Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

GenAI will save lives—if properly applied

Opinion

GenAI will save lives—if properly applied

A medical professional and the word "AI".

Getty Images, Toowongsa Anurak

In medicine, rare moments arise when technological breakthroughs and shifts in leadership create an opportunity for sweeping change. The United States now stands at that crossroad.

A major advance in artificial intelligence, combined with a shake-up at the highest levels of federal healthcare leadership, has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives, make medical care affordable and ease the burnout crisis among doctors and nurses.


But there’s a risk this potential will go unrealized. The newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Marty Makary, the incoming head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must move swiftly to capitalize on what U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance recently called, “One of the most promising technologies we have seen in generations.”

A breakthrough in AI development

For the first time, generative AI isn’t solely the domain of billion-dollar companies. Instead, entrepreneurial and midsize companies can build tools for patients without having to raise massive amounts of capital.

A new generative AI model, DeepSeek-V3, recently emerged from China, and unlike models built by OpenAI, Google or Anthropic, it wasn’t developed with billions of dollars in funding. Reportedly developed for less than $6 million, DeepSeek used a technique called “knowledge distillation” that allows GenAI applications to learn from existing models faster, cheaper and with greater efficiency.

While DeepSeek is free to use for Americans, there are serious concerns about data retention policies and privacy issues for data stored on servers in China. However, the biggest advance won’t derive from the use of DeepSeek in America but from the rapid advancement of American Open-source AI packages. This means any company, researcher or startup will soon be able to access and refine it to build tools for patients. If RFK Jr. and Makary act quickly, they can unlock AI’s full potential before red tape strangles it.

But where will innovative companies find the biggest opportunity to save lives and make medical care affordable?

America is currently mired in an urgent and worsening crisis of chronic disease, which affects 60% of Americans and drives 70% of healthcare costs. Right now, most chronic diseases are poorly managed. Hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure remain uncontrolled in at least 40% of U.S. cases, leading to millions of avoidable strokes, heart attacks, kidney failures and cancers each year. According to CDC estimates, effective control of these conditions would prevent 30–50% of these life-threatening events.

The future is here and now

Rather than spending hundreds of millions to build large language models from scratch, healthcare startups will be able to create their own generative AI tools at a fraction of the cost. But unlike today’s broad AI applications, which answer general medical questions, this next generation of generative AI will be different. It will be hyper-specialized, trained on massive amounts of existing (but largely unused) patient data to monitor and manage these chronic diseases.

Right now, 97% of hospital bedside monitor data is discarded, never analyzed to improve patient care. Similarly, today’s GenAI models have never been trained on millions of hours of recorded medical call center conversations and chronic disease management check-ins that provide medical advice and offer personalized care recommendations.

Here’s how it could work: For a newly diagnosed patient with diabetes or hypertension, GenAI-enabled wearable monitors would continuously track blood sugar or blood pressure, analyzing fluctuations in real time. And for patients, instead of waiting four months for a routine follow-up visit, the new AI system would identify poor chronic disease control months earlier, provide timely medical advice and flag issues for clinicians when medication adjustments are needed—all for an estimated cost of less than $9 per hour.

For heart failure patients, GenAI-driven monitoring tools would assess daily clinical status, detecting subtle signs of deterioration before a full-blown crisis occurs. Instead of being rushed to the hospital two days later when they can’t breathe, patients and their doctors would receive early alerts, allowing for immediate intervention and eliminating the need for hospitalization.

These disease-specific GenAI agents won’t replace doctors. They’ll fill the gaps between office visits, identify patients at risk, and provide continuous and data-driven care, lowering costs and decreasing daily demands on clinicians.

The FDA must modernize its approach to AI in medicine

Despite AI’s potential to save lives and lower healthcare costs, outdated FDA regulations threaten to stall these innovations before they can reach patients.

The agency has long treated AI like a traditional drug or medical device, demanding information on the data sources and expecting years-long clinical trials. This isn’t how GenAI operates. Unlike pharmaceuticals that keep the same chemical structure, GenAI systems continuously learn and improve—a process driven by the application itself.

RFK Jr. and Makary have a rare opportunity to fix the burdensome regulatory process and lower the barriers to implementation. While Kennedy’s stance on vaccines has drawn criticism, his stated commitment to public health and tackling chronic disease aligns with what GenAI can achieve. Meanwhile, Makary has built a reputation for patient safety and challenging outdated medical policies. He is likely to recognize the value GenAI provides for patients.

A new AI approval framework

Rather than forcing GenAI-driven disease management programs to fit into an antiquated approval model, HHS and the FDA should encourage the development of these programs and fast-track implementation by:

  • Prioritizing GenAI applications that focus on diabetes, hypertension, heart failure and similarly high-impact chronic diseases.
  • Comparing GenAI-driven programs to existing clinician-led models rather than some hypothetically perfect model. When GenAI-powered disease management tools can outperform humans by at least 10% in advice quality, successful disease control and patient satisfaction, they should be given FDA approval.

As U.S. life expectancy remains stagnant, and over half the population can’t afford medical care, the window for action is narrowing. RFK Jr. and Makary must act now to modernize the approach the HHS and FDA take to GenAI. If not, bureaucratic inertia will lock American medicine in the past.


Dr. Robert Pearl is a Stanford University professor, Forbes contributor, bestselling author, and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less