0
0
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been hailed as a transformative force in public health, with promises to streamline healthcare delivery, manage supply chains, monitor disease outbreaks, assist in diagnoses, and even reduce disparities in access to care. However, researchers are raising concerns that, without careful regulation and a focus on deeper structural issues, AI could follow the same patterns as previous technological innovations—offering limited benefits while exacerbating existing problems.
Recent research by UC Santa Cruz Politics Department doctoral candidate Lucia Vitale and University of British Columbia’s Leah Shipton casts a critical eye on the current trajectory of AI in healthcare. Their extensive literature review, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, warns that AI’s impact could be undermined by the very issues that have plagued past technological interventions: a focus on treating symptoms rather than addressing the root causes of health inequities.
The Promises and Pitfalls of AI in Public Health
Proponents of AI in healthcare envision a future where the technology helps address critical issues such as the shortage of healthcare workers, streamlines diagnostics, and monitors outbreaks more efficiently. AI tools could revolutionize patient triage, resource allocation in hospitals, and even offer remote care services in underserved regions. This vision is especially compelling for low- and middle-income countries, where AI might fill significant gaps in access to healthcare services.
However, Vitale and Shipton argue that the current approach to AI in healthcare is limited by a “politics of avoidance” that distracts from more fundamental issues. While AI can diagnose diseases or improve resource allocation, it often overlooks the broader social determinants of health—factors such as poverty, access to clean water, nutritious food, and safe housing. These determinants play a crucial role in shaping health outcomes, and without addressing them, AI-driven solutions may only offer temporary or superficial improvements.
“We’ve seen this pattern before,” said Vitale. “We keep investing in tech solutions that fail to address the deeply rooted social and political factors affecting health.”
The Risk of Widening Gaps and Exploitation
Another major concern is that AI could exacerbate existing patterns of harm and exploitation that have historically been common in industries like biopharmaceuticals. Ownership and profits from AI-driven health tools are currently concentrated in high-income countries. In contrast, low- to middle-income nations—often with weaker regulations—are vulnerable to data extraction and experimental deployment of AI technologies, sometimes without fully understanding the potential risks.
This concentration of power, the researchers argue, could continue the trend of prioritizing intellectual property rights and industry incentives over equitable access to healthcare. AI companies, driven by profit motives, may focus on innovations that serve high-income populations while ignoring the needs of the poorest, further entrenching global health disparities.
A Path Forward: Ethical Governance and Public Interest
Despite these concerns, Vitale and Shipton identify a potential silver lining: AI’s ability to improve the healthcare system itself. In particular, AI could help streamline processes in hospitals, enhance diagnostic capabilities, and offer basic health services in areas experiencing labor shortages. For instance, AI could be used to provide prenatal check-ups in regions suffering from a shortage of maternity care. Such applications could contribute to more equitable access to care, but the researchers caution that this outcome is far from guaranteed.
To maximize AI’s potential benefits and minimize its risks, Vitale and Shipton argue for strong regulatory frameworks. These frameworks should focus on ethical governance, ensuring that AI technologies are developed in ways that prioritize the public interest rather than corporate profits. The researchers emphasize the importance of international cooperation through bodies like the World Health Organization and public-private partnerships that fund healthcare interventions.
“AI presents an opportunity to correct the course of technology governance,” said Shipton. “But it will take a clear, ethical agenda and continued advocacy to ensure that AI health technologies truly serve the public good.”
As AI continues to shape the future of healthcare, experts and advocates stress that a cautious and inclusive approach is essential. Without addressing the underlying social and political determinants of health, AI may end up offering a shiny but ultimately hollow promise of progress.
