AI In Healthcare: OpenAI vs. Anthropic And What It Means For Your Organization
AI priorities in healthcare are moving fast as OpenAI and Anthropic compete for traction. Both now have consumer-facing tools, but the bigger differences show up in how they support clinicians, researchers, and administrators.
Two Strategies, Two Buying Paths
On the consumer side, both companies offer search-style experiences, with OpenAI for Healthcare rolling out ChatGPT Health last month. That visibility matters, but it's not where most ROI sits for providers.
OpenAI has leaned into hospital operations. Systems like Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Baylor Scott & White, and Boston Children's are piloting OpenAI for Healthcare to cut administrative drag and speed throughput. Think intake, documentation, rev cycle, and care team workflows.
Anthropic is prioritizing clinical and research depth. Claude for Healthcare and Claude for Life Sciences are being used by Banner Health, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, among others-use cases span clinical reasoning support, literature synthesis, study design, and safety review.
Beyond The Big Two: New Entrants Are Scaling Fast
There's plenty of room for focused players. Medical information and decision support platform Open Evidence has surged from a $1B valuation at the start of 2025 to $12B in recent weeks, backed by agreements with the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Expect tighter links between evidence sources and point-of-care decision support.
Pharma's Playbook: Partnerships Over Build-Only
Drug makers are pairing domain expertise with AI infrastructure. Lilly is working with Nvidia via an innovation lab in South San Francisco to support discovery. GSK announced a partnership with Noetik to develop next-generation cancer therapeutics. For health systems and payers, the signal is clear: partnerships compress timelines and reduce technical debt.
What This Means For Providers And Payers
Whether you lean OpenAI, Anthropic, or both, the priority is safe deployment, clear guardrails, and measurable value. The tech is secondary to the operating model you build around it.
Action Checklist For 2025
- Define 3-5 specific use cases with hard metrics (minutes saved per note, denial rate reduction, days to schedule, time-to-answer for clinicians).
- Run dual-track pilots: one operational (e.g., intake, coding) and one clinical support (e.g., guideline summarization, discharge planning).
- Adopt a two-vendor strategy where it makes sense: OpenAI for throughput and admin load; Anthropic for clinical reasoning and research tasks.
- Lock down PHI workflows: de-identification, prompt logging, role-based access, and audit trails. Involve compliance from day one.
- Integrate into core systems (EHR, CRM, ticketing) rather than adding standalone tools. If it's not in the workflow, it won't stick.
- Create an evaluation playbook: safety tests, bias checks, hallucination rate, and a red-team process for new prompts and models.
- Upskill clinical and ops champions. A small, trained "automation guild" inside the org will 10x adoption and quality.
If you're building capability across OpenAI and Anthropic, here's a curated path to train cross-functional teams: AI courses by leading AI companies.
A Brief Note On Minneapolis
Recent unrest in Minneapolis is a reminder that community events hit healthcare operations-staffing, safety planning, and demand patterns can shift overnight. Keep contingency playbooks ready and align comms across clinical leadership, security, and local partners.
Bottom Line
OpenAI is winning pilots that remove friction in hospital operations. Anthropic is gaining ground with clinicians and researchers who need structured reasoning and evidence synthesis. Pick use cases that move core metrics, pilot fast with guardrails, and let results-not hype-decide your stack.
Your membership also unlocks:
