[bradreaves2]

I figured this was “CEO said a thing” journalism [1], but buried in the last paragraph is a real scorcher:

> “Undeniable proof that confidently uninformed hospital administrators are a danger to patients: easily duped by AI companies that are nowhere near capable of providing patient care,” [Radiologist Dr.] Suhail told Radiology Business. “Any attempt to implement AI-only reads would immediately result in patient harm and death, and only someone with zero understanding of radiology would say something so naive. But in some sense, they’re correct: Hospitals are happy to cut costs even if it means patient harm, as long as it’s legal.”

[1] https://karlbode.com/ceo-said-a-thing-journalism/

[endymi0n]

Well, let's not forget the conflict of interest on the other side as well, of someone having invested decades of professional experience into a very lucrative field already getting obliterated by AI in some narrow fields.

Getting rid of radiologists is as much nonsense and saber rattling as suggesting using AI would harm patients.

The answer is clearly just the same as in software development or any other AI impacted field: Let the best professionals handle 10x+ the volume. What that means for all the rest of employees is the question of the century though...

[teeklp]

> Getting rid of radiologists is as much nonsense and saber rattling as suggesting using AI would harm patients.

Did a chatbot tell you that? What makes you think it is so?

[mountlatmus]

Well, let's not forget the conflict of interest on the other side as well, of some tech genai cuck having invested decades of professional experience into a very stochastic field where if they dupe enough hospital CEOs to harm their poor patients they may make enough money to afford to use the hospitals with real radiologists.

[compounding_it]

If hospitals are so concerned about cutting costs, getting sued is probably worse. However they are all insured against malpractice. I would be careful about insurers who could default if they find too many malpractice claims.

[Cthulhu_]

Isn't it also in the insurer's best interest that the hospitals do good work? They'd be another force against hospitals using AI to diagnose or misdiagnose people.

Of course, given that these are legal cases, it would take years for any consequences to be turned into actions.

[freejazz]

>If hospitals are so concerned about cutting costs, getting sued is probably worse.

That hasn't stopped them any other time they cut costs. Have you ever spoken to a nurse who works in a hospital?

[ricardobayes]

To be frank I'm more concerned about non-litiguous countries here as the potential downsides are much lower to roll-out "AI radiologists". Some of those countries have multi-month or even year-long waitlists for specialist consultations so it might even be more tempting from a healthcare management level.

[_dark_matter_]

For folks with long wait times, maybe the advantage of "immediate access to AI radiologist" beats out "wait for human radiologist"? Would be interesting to weigh those harms against each other.

[palmotea]

> For folks with long wait times, maybe the advantage of "immediate access to AI radiologist" beats out "wait for human radiologist"? Would be interesting to weigh those harms against each other.

The harm of getting surgery to get tissue removed due to a false positive seems a pretty big.

[Freedom2]

It's an interesting one. From some ex-colleagues, waits in the UK can be up to 5 years for a consultation, not to mention the actual procedure itself. When asked if they would rather use AI for a first initial screening, almost all of those colleagues immediately said yes.

[readthenotes1]

That sounds like something a baseball umpire would say.

[thefz]

Some hospitals having a CEO is an aberration