Friday, May 17, 2024

A leader for the AI skeptics

The ideas and innovators shaping health care
May 17, 2024 View in browser
 
Future Pulse

By Ruth Reader, Erin Schumaker, Carmen Paun and Daniel Payne

TECH MAZE

Cory Booker.

The AI skeptics have an ally in Booker. | AP Photo/Mel Evans

Artificial intelligence skeptics haven’t made much headway in getting Washington to slow the tech’s rollout in health care or regulate it more strictly.

But they have an ally in Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

Booker said this week he is worried lawmakers could make the same mistakes they did with social media in taking a laissez-faire approach. “Government did virtually nothing, nothing to protect against the ills and nothing to create standards and guidelines,” he said during a panel discussion hosted by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen in Washington.

The panel featured other skeptics, including representatives from the unions National Nurses United and the AFL-CIO, the AI Now Institute and George Washington University’s law school. Each panelist shared concerns about bias in algorithms and fear that technology will replace workers or unduly burden them.

Booker said he hoped a new AI roadmap from a bipartisan group of senators would push lawmakers to start considering AI legislation, even though the plan is vague about the need for new regulation.

Booker has sponsored two bills on AI, one to safeguard against bias in algorithms, backed only by Democrats, and a second bipartisan measure to stoke innovation in the field.

Why it matters: The health care industry is rapidly adopting AI tools to do everything from help manage workloads to diagnose patients. But many tools are unregulated and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf has said that others are evaluated using a system that doesn’t account for how the tools learn and evolve over time.

The private sector is moving to fill the regulatory void. A group called the Coalition for Health AI, which counts Google, Microsoft, Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic among its partners, plans to establish as early as this fall centers to vet AI tools — but small firms are worried they’ll be left out.

 

THE GOLD STANDARD OF HEALTHCARE POLICY REPORTING & INTELLIGENCE: POLITICO has more than 500 journalists delivering unrivaled reporting and illuminating the policy and regulatory landscape for those who need to know what’s next. Throughout the election and the legislative and regulatory pushes that will follow, POLITICO Pro is indispensable to those who need to make informed decisions fast. The Pro platform dives deeper into critical and quickly evolving sectors and industries, like healthcare, equipping policymakers and those who shape legislation and regulation with essential news and intelligence from the world’s best politics and policy journalists.

Our newsroom is deeper, more experienced and better sourced than any other. Our healthcare reporting team—including Alice Miranda Ollstein, Megan Messerly and Robert King—is embedded with the market-moving legislative committees and agencies in Washington and across states, delivering unparalleled coverage of health policy and the healthcare industry. We bring subscribers inside the conversations that determine policy outcomes and the future of industries, providing insight that cannot be found anywhere else. Get the premier news and policy intelligence service, SUBSCRIBE TO POLITICO PRO TODAY.

 
 
WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE

Dinosaur National Monument, Utah

Dinosaur National Monument, Utah | Shawn Zeller/POLITICO

This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.

Amid gang violence and political instability, riders deliver medicine on motorcycles at night to children in Haiti. A study funded by the National Institutes of Health aims to make the process more efficient by taking orders online, Science reports.

Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Daniel Payne at dpayne@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com.

Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.  

AROUND THE NATION

 Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont delivers the State of the State address.

Lamont says it's too soon to regulate AI. | Jessica Hill/AP Photo

State lawmakers who’ve proposed legislation to regulate artificial intelligence, including in health care, face fierce opposition.

Our Mallory Culhane examined the lobbying around bills in Connecticut and Colorado to bar AI systems from discriminating in health care and other services, and to require developers of high-risk systems to disclose known or foreseeable harms, like bias. That’s how AI discriminates because it was trained on bad data, a known problem in diagnostic tools.

The opposition in Connecticut, from consumer advocates who said the bill doesn’t go far enough and tech companies who said it would curtail innovation, successfully derailed the measure.

The state Senate passed the bill last month, and its prospects looked good until the state’s Democratic governor, Ned Lamont, said he’d veto it.

“It was just premature,” Lamont told Mallory. “We’ve got to let the entrepreneurs have a little room to run so we see where this can take us and be prepared when we have to rein something in.”

The Colorado legislature passed a similar bill earlier this month, but opponents are urging Democratic Gov. Jared Polis to veto it.

“My fear is that it will absolutely stifle innovation for small companies like mine,” said Kyle Shannon, the founder of Colorado-based company AI Salon.

Polis has until June 7 to decide. His press secretary, Shelby Wieman, told POLITICO that the governor hadn’t made up his mind.

Why it matters: Tech industry opponents of the Connecticut and Colorado bills made the case that AI regulation should come from Congress and to do otherwise would risk a patchwork of conflicting state rules, stifle innovation and create administrative headaches.

But Congress has only begun to think about its role. Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of senators led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer released a plan tasking agencies with letting lawmakers know whether they need more power to oversee the technology.

 

LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today.

 
 
WASHINGTON WATCH

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) speaks at a press conference.

Markey's no fan of private equity. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Image

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) hopes to protect patients from the private equity investors he says are more interested in profit than quality care.

But a coalition of doctors that shares that goal says Markey’s draft bill to crack down on the investors goes too far.

How’s that? The Coalition for Patient-Centered Care, which says it represents 7,000 doctors nationwide, objects to a provision in Markey’s Health over Wealth Act that would require for-profit corporations that own health care systems, including physician practices not owned by private equity firms, to report to Congress on their debt, leadership, political spending, assets purchased, real estate, mortgage and lease payments, payments to staffing firms, executive salaries and board membership.

“The reporting requirements for these groups, many of which are small practices with limited administrative resources, are onerous and will unnecessarily add to their already mounting operational costs,” the coalition wrote.

The group urged Markey to exempt doctor-owned practices from those rules.

In a statement to Future Pulse, Markey said he appreciated the coalition engaging with his draft, but did not directly address their concerns about the bill placing an undue burden on doctor-owned practices. Instead, he took a swing at private equity, which he said was "robbing public health to pay for corporate wealth."

"Their greed without guardrails is hurting patients and providers," Markey added.

Why it matters: Private equity firms are gobbling up doctors’ practices and hospitals at a rapid clip.

A report released last year from the American Antitrust Institute and other groups that favor stricter merger enforcement found that private equity acquisitions of doctors’ practices increased sixfold over a decade, from 75 to 484 deals between 2012 and 2021.

The report found private equity-backed medical groups are associated with higher health care prices, particularly if they control more than 30 percent of the regional market.

In addition to higher costs, private equity backing worsens patient care and working conditions for doctors, the doctors’ coalition argues.

Meanwhile, at the FTC: Chair Lina Khan has private equity in her crosshairs this year, but a federal judge in Texas recently threw out her case against one such firm: Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.

Khan had accused it of conspiring to drive up Texas prices for anesthesia after it started a practice group, U.S. Anesthesia Partners, then helped build it into a dominant player in Dallas and Houston. Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt ruled earlier this week that antitrust law didn’t cover investors with a minority stake.

The court is still considering the case against U.S. Anesthesia Partners.

Khan was unbowed in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

The FTC is “alarmed by studies showing that some private equity buyouts have resulted in not just higher prices but also a dramatic falloff in quality — in some cases resulting in higher mortality rates,” she said.

 

Follow us on Twitter

Carmen Paun @carmenpaun

Daniel Payne @_daniel_payne

Ruth Reader @RuthReader

Erin Schumaker @erinlschumaker

 

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Listen on Apple Podcast
 

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://login.politico.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings

This email was sent to edwardlorilla1986.paxforex@blogger.com by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

No comments:

Post a Comment

Can You Really Turn $10k Into $137k?

...