Preprint
AI Safety & Alignment

AI, Health, and Health Care Today and Tomorrow

Derek C. Angus(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Rohan Khera(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Tracy Lieu(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Vincent Liu(Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California), Faraz S. Ahmad(Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois), Brian Anderson(CHAI, Boston, Massachusetts), Sivasubramanium V. Bhavani(Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia), Andrew Bindman(Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California), Troyen Brennan(Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts), Leo Anthony Celi(MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Frederick Chen(American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois), I. Glenn Cohen(Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Alastair Denniston(University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom), Sanjay Desai(American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois), Peter Embí(Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee), Aldo Faisal(Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom), Kadija Ferryman(Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland), Jackie Gerhart(Epic, Verona, Wisconsin), Marielle Gross(Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland), Tina Hernandez-Boussard(Stanford University, Stanford, California), Michael Howell(Google, Mountain View, California), Kevin Johnson(University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), Kristine Lee(Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California), Xiaoxuan Liu(University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom), Kimberly Lomis(American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois), Alex John London(Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Christopher A. Longhurst(University of California, San Diego Health), Kenneth D. Mandl(Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts), Elizabeth McGlynn(Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California), Michelle M. Mello(Stanford University, Stanford, California), Fatima Munoz(San Ysidro Health, San Diego, California), Lucila Ohno-Machado(Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut), David Ouyang(Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California), Roy Perlis(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Adam Phillips(Apple, Cupertino, California), David Rhew(Microsoft, Redmond, Washington), Joseph S. Ross(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Suchi Saria(Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland), Lee Schwamm(Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut), Christopher W. Seymour(JAMA, Chicago, Illinois), Nigam H. Shah(Stanford University, Stanford, California), Rashmee Shah(Meta, Menlo Park, California), Karandeep Singh(University of California, San Diego), Matthew Solomon(Sutter Health, Sacramento, California), Kathryn Spates(The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois), Kayte Spector-Bagdady(University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor), Tommy Wang(Health Care and Organizational Economist, Palo Alto, California), Judy Wawira Gichoya(Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia), James Weinstein(Microsoft, Redmond, Washington), Jenna Wiens(University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo(Editor in Chief, JAMA and the JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois), , Gil Alterovitz(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Heather A Clancy(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Lindsay Dawson(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Matthew Diamond(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Erin C Holve(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Jeremy Kahn(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Yolande M Pengetnze(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Shiv Rao(for the JAMA Summit on AI), William H Shrank(for the JAMA Summit on AI), Cesar Termulo(for the JAMA Summit on AI)
November 11, 2025JAMA109 citations

109

Citations

3

Influential Citations

JAMA

Venue

2025

Year

Abstract

Importance Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing health and health care on an unprecedented scale. Though the potential benefits are massive, so are the risks. The JAMA Summit on AI discussed how health and health care AI should be developed, evaluated, regulated, disseminated, and monitored. Observations Health and health care AI is wide-ranging, including clinical tools (eg, sepsis alerts or diabetic retinopathy screening software), technologies used by individuals with health concerns (eg, mobile health apps), tools used by health care systems to improve business operations (eg, revenue cycle management or scheduling), and hybrid tools supporting both business operations (eg, documentation and billing) and clinical activities (eg, suggesting diagnoses or treatment plans). Many AI tools are already widely adopted, especially for medical imaging, mobile health, health care business operations, and hybrid functions like scribing outpatient visits. All these tools can have important health effects (good or bad), but these effects are often not quantified because evaluations are extremely challenging or not required, in part because many are outside the US Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory oversight. A major challenge in evaluation is that a tool’s effects are highly dependent on the human-computer interface, user training, and setting in which the tool is used. Numerous efforts lay out standards for the responsible use of AI, but most focus on monitoring for safety (eg, detection of model hallucinations) or institutional compliance with various process measures, and do not address effectiveness (ie, demonstration of improved outcomes). Ensuring AI is deployed equitably and in a manner that improves health outcomes or, if improving efficiency of health care delivery, does so safely, requires progress in 4 areas. First, multistakeholder engagement throughout the total product life cycle is needed. This effort would include greater partnership of end users with developers in initial tool creation and greater partnership of developers, regulators, and health care systems in the evaluation of tools as they are deployed. Second, measurement tools for evaluation and monitoring should be developed and disseminated. Beyond proposed monitoring and certification initiatives, this will require new methods and expertise to allow health care systems to conduct or participate in rapid, efficient, and robust evaluations of effectiveness. The third priority is creation of a nationally representative data infrastructure and learning environment to support the generation of generalizable knowledge about health effects of AI tools across different settings. Fourth, an incentive structure should be promoted, using market forces and policy levers, to drive these changes. Conclusions and Relevance AI will disrupt every part of health and health care delivery in the coming years. Given the many long-standing problems in health care, this disruption represents an incredible opportunity. However, the odds that this disruption will improve health for all will depend heavily on the creation of an ecosystem capable of rapid, efficient, robust, and generalizable knowledge about the consequences of these tools on health.

Analysis

Why This Paper Matters

This JAMA Summit paper is significant because it provides a high-level, multi-stakeholder perspective on the current state and future of AI in health care. It acknowledges both the immense potential and the substantial risks, and it moves beyond technical performance to focus on real-world effectiveness, equity, and safety. The paper is particularly timely as AI tools proliferate in clinical settings, often without rigorous evaluation of their impact on health outcomes.

The paper's emphasis on the need for a nationally representative data infrastructure and learning environment is a critical contribution. Without such infrastructure, it is impossible to generate generalizable knowledge about how AI tools perform across different populations and settings, which is essential for ensuring equitable benefits. The call for market and policy incentives to drive responsible AI development is also a practical step that could align commercial interests with patient welfare.

Technical Contributions

  • Taxonomy of AI tools: The paper categorizes AI in health care into clinical tools (e.g., sepsis alerts, diabetic retinopathy screening), consumer health technologies (e.g., mobile apps), business operations tools (e.g., revenue cycle management), and hybrid tools (e.g., scribing and billing).
  • Evaluation challenges: It identifies that AI tool effects are highly dependent on the human-computer interface, user training, and deployment setting, making standardized evaluation difficult.
  • Four priority areas: The paper proposes a framework with four pillars: multistakeholder engagement, measurement tools for evaluation, nationally representative data infrastructure, and incentive structures.
  • Regulatory gap: It notes that many AI tools are outside FDA oversight, leading to a lack of required effectiveness evaluations.

Results

The paper does not present new experimental results or quantitative metrics. Instead, it synthesizes observations from the JAMA Summit, noting that many AI tools are already widely adopted (e.g., in medical imaging, mobile health, and business operations) but that their health effects are often unquantified. The main outcome is a set of recommendations for creating an ecosystem that can generate rapid, robust, and generalizable knowledge about AI's health consequences.

Significance

This paper is significant for the AI and health care communities because it reframes the conversation from technical accuracy to real-world effectiveness and equity. It highlights that current monitoring efforts focus on safety and compliance, not on whether AI tools actually improve health outcomes. The call for a nationally representative data infrastructure and learning environment is a concrete step that could enable the field to move beyond anecdotal evidence and small-scale studies. If adopted, the recommendations could lead to more responsible AI deployment, better patient outcomes, and reduced health disparities.