," says Brian Anderson, co-founder of the Coalition for Health AI. "The concern many of us have is that, particularly with generative AI in a consequential space like health, it is inappropriate to use a tool that we don't have an agreed-upon set of standards or best practices for."
Health systems are indeed being largely cautious about deployments: Many current applications involve offloading tedious, bureaucratic tasks like culling overfilled inboxes. But others are tackling disease detection and diagnosis. And we're noticing that tech companies and health systems are leaning into the generative AI buzzwords to appear more cutting-edge.
"There's this disconnect between the flashy headlines and claims that have yet to be verified, and presumably unflashy applications that can have immediate value to patients and people in the health care system," says Nigam Shah, chief data scientist for Stanford Health Care. Check out the tracker here, and read more about some of health care's ongoing pilots here.
Washington
$1 million info blocking fines are now fair game
A decades-long campaign by Washington regulators and lawmakers to free up patients' data cleared a crucial milestone last week: health IT vendors, like electronic health records companies, and health information networks are now potentially subject to up to $1 million penalties for obstructing the transfer of patients' electronic health information, a practice known as information blocking. (While the 2016 Cures law banned the practice, and regulators have been clarifying exemptions for years, offenders haven't faced legal consequences until now.)
The penalties, levied per violation, are overseen by the Health and Human Service Department's Office of the Inspector General. And law firms are already gearing up to steer clients through the new regulatory environment. If the enforcement deadline has changed how your health system or health IT vendor is operating, I'd love to hear from you.
Industry
Another health tech darling implodes
Industry watchers have long had an eye on British telehealth and AI company Babylon Health, whose startup valuations once reportedly topped $2 billion and which later scored high profile contracts with the U.K.'s National Health Service. It looks like the end of the road for the beleaguered company, which went public in 2021 and private again in 2023: Most of its assets, including a telehealth practice were sold to eMed, TechCrunch reported. The news comes just a few weeks after the company filed for bankruptcy, shuttered U.S. operations, and laid off about 100 employees.
No comments