AI in Healthcare: Liability Gets Murky
AI is moving deeper into care delivery and hospital operations, from image interpretation to bed management. The upside is real, but so is the legal fog around fault when outcomes are poor.
Experts warn that patients may struggle to show where the fault lies if an AI system is involved. For providers, this creates operational and legal risks that demand deliberate planning, documentation, and ongoing oversight.
Why proving fault gets harder
Multiple actors are involved: clinicians, health systems, software vendors, and insurers. If a patient is harmed, each party may point elsewhere, backed by contracts that shift responsibility or trigger indemnification.
Proving a defect in design or use can be tough. Access to model internals may be limited, proposing a "reasonable alternative" design is nontrivial, and causation is contested when humans and software both influence decisions.
Courts can resolve disputes-slowly
Legal systems can sort this out, but it will take time and produce early inconsistencies. That delay increases costs for developers, hospitals, and insurers, and can chill adoption in high-risk clinical areas.
Evaluation gaps you should care about
Many tools fall outside active regulator oversight, and even cleared tools may not need to prove improved health outcomes. Performance can drift in real settings-different patients, workflows, and user skill levels.
Paradoxically, the most evaluated tools often see limited uptake, while widely adopted tools may be under-evaluated. Robust assessment is costly and often requires real clinical use, which demands funding and digital infrastructure.
FDA's AI/ML SaMD resources outline evolving expectations on pre- and post-market oversight.
What healthcare leaders can do now
- Map accountability: Name a clinical owner, a technical owner, and an executive sponsor for each model. Define who approves deployment, who monitors performance, and who can shut it down.
- Contract for transparency and safety: Require audit rights, access to logs, model/version provenance, change-control notifications, and documented intended use. Align liability caps to clinical risk and secure vendor product liability coverage and indemnity.
- Validate locally before going live: Run silent trials, compare against standard of care, pre-specify endpoints, and test in representative subpopulations. Check human factors and alert fatigue, not just AUC.
- Keep a human in the loop: Set thresholds for automation vs. recommendation, mandate second reads for high-stakes calls, and document overrides with rationale.
- Monitor in production: Track calibration, sensitivity/specificity, and equity metrics by site and population. Log near misses, review drifts, and require periodic re-approval.
- Document decision support: Store inputs, outputs, model version, and timestamps in the EHR. Good documentation protects patients and strengthens your legal position.
- Tune informed consent: Where appropriate, disclose AI assistance, known limitations, and clinician oversight. Make it clear that the clinician remains responsible for final decisions.
- Strengthen insurance: Confirm professional liability coverage extends to AI-assisted care. Require vendors to carry product liability and name your organization as additional insured where feasible.
- Stand up governance: Create an AI oversight committee to review use cases, approve deployments, maintain an algorithm inventory, and set standards for evaluation and decommissioning.
- Upskill your teams: Train clinicians, quality, and IT on model limits, safe use, and escalation paths. For structured learning paths, see AI courses by job.
Procurement checklist for AI tools
- Intended use clarity: Clinical tasks, populations, and settings explicitly defined.
- Evidence package: External validation, impact on outcomes, and failure modes.
- Data and bias: Training data provenance, representativeness, and bias testing results.
- MLOps readiness: Versioning, monitoring hooks, rollback plans, and support SLAs.
- Security and privacy: PHI handling, threat model, and third-party security attestations.
What to watch in regulation
Expect tighter expectations on change management for adaptive models, post-market surveillance, and real-world performance reporting. Keep an eye on regulator updates and major medical journals tracking clinical impact and policy debates.
For ongoing policy signals and peer-reviewed evidence, see JAMA Network and your specialty societies' guidance.
Bottom line
AI can help clinicians and systems, but it complicates fault and proof. Treat every deployment like a clinical intervention: define accountability, demand evidence, monitor relentlessly, and document decisions. That's how you protect patients-and your organization-while getting real value from AI.
Your membership also unlocks:
