1. The patients, it could be argued, are the rightful owners of any data created from their bodies, Rowell and Sebro suggest. Cells, images, demographics, patient outcomes – “if that data is used to build a lucrative AI system, it’s safe to say that that data has value.” After:
It can be further argued that the patients to whom this data belongs should receive compensation for the use of their data in the development of these lucrative AI systems.
Extending the IA patient puzzle to the perspective of family members, the authors present the case of Miss Henrietta. The HeLa cell line derived from Henrietta’s tumor “has proven to be seminal in the field of cancer research,” they note, adding that the line was created using her cervical cancer cells from the womb” without her permission or even her knowledge. Neither she nor her family benefited from the launch of this first immortalized cell line.
Can the same be said of patients whose data is used to train AI systems? »
2. Health professionals must care for a patient, diagnose a disease or condition, order tests or imaging, interpret those tests, communicate the results to the patient, and enter the data into a system where it can be referenced later to create reporting systems. ‘IA, underline the authors. “Therefore, during regular clinical care, healthcare professionals create an asset (data) that has value.” After:
It takes healthcare professionals with years of training, knowledge and expertise to help train healthcare AI systems by annotating which patient data correlates with which disease, condition or outcome. interest. Additionally, healthcare professionals are also actively creating annotations or diagnostics to be used to train and validate AI systems. This process can be time consuming for medical professionals who are experts in their respective fields.
3. Health systems invest in the infrastructure used to build AI systems. This includes laboratories, data storage facilities, and EHR hardware and software. Healthcare systems “must also bear other costs such as penalties associated with any data breach”.
Since healthcare systems host and store data from AI systems, they can also claim ownership of the data. Healthcare systems may also develop AI systems and decision support systems in-house, and therefore may have financial rights to these systems.
4. Health insurance companies store patient data and healthcare professional data to meet their business needs. These companies claim ownership of the data “because they indirectly invest in the infrastructure needed to create data used by healthcare AI systems.
Private health insurers can also create, develop and maintain AI systems and therefore may have financial rights to these systems. As data has become a new commodity, the health insurance company’s claim to patients’ private health information can prove lucrative.
5. US taxpayers contribute to the budget of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which send patient data to large databases used for AI research. These large databases “are the result of millions of dollars in payments by American taxpayers,” note Rowell and Sebro.
It can be argued that data and data-derived products from these databases should be made freely available to the American public because they were funded by American taxpayers.
6. AI companies build healthcare AI systems, spend capital to get data, pay developers, market and maintain their software and hardware, the authors say.
For these reasons, AI companies also have ownership claims over AI systems. AI companies usually have software license agreements that state that the licensor (AI company) owns the AI system. »
seven. AI developers “contribute strongly to the development of an algorithm that, in many cases, can operate for long periods of time to generate revenue for the software company through sales to health systems.”
It seems that software companies will benefit the most financially from the revolution that AI promises to bring. How this potential revenue would be distributed through these software companies to software developers and shareholders is an entirely separate matter, although