Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used more and more in healthcare across the United States. Hospitals, doctors, and healthcare providers use AI tools to improve how they care for patients, automate office and administrative work, and make clinical processes smoother. But along with the benefits, there are important rules that medical staff and IT managers need to understand. These rules help make sure AI is used correctly and safely. This article compares the U.S. decentralized, market-driven system for regulating AI in healthcare with the risk-based systems used in other places, especially the European Union (EU). Knowing these differences helps manage AI use, follow laws, and protect patient privacy and safety.
Unlike the EU’s single, risk-based AI rules, the United States uses a decentralized system. Different federal agencies, state governments, and industry groups manage separate rules. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) controls AI in medical devices under current laws. Data privacy is handled by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). But these rules work separately instead of under one big AI law.
This approach lets innovation happen because different AI healthcare tools follow different rules depending on the field or state. States like Colorado and California have their own AI rules that focus on fairness, openness, and checking risks in high-risk AI systems. But this creates many different rules that healthcare groups must carefully follow in each place.
The Biden-Harris administration has urged responsible AI use through executive orders and teamwork. In 2023, it worked with 15 AI companies and 28 healthcare providers to promote the FAVES principles — making sure AI is Fair, Appropriate, Valid, Effective, and Safe. This shows a preference for voluntary cooperation instead of strict laws. While this helps innovation and industry effort, it does not provide the same consistent or strict enforcement seen in other regions.
The EU AI Act, starting in August 2024, sets a clear, tiered system based on risk levels from “unacceptable” to “minimal.” AI systems with high risk, such as those used for diagnosis and treatment, face strict rules. These include careful risk management, data quality checks, technical records, and required human supervision.
Centralized groups like the EU AI Office enforce these rules. They work with national authorities and can give large fines — up to €35 million or 7% of global sales for major breaches — to make sure rules are followed. The EU’s system focuses on openness, safety, and reducing bias, with clear standards to stop AI from harming health or rights.
The tiered model also requires regular checks after AI is in use. Healthcare AI must be monitored continuously. This clear system offers a set path, but it can be demanding on resources and hard to manage, especially for small healthcare providers.
The U.S. system creates problems for healthcare leaders and IT staff. One big issue is that regulations are split up. AI makers and users in several states must follow many different laws on top of federal rules. This makes it hard to stay consistent, increases work complexity, and may slow down AI use in healthcare.
Privacy and security rules are uneven. HIPAA covers patient data but only applies to certain areas and doesn’t cover all AI uses. Also, the U.S. does not have one system to rank AI risks, so problems like algorithm bias and data control are handled unevenly. For instance, AI bias has caused wrong diagnoses and unequal treatment for some groups. Current U.S. rules partly address this but lack central coordination.
The U.S. system depends a lot on companies regulating themselves. Big AI firms like Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI have policies for ethical AI in healthcare. But voluntary rules have no enforcement power if mistakes or privacy breaches happen. This raises worries about responsibility and means smaller groups with fewer resources may have trouble keeping up.
A 2022 survey of more than 11,000 Americans found 60 percent felt uneasy with healthcare providers using AI. Earning patient trust is very important for using AI well. This means being open about data use, keeping health information safe, and clearly explaining AI’s role in decisions.
The U.S. system’s mixed oversight can reduce openness and make it harder to teach patients about AI. The EU’s strict data rules, patient consent laws, and clear transparency tend to increase patient trust by explaining AI limits and controls.
Another worry is patients being identified again from supposedly anonymous data. Studies show over 85% of adults and nearly 70% of children can be identified from health data despite privacy measures. This shows the need for strong data protection policies, including good encryption and access controls in AI systems.
AI tools that automate work are more common in healthcare front offices, admin tasks, and clinical support. For example, Simbo AI automates phone answering using AI voice systems. For medical office managers and IT teams, these tools can reduce receptionist workload, lower patient wait times, and improve call handling.
But following rules is still very important, especially when AI handles patient data or helps with clinical decisions. HIPAA requires AI phone services that collect health info to use strong data protection like encryption and access control. State rules might also need impact checks or bias reduction if AI helps with high-risk tasks, like scheduling for certain patients.
