There has been a constant effort in health care to use more information technology to improve care and outcomes. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are two of the recently heavily-promoted technologies and an article in the New England Journal of Medicine discusses their potential for medical uses. (NEJM Article) Both concepts have at their core the notion that computers are more capable than humans of taking vast amounts of data and teasing out new patterns. These machine learning programs basically create, test and constantly refine a model as new data is entered. The end point supposedly will be a situation where a computer basically tells a clinician what the best treatment for a patient is, or maybe we just eliminate the clinician. Obviously there are some critical assumptions in using machine learning. One is that all necessary data is available and that it is accurate. Good luck with that in health care. Another is that all health situations are not unique; that is that there are always patterns that are relevant to every patient; you just have to find them. For very complex cases, I am not sure that is an accurate assumption either. Some machine-learning use cases are more purely administrative, for example language translation, finding data in existing health records or turning recorded medical notes into written ones. But others are heavily clinical, intended to aid in diagnosis and treatment selection. On the one hand, clinicians make plenty of mistakes today relying on their own judgment and experience and existing information technology, so maybe computers won’t be any worse. On the other hand, caution in relying on computers would certainly be warranted based on past experiences (EHRs, for example, have definitely not provided the advantages proponents claimed they would) and most people might prefer mistakes made by a human as opposed to a machine. Another critical factor to consider is the cost of incorporating even more technology into health care processes. That cost is not just for hardware and software but more importantly for the impact of changing clinical workflows and data gathering. As we have seen with EHRs, the hassles associated with use may outweigh the benefits and lead to greater clinician job dissatisfaction.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
This is an outstanding report on total global drug spending and trends, with projections out to 2025. It helps you understand this important area of health care, which does much...
June 1, 2021
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
In an attempt to swiftly revive two floundering health care companies, a PE firm has announced the merger and recapitalization of Revive Health and SwiftMD. You know they are...
January 30, 2023
Investors have not yet learned their lesson, as Pearl Health gathers a new round of $75 million in capital for its business of supporting physicians who want to participate in...
January 30, 2023
Now here is a tale from the glory days of epidemic investing, as the Feds pumped trillions into the economy and a lot of it went to investing, some to...
January 10, 2023
Access ACO Care Management Chronic Disease Comparative Effectiveness Consumer Directed Health Consumers Devices Disease Management Drugs EHRs Elder Care End-of-Life Care FDA Financings Genomics Government Health Care Costs Health Care Quality Health Care Reform Health Insurance Health Insurance Exchange HIT HomeCare Hospital Hospital Readmissions Legislation M&A Malpractice Meaningful Use Medicaid Medical Care Medicare Medicare Advantage Mobile Pay For Performance Pharmaceutical Physicians Providers Regulation Repealing Reform Telehealth Telemedicine Wellness and Prevention Workplace