Pay for cancer AI only when it has outcome evidence, then pay properly
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.
- AI that is built but not validated or deployed · Thousands of cancer AI models are published; a handful are in clinical use, and fewer have shown they help patients.
- Incentives reward me-too drugs and marginal gains · The system pays the same for a drug that adds two months as for a cure, so companies race to copy rather than to cure.
Pages like this
not linked directly; found by shared links- TechnologyMammography & tomosynthesis
Shares A dedicated fund for randomised trials of cancer AI with patient outcomes, AI that is built but not validated or deployed.
- CollectionFDA Oncology Approvals (OCE) & Novel Drug Approvals
Shares AI that is built but not validated or deployed, Incentives reward me-too drugs and marginal gains.