If you factor in these statistics, it can begin to make sense why AI is getting so much hype and “news-space”. The author relates it to the idea of impeding “government regulation” – but it is critical to understand that healthcare can’t be beholden to the crazy idea of “move fast, break things” philosophy. It is a tempting idea, but it has the potential to cost human lives, and that’s why the onerous requirement for compliance (and paperwork). That’s why the costs accrued for newer trials, but that’s a fraction of the marketing spend for the new shiny mab. Since we don’t have our priorities right for the “greater common good”, we shout from our ivory towers instead. Stagnation makes sense from a perspective of “silicon valley” for example, where user data and privacy diktats are “less severe” but more bound for healthcare.
That’s why I often find it amusing when VC’s crow about “improvement” in access (frictionless or seamless), as they describe it. No one has taken a stab at improving the delivery, and that remains the greatest impediment to improving satisfaction rates.
It is a recommended read even though it’s not as comprehensive as I’d like it to be.