Loading
Health systems would pay for AI tools that have shown in trials that they help patients, and pay nothing for tools that have not, giving makers a reason to run the trials.
Reimbursement for AI is haphazard: a few tools have billing codes on weak evidence, most have none, so vendors sell on workflow rather than outcomes. The proposal is a payer policy: a temporary payment for AI under coverage with evidence development while a prospective trial runs, converting to durable payment if outcome evidence is positive and ending if not, with payment levels reflecting demonstrated value. Medicare's coverage decisions for a handful of AI devices are a starting point.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
Shares How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.