Healthcare AI has moved from pilot projects into routine clinical care and the payments around it. The rules meant to govern it have not kept pace.
In a recent article, PYMNTS examined how AI now runs through scheduling, drug dispensing, patient communications, and diagnostic decisions. The piece drew on an analysis by Alaap B. Shah, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green and co-leader of the firm’s AI Cross-Practice Working Group.
Adoption has outrun the oversight built for it. The FDA is expanding its review of AI tools that influence clinical decisions, while California, Colorado, Utah, and others have passed or proposed their own measures. Firms operating across state lines now face a patchwork with no federal standard to anchor it.
Shah points to vendor contracts as where liability is decided. When an AI tool causes an error, the contract language determines who pays, so health systems now press for indemnification, audit rights, and notice of model changes. The same exposure reaches the lenders, insurers, and payment companies tied to healthcare.
Get in Touch
To discuss this perspective, contact Alaap B. Shah at abshah@ebglaw.com.
