Patient safety is the most important thing when using AI in healthcare. AI software relies on large amounts of data for training and needs regular updates as new medical information comes out. This can make it hard to keep AI tools accurate and safe all the time.
The FDA has been regulating medical devices since 1976. It has a hard time adjusting its rules for AI technologies. More than 900 AI-related medical devices have FDA approval, mostly moderate risk Class II devices. But current rules were made for physical devices, not for AI software that keeps learning and changing.
Without new rules, healthcare workers find it difficult to check if AI tools are safe before using them. In 2024, experts at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI pointed out this gap and said new policies are needed to balance safety and innovation.
Healthcare groups must keep watching AI systems even after they start using them. Regular audits can find problems that might hurt patients, just like checking drugs or medical devices. This ongoing review is needed to keep AI tools for diagnosis and treatment safe.
Bias in AI systems is another important concern because it affects patient care directly. AI tools, especially those used for clinical help or patient chats like mental health bots, are trained on medical data. This data might not cover all kinds of patients fairly. If the data or AI design has bias, the AI might give wrong or unfair results for some groups.
Bias in healthcare AI happens in different ways:
For example, mental health chatbots using large language models (LLMs) look helpful but do not have specific rules controlling them. There is a real risk of bad or wrong advice if bias is not checked.
Stopping bias needs testing from AI creation to clinical use to keep models fair. There must be more openness so doctors understand where and how biases appear and how AI makes choices. Tools called “model cards” explain how AI works, its risks, and help doctors decide if they can trust it.
The U.S. healthcare system needs new rules about AI fairness. Present laws like HIPAA were made before AI became common and do not fully cover these issues.
Who is responsible when AI helps make clinical decisions is a tough question. AI can help analyze patient records and find mistakes in care or legal cases. Researchers say AI makes malpractice investigations more fair and clear. But legal and privacy questions still exist when AI is part of care decisions.
Because AI sometimes works on its own, healthcare groups must set clear rules about who does what. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suggests forming AI governance groups with clinical leaders, experts, and staff. These groups handle AI rules, use, and checking risks over time.
Human checks are very important. High-risk AI tools should always have a “human-in-the-loop,” meaning a medical professional looks at AI results before making decisions. This helps lower mistakes from AI uncertainty or bias and keeps care safer.
Clear records and openness are also needed to keep people responsible. Healthcare workers must keep notes on how AI was used, what data influenced results, and any follow-up. This builds trust and helps meet changing rules.
AI is also changing how healthcare offices work. Automating front desk tasks like scheduling, talking to patients, and answering calls can help staff and lower errors.
Companies like Simbo AI focus on phone automation and AI answering services for U.S. medical offices. Their systems use natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to handle patient calls, letting staff focus on medical work.
AI-powered automation includes:
Automation helps with efficiency but must work well with clinical checks to keep patients safe. AI systems should clearly tell patients when they are talking to a bot, especially for sensitive things like appointments or medicine requests.
Privacy and security risks increase with automated systems handling protected health information (PHI). Strong cybersecurity and risk plans are needed to stop data breaches or hacks, like the 2024 WotNot breach that showed weak points in healthcare AI.
Healthcare groups in the U.S. need better AI governance to keep up with new technology. By 2024, only 16% of institutions had full AI governance systems, according to HHS reports.
A strong AI governance plan should have three steps:
Governance should follow four main rules: accountability, openness, fairness, and safety. It must also handle cybersecurity risks like attacks and changes in AI behavior, using standards from groups like NIST and HSCC.
Health systems such as Trillium Health Partners in Canada have AI governance groups under digital health departments. U.S. medical centers could build similar teams to watch AI and follow new regulations like HHS rules that require risk management by April 3, 2026.
Different experts including doctors, ethicists, AI makers, lawyers, and patient representatives should work together to make fair and safe AI policies.
Being open with doctors and patients is key for ethical AI use. Doctors should get detailed info about AI models, their data, how well they work, and limits. This helps them make good choices about AI tools.
Patients should know when AI is part of their care, especially in direct contact like messages or mental health chats. This builds trust and helps patients understand their treatment.
Rules should also include patient voices more during AI creation, use, and oversight. This can help fix health gaps and make sure AI meets the needs of everyone.
Medical practice administrators, owners, and IT managers in the U.S. should keep these points in mind to handle AI ethics:
By following these practices, healthcare groups in the U.S. can use AI in ways that improve care without breaking ethical rules. Since AI is always changing, teams must watch it closely, adapt rules, and work together to keep patients safe and trust strong in a more automated health system.
Key ethical concerns include patient safety, harmful biases, data security, transparency of AI algorithms, accountability for clinical decisions, and ensuring equitable access to AI technologies without exacerbating health disparities.
Current regulations like the FDA’s device clearance process and HIPAA were designed for physical devices and analog data, not complex, evolving AI software that relies on vast training data and continuous updates, creating gaps in effective oversight and safety assurance.
Streamlining market approval through public-private partnerships, enhancing information sharing on test data and device performance, and introducing finer risk categories tailored to the potential clinical impact of each AI function are proposed strategies.
Opinions differ; some advocate for human-in-the-loop to maintain safety and reliability, while others argue full autonomy may reduce administrative burden and improve efficiency. Hybrid models with physician oversight and quality checks are seen as promising compromises.
Developers should share detailed information about AI model design, functionality, risks, and performance—potentially through ‘model cards’—to enable informed decisions about AI adoption and safe clinical use.
In some cases, especially patient-facing interactions or automated communications, patients should be informed about AI involvement to ensure trust and understanding, while clinical decisions may be delegated to healthcare professionals’ discretion.
There is a lack of clear regulatory status for these tools, which might deliver misleading or harmful advice without medical oversight. Determining whether to regulate them as medical devices or healthcare professionals remains contentious.
Engaging patients throughout AI design, deployment, and regulation helps ensure tools meet diverse needs, build trust, and address or avoid worsening health disparities within varied populations.
They provide ongoing monitoring of AI tool performance in real-world settings, allowing timely detection of safety issues and facilitating transparency between developers and healthcare providers to uphold clinical safety standards.
Multidisciplinary research, multistakeholder dialogue, updated and flexible regulatory frameworks, and patient-inclusive policies are essential to balance innovation with safety, fairness, and equitable healthcare delivery through AI technologies.