A recent article discusses a comprehensive review of how artificial intelligence (AI) is evolving in the healthcare sector.
As AI technologies increasingly integrate into healthcare, new research by Lucia Vitale, a doctoral candidate at UC Santa Cruz’s Politics Department, evaluates the current situation, highlighting both the potential benefits and concerns.
Supporters of AI believe that this technology can streamline various healthcare processes, such as managing supply chains, tracking disease outbreaks, diagnosing conditions, interpreting medical images, and addressing disparities in healthcare access by filling in gaps created by workforce shortages. However, critics warn about several risks, including violations of privacy, biases relating to race and gender in AI applications, a lack of clarity in how AI systems make decisions, and the possibility that insurance companies could use AI to discriminate against those with poor health profiles.
The overall impact of AI tools in healthcare will largely depend on how they are designed and implemented. In a paper published in Social Science & Medicine, Vitale and her collaborator Leah Shipton from the University of British Columbia performed a thorough literature review on AI’s role in healthcare. They suggest that AI may follow a pattern observed in previous technological innovations, offering limited advantages due to a tendency to overlook deeper systemic health issues.
For instance, much of the AI currently in development is geared toward treating diseases rather than addressing the root causes of health. Vitale and Shipton are concerned that excessive focus on unverified AI solutions might detract from the urgent need for simple, evidence-supported strategies like employing community health workers or harm reduction initiatives.
“We’ve encountered this situation before,” Vitale remarked. “We continually invest in technological ‘quick fixes’ that fail to reform public health because they neglect the fundamental political and social elements that influence health, such as health policies, access to nutritious food, and safe housing.”
AI has the potential to perpetuate or worsen existing exploitation trends seen in the biopharmaceutical industry. The paper points out that the benefits of AI technology are predominantly reaped by wealthier nations, while low- to middle-income countries—often with weak regulatory frameworks—could be exploited for data collection or used as testing grounds for unproven, high-risk technologies.
The authors also predict that a lack of stringent regulation will likely continue to prioritize corporate intellectual property and profits over equal access to new health solutions. Consequently, as profit motives steer product development, AI companies might neglect the pressing health needs of the impoverished communities around the globe when deciding on research and development priorities.
Nonetheless, Vitale and Shipton did pinpoint some positive aspects. AI could bring meaningful change by focusing on enhancing healthcare systems. For example, AI could improve how resources are distributed among hospitals and streamline patient triage processes. Diagnostic tools might help general practitioners in rural areas, where specialists are scarce, by increasing their efficiency and capabilities. Moreover, AI could offer essential health services, like prenatal check-ups, in areas facing a lack of maternity care.
Such advancements could lead to improved healthcare access for underserved populations. However, this outcome is not guaranteed. Depending on how these technologies are applied, they could either effectively fill in gaps due to healthcare worker shortages or create instability and precarious jobs for existing workers in the sector. Unless the root issues behind shortages, such as burnout and the migration of skilled professionals to wealthier nations, are addressed, AI’s role in diagnosis or outbreak tracking may not be beneficial if communities are unable to take action.
To harness the advantages of AI while mitigating potential negative impacts, Vitale and Shipton stress the necessity for regulations to be established before AI’s further integration into healthcare. Appropriate safeguards could prevent AI from repeating past mistakes, ensuring future ventures align with public interests.
“AI presents us with a chance to improve how we govern new technologies,” Shipton explained. “However, we must establish a solid agenda and framework for the ethical governance of AI in healthcare, involving the World Health Organization, significant public-private health partnerships, and nations hosting tech firms like the United States, India, and China. Successful implementation will require ongoing advocacy from civil society.”
