[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.