The U.S. decentralized system means healthcare managers must check AI vendors carefully to meet federal and state laws. Picking AI solutions that follow ideas like the EU’s FAVES is wise to lower business and legal risks. Also, AI must fit into existing workflows without hurting care quality or privacy. This helps prevent burnout and keeps standards high.
Many medical offices can use AI automation to free staff for more patient care. Still, training staff and setting clear AI policies are needed. Human supervision helps catch mistakes, stop bias, and keep responsibility clear.
One key difference between the U.S. and EU is how they require human oversight. The EU demands trained people with authority to supervise high-risk AI, especially where AI affects patient safety and rights. These supervisors must be qualified and accountable to watch AI and step in when needed.
The U.S. has more general rules on human oversight. Many state laws and industry standards focus on openness and responsible design but lack clear rules for training or defined oversight roles. This leaves healthcare groups at risk of errors or wrong AI use without strong controls.
Transparency rules also differ. The EU AI Act requires detailed documents, explaining how AI works and telling users about it. This helps regulators and patients understand AI’s role. In the U.S., transparency is guided by different rules in each sector and state, causing uneven practices.
The U.S. market-driven way tries to boost innovation by letting AI developers and healthcare providers try new technologies with fewer rules up front. This can speed up AI use and help industry improvements.
But this freedom may cause uneven risk control and weak ethical standards, especially for protecting at-risk patients. Without one clear system, healthcare groups might face unclear enforcement, higher legal risks, and more trouble managing data security.
The EU’s system, on the other hand, focuses on avoiding risks and careful control. Though this can slow innovation because of costs and extra work, it gives clearer rules and aims for fair AI benefits for all patients.
Healthcare leaders in the U.S. must balance fast innovation with proper protections to keep patients safe and maintain trust. Working with AI vendors who follow good compliance and using governance based on the EU’s principles can help close the gap.
Hospital administrators, medical practice owners, and IT managers in the U.S. need to understand that AI rules are spread out and changing. Organizations should:
In the end, healthcare providers can gain from AI tools that speed up routine work and help clinical decisions, while following the complex, decentralized U.S. regulatory system.
AI enhances healthcare efficiency by automating tasks, optimizing workflows, enabling early health risk detection, and aiding in drug development. These capabilities lead to improved patient outcomes and reduced clinician burnout.
AI risks include algorithmic bias exacerbating health disparities, data privacy and security concerns, perpetuation of inequities in care, the digital divide limiting access, and inadequate regulatory oversight leading to potential patient harm.
The EU’s GDPR enforces lawful, fair, and transparent data processing, requires explicit consent for using health data, limits data use to specific purposes, mandates data minimization, and demands strict data security measures such as encryption to protect patient privacy.
The AI Act introduces a risk-tiered system to prevent AI harm, promotes transparency, and ensures AI developments prioritize patient safety. Its full impact is yet to be seen but aims to foster patient-centric and trustworthy healthcare AI applications.
The U.S. uses a decentralized, market-driven system relying on self-regulation, existing laws (FDA for devices, HIPAA for data privacy), executive orders, and voluntary private-sector commitments, resulting in less comprehensive and standardized AI oversight compared to the EU.
FAVES stands for Fair, Appropriate, Valid, Effective, and Safe. These principles guide responsible AI development by monitoring risks, promoting health equity, improving patient outcomes, and ensuring that AI applications remain safe and valid for healthcare use.
Algorithmic bias in healthcare AI can perpetuate and worsen disparities by misdiagnosing or mistreating underrepresented groups due to skewed training data, undermining health equity and leading to unfair health outcomes.
Disparities in internet access, digital literacy, and socioeconomic status limit equitable patient access to AI-powered healthcare solutions, deepening inequalities and reducing the potential benefits of AI technologies for marginalized populations.
Key measures include data minimization, explicit patient consent, encryption, access controls, anonymization techniques, strict regulatory compliance, and transparency regarding data usage to protect against unauthorized access and rebuild patient trust.
Future steps include harmonizing global regulatory frameworks, improving data quality to reduce bias, addressing social determinants of health, bridging the digital divide, enhancing transparency, and placing patients’ safety and privacy at the forefront of AI development.
Simbo is using AI agents to automate all phone related workflows. Connect now to know more.
Schedule AI Agents Demo Now© Since 2019, Simbo AI.
