Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities.

The use of data-driven technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) is growing in healthcare. However, the proliferation of healthcare AI tools has outpaced regulatory frameworks, accountability measures, and governance standards to ensure safe, effective, and equitable use. To address these gaps and tackle a common challenge faced by healthcare delivery organizations, a case-based workshop was organized, and a framework was developed to evaluate the potential impact of implementing an AI solution on health equity. The Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL) is co-designed with extensive engagement of clinical, operational, technical, and regulatory leaders across healthcare delivery organizations and ecosystem partners in the US. It assesses 5 equity assessment domains-accountability, fairness, fitness for purpose, reliability and validity, and transparency-across the span of eight key decision points in the AI adoption lifecycle. It is a process-oriented framework containing 37 step-by-step procedures for evaluating an existing AI solution and 34 procedures for evaluating a new AI solution in total. Within each procedure, it identifies relevant key stakeholders and data sources used to conduct the procedure. HEAAL guides how healthcare delivery organizations may mitigate the potential risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities. It also informs how much resources and support are required to assess the potential impact of AI solutions on health inequities.

Translating ethical and quality principles for the effective, safe and fair development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The complexity and rapid pace of development of algorithmic technologies pose challenges for their regulation and oversight in healthcare settings. We sought to improve our institution's approach to evaluation and governance of algorithmic technologies used in clinical care and operations by creating an Implementation Guide that standardizes evaluation criteria so that local oversight is performed in an objective fashion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Building on a framework that applies key ethical and quality principles (clinical value and safety, fairness and equity, usability and adoption, transparency and accountability, and regulatory compliance), we created concrete guidelines for evaluating algorithmic technologies at our institution. RESULTS: An Implementation Guide articulates evaluation criteria used during review of algorithmic technologies and details what evidence supports the implementation of ethical and quality principles for trustworthy health AI. Application of the processes described in the Implementation Guide can lead to algorithms that are safer as well as more effective, fair, and equitable upon implementation, as illustrated through 4 examples of technologies at different phases of the algorithmic lifecycle that underwent evaluation at our academic medical center. DISCUSSION: By providing clear descriptions/definitions of evaluation criteria and embedding them within standardized processes, we streamlined oversight processes and educated communities using and developing algorithmic technologies within our institution. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a scalable, adaptable framework for translating principles into evaluation criteria and specific requirements that support trustworthy implementation of algorithmic technologies in patient care and healthcare operations.

Assessment of Practices Affecting Racial and Ethnic COVID-19 Vaccination Equity in 10 Large US Cities.

CONTEXT: In the United States, COVID-19 vaccines have been unequally distributed between different racial and ethnic groups. Public reporting of race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 vaccination has the potential to help guide public health responses aimed at promoting vaccination equity. However, there is evidence that such data are not readily available. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess gaps and discrepancies in COVID-19 vaccination reporting in 10 large US cities in July 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For the 10 cities selected, we collected COVID-19 vaccination and population data using publicly available resources, such as state health department Web sites and the US Census Bureau American Community Survey. We examined vaccination plans and news sources to identify initial proposals and evidence of implementation of COVID-19 vaccination best practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We performed quantitative assessment of associations of the number of vaccination best practices implemented with COVID-19 racial and ethnic vaccination equity. We additionally assessed gaps and discrepancies in COVID-19 vaccination reporting between states. RESULTS: Our analysis did not show that COVID-19 vaccination inequity was associated with the number of vaccination best practices implemented. However, gaps and variation in reporting of racial and ethnic demographic vaccination data inhibited our ability to effectively assess whether vaccination programs were reaching minority populations. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of consistent public reporting and transparency of COVID-19 vaccination data has likely hindered public health responses by impeding the ability to track the effectiveness of strategies that target vaccine equity.

Social determinants of health data in solid organ transplantation: National data sources and future directions.

Health equity research in transplantation has largely relied on national data sources, yet the availability of social determinants of health (SDOH) data varies widely among these sources. We sought to characterize the extent to which national data sources contain SDOH data applicable to end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and transplant patients. We reviewed 10 active national data sources based in the United States. For each data source, we examined patient inclusion criteria and explored strengths and limitations regarding SDOH data, using the National Institutes of Health PhenX toolkit of SDOH as a data collection instrument. Of the 28 SDOH variables reviewed, eight-core demographic variables were included in ≥80% of the data sources, and seven variables that described elements of social status ranged between 30 and 60% inclusion. Variables regarding identity, healthcare access, and social need were poorly represented (≤20%) across the data sources, and five of these variables were included in none of the data sources. The results of our review highlight the need for improved SDOH data collection systems in ESOD and transplant patients via: enhanced inter-registry collaboration, incorporation of standardized SDOH variables into existing data sources, and transplant center and consortium-based investigation and innovation.

Preliminary results of a clinical research and innovation scholarship to prepare medical students to lead innovations in health care.

There is consensus amongst national organizations to integrate health innovation and augmented intelligence (AI) into medical education. However, there is scant evidence to guide policymakers and medical educators working to revise curricula. This study presents academic, operational, and domain understanding outcomes for the first three cohorts of participants in a clinical research and innovation scholarship program.

Barriers to Achieving Economies of Scale in Analysis of EHR Data. A Cautionary Tale.

Signed in 2009, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act infused $28 billion of federal funds to accelerate adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). Yet, EHRs have produced mixed results and have even raised concern that the current technology ecosystem stifles innovation. We describe the development process and report initial outcomes of a chronic kidney disease analytics application that identifies high-risk patients for nephrology referral. The cost to validate and integrate the analytics application into clinical workflow was $217,138. Despite the success of the program, redundant development and validation efforts will require $38.8 million to scale the application across all multihospital systems in the nation. We address the shortcomings of current technology investments and distill insights from the technology industry. To yield a return on technology investments, we propose policy changes that address the underlying issues now being imposed on the system by an ineffective technology business model.

The impact of specialty pharmaceuticals as drivers of health care costs.

The pharmaceutical industry is shifting its focus from blockbuster small molecules to specialty pharmaceuticals. Specialty pharmaceuticals are novel drugs and biologic agents that require special handling and ongoing monitoring, are administered by injection or infusion, and are sold in the marketplace by a small number of distributors. They are frequently identified by having a cost to payers and patients of $600 or more per treatment. The total costs of the new agents are likely to have a substantial impact on overall health care costs and on patients during the next decade, unless steps are taken to align competing interests. We examine the economic and policy issues related to specialty pharmaceuticals, taking care to consider the impact on patients. We assess the role of cost-sharing provisions, legislation that is promoting realignment within the market, the role of biosimilars in price competition, and the potential for novel drug development paradigms to help bend the cost curve. The economic aspects of this analysis highlight the need for a far-reaching discussion of potential novel approaches to innovation pathways in our quest for both affordability and new technology.