The health care industry is increasingly recognizing artificial intelligence (AI) as an indispensable tool, utilized daily for various applications. However, the question of how and when to regulate this technology presents challenges that elicit diverse opinions from experts and lawmakers alike. Representative Arvind Venkat, D-Pittsburgh, an emergency room physician, has entered the fray with his proposed legislation, House Bill 1925, which was the focus of a three-hour hearing held by the House Communications and Technology committee on Monday.
Venkat stated, “This is a very different technology and a very different situation than other developments in health care, and the reason is threefold. AI is autonomous. It purports to approach human intelligence and is black box related to its reasoning.” He argued that as AI takes on diagnostic tasks traditionally reserved for physicians, it must be subject to regulation and accountability. He emphasized that the discourse is not about being “pro- or anti-AI.”
The hearing featured a wide array of stakeholders, including public interest representatives, insurance industry experts, information technologists, hospital administrators, and clinicians. This diverse group expressed a shared conviction that some form of legislation is necessary, given the lack of significant progress at both the federal and state levels.
Nonetheless, several participants raised concerns regarding the specifics of Venkat’s bill, indicating that while Pennsylvania may be leading in this initiative, extensive revisions and negotiations will be needed before the legislation can satisfy all parties involved. A central theme in the discussion was the importance of “keeping a human in the loop.” AI is being applied across a range of medical functions, from aiding in diagnostics to recording patient notes, all of which necessitate professional oversight before final decisions are reached.
This dynamic has prompted concerns from the insurance sector, where representatives from the attorney general’s office reported receiving complaints from patients who felt that AI systems denied their claims without any human review. These claims are often difficult to investigate, fostering skepticism regarding the industry’s willingness to adhere to existing regulations. Insurance Commissioner Michael Humphreys mentioned that providers currently expect any claim recommended for denial to be evaluated by a professional, noting that AI could expedite this process.
AI is also streamlining various healthcare processes. Dr. David Vega, senior vice president and chief medical officer at Wellspan Health, highlighted that the technology has allowed for thousands of hours of staff time to be redirected toward patient care. He pointed out that AI’s analysis of over 200,000 scans has saved 900 hours of delays, enabling quicker, life-saving interventions for more than 10,000 patients suffering from conditions like pulmonary embolisms or brain bleeds. “The marriage of human expertise with technology like AI is improving patient care and outcomes in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago,” Vega remarked.
Moreover, Vega noted that AI could serve as a creative solution to address the ongoing workforce shortage in healthcare. He emphasized that the technology has reclaimed 4,000 hours for human workers, asserting that this is “not about replacement.” Both physicians and nurses expressed optimism that AI could facilitate a return to patient-centered care by relieving them of administrative burdens that often divert their focus from patients to computer screens. However, there is apprehension that administrators might leverage AI primarily to drive profit and reduce costs.
Maureen May, president of the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, shared insights from a survey conducted among her organization’s members. “Health care workers are deeply concerned, profoundly distrustful, and almost entirely shut out of the decisions made out of AI at the bedside,” she stated, citing that 89% of respondents do not trust their employers to implement AI responsibly. This sentiment underlines the group’s advocacy for government regulation.
For legislators, navigating the balance between necessary regulation and the potential stifling of innovation remains a complex issue. Some worry that imposing rules on AI now could hinder future advancements, while others caution that a lack of regulation may lead to complications reminiscent of the unchecked power of social media platforms. J.B. Branch, an artificial intelligence policy expert at Public Citizen, characterized the situation as “buyer’s remorse,” noting that concerns surrounding AI transcend demographic and political lines.
In a related development, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order last week aiming to prevent states from enacting their own AI regulations. This topic was subsequently dropped from July’s budget resolution following pushback from congressional representatives. Committee chair Rep. Joe Ciresi, D-Royersford, expressed hope that while the federal government should act, states may need to take the lead. “There’s a lot of confusion in AI and a lot of non-trust,” he said, highlighting the urgent need for clarity and regulation in the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence in healthcare.
See also
Brazil Achieves Major Outcomes in BRICS Chairmanship, Tackles AI Regulation and Climate Financing
Moonshot AI Raises $500 Million, Delays IPO Plans Amid Strong Financial Position
Korea’s Venture Ecosystem Reforms for 2026: AI Growth, $7.4B Investment Surge, and New Policies
OpenAI’s GPT-5 Faces Pressure as AI Bubble Rumblings Intensify Ahead of 2026
