Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Call gets louder to license medical GenAI like any human healthcare professional


Call gets louder to license medical GenAI like any human healthcare professional

A growing chorus of academic physicians, policy experts and public health specialists is harmonizing behind the idea of licensing medical GenAI models like they’re doctors or nurses.

In November, UPenn hospitalist Eric Bressman, MD, MSHP, along with colleagues from Harvard, Brown and the University of Potsdam, published an opinion piece in JAMA Internal Medicine advancing the notion. 

“Amid uncertainty around the AI regulatory environment—as the current administration has signaled a lighter touch—there may be an opportunity to craft a more agile, forward-thinking approach for clinical AI,” the researchers wrote. “A licensure framework may help ensure that innovation scales with accountability and not ahead of it.”

Now comes a blog post by Julia Hinkley, JD, director of policy strategy at UPenn’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), building on the momentum. 

“Ideally, a new federal digital licensing board would oversee the framework,” Hinckley writes in the informal brief, published by the LDI Jan. 29. “But existing federal and state bodies could play important roles: “The FDA could retain its role in premarket assessments, preventing developers from needing to submit to 50 state licensing authorities.”

Hinkley also supports the previously floated idea of letting health systems with AI expertise function as “implementation centers.” 

Meanwhile state medical boards would supply continuing oversight, collaborating with or deferring to a federal coordinating body to harmonize standards. 

Clearly regulatory innovation is in order, Hinckley emphasizes.

And it’s not like there’s no precedent for such. 

“[C]oncerns about generative AI, such as hallucinations and performance drift, mirror worries from the late 19th century about quack remedies and variable clinician training,” she writes. “Licensure’s approach, combining practice standards with ongoing surveillance and education, can be adapted for AI regulation.”

Both the peer-reviewed paper and the succinct blogpost present a reader-friendly table showing parallels between clinician licensing and a potential future AI licensing structure. 

Hear out Bressman and co-authors here and/or Hinckley here.

Dave Pearson

Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.




Call gets louder to license medical GenAI like any human healthcare professional

WHY EVERYTHING GETS CHEAPER EXCEPT HEALTHCARE

WHY EVERYTHING GETS CHEAPER EXCEPT HEALTHCARE

There is a pattern hiding in plain sight.

Over the last half-century, the industries that have become cheaper all share one structural feature. Energy, agriculture, freight, telecom, finance. They all went through the same transition. They moved from opaque, intermediated, and administered pricing to open markets in which buyers and sellers meet directly and prices are set through competition.

The industries that got more expensive all share a different feature. Healthcare, education, housing. They never made that transition. Prices are set by negotiation, regulation, or administrative fiat. Buyers never see sellers. Sellers never see real demand. Middlemen sit between every transaction, extracting rent from the opacity.

This is not a coincidence.
It is the single most important structural fact about American healthcare.

Healthcare is expensive because it is pre-market.
Not because of greed.
Not because of complexity.
Not because of regulation.
Because it never underwent the transition that made every other industry cheaper.

That transition has a name.
It is called market formation.
It is the oldest documented economic structure in the Western world.


THE DUTCH INVENTED THIS

The Amsterdam Bourse opened as a commodity exchange in 1530. Merchants traded grain, herring, spices, and whale oil in the open. Prices are formed through competition, not negotiation. Buyers could see sellers. Sellers could see demand. Middlemen became optional.

By 1602, the Dutch East India Company launched the world’s first stock exchange on the same site. Futures contracts, forward pricing, and hedging all originated there. London copied the model in 1659. Every modern exchange on earth descends from it.

I know this because I come from the country that built it. My family’s roots trace to the Dutch commodity markets. This is not abstract theory to me. It is heritage.

The Chicago Board of Trade brought the same structure to American agriculture in 1848. Farmers and merchants could suddenly establish predictable prices, hedge against risk, and allocate resources to the crops and regions with the highest demand. Before the exchange, agricultural prices were local, opaque, and volatile. After the exchange, they became visible, comparable, and plannable.

Energy followed in the 1990s. Wholesale electricity markets replaced vertically integrated utilities with competitive exchanges. The results were messy. California botched its market design in 2000. Texas had its own disasters. However, the places that implemented market design correctly saw costs decline. Texas electricity prices dropped 17% below the national average after genuine competition took hold.

The lesson was the same every time.
Not that markets are perfect.
That market design matters.
And that the absence of a market is not neutral.
The absence of a market is a policy choice that benefits those who profit from opacity.


There are people who celebrate when drug prices drop 30%.
And there are people who ask why they were 300% too high in the first place. This is where the second group reads.


WHY EVERYTHING GETS CHEAPER EXCEPT HEALTHCARE