Alice is a 47 y/o female with a history of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and she’s been seen by different physicians under different health plans for this and other reasons.
Incredibly helpful perspective. Informs foundation of any digital health tool that purports to enable better patient health over time. How might we ensure this standard is embedded in tech solutions moving forward. What role could patient advocacy groups play in institutionalizing this in all emerging tech efforts involving patients tools and services?
It's been difficult, at least for me, to get advocacy groups representing patients or professionals to pay attention to the role of standards as a path to patient and professional agency. Even sophisticated advocacy groups fail to recognize how corporate interests steer regulation through standards by making sure that only standards that favor for-profit corporations are actually available to the regulators. With respect to AI as well as individual privacy, European governments are involved in creating de-facto standards through regulations in a way that US doesn't but their impact on healthcare or other domains where licensed fiduciaries are available is still almost nil.
Patient advocacy groups are neither implementers of standards nor regulators that can drive the implementers to create and adopt standards. One thing patient advocates can do is recognize that patient (and society) interest is aligned with the clinicians rather than the hospital corporations. Patient advocates should mount public and private appeals to physicians as the licensed prescribers that control health care to detach themselves from their corporate employers. If physicians insisted on using only technology that servers them and the patient _directly_ (without corporate gatekeeping) then a market for implementers of the relevant standards would emerge and regulators would also align. As long as physicians continue to align their interests with corporate administrators, the administrators will tailor the AI and other tools to serve their profit at the expense of patients and society.
Worth unpacking!
Incredibly helpful perspective. Informs foundation of any digital health tool that purports to enable better patient health over time. How might we ensure this standard is embedded in tech solutions moving forward. What role could patient advocacy groups play in institutionalizing this in all emerging tech efforts involving patients tools and services?
It's been difficult, at least for me, to get advocacy groups representing patients or professionals to pay attention to the role of standards as a path to patient and professional agency. Even sophisticated advocacy groups fail to recognize how corporate interests steer regulation through standards by making sure that only standards that favor for-profit corporations are actually available to the regulators. With respect to AI as well as individual privacy, European governments are involved in creating de-facto standards through regulations in a way that US doesn't but their impact on healthcare or other domains where licensed fiduciaries are available is still almost nil.
Patient advocacy groups are neither implementers of standards nor regulators that can drive the implementers to create and adopt standards. One thing patient advocates can do is recognize that patient (and society) interest is aligned with the clinicians rather than the hospital corporations. Patient advocates should mount public and private appeals to physicians as the licensed prescribers that control health care to detach themselves from their corporate employers. If physicians insisted on using only technology that servers them and the patient _directly_ (without corporate gatekeeping) then a market for implementers of the relevant standards would emerge and regulators would also align. As long as physicians continue to align their interests with corporate administrators, the administrators will tailor the AI and other tools to serve their profit at the expense of patients and society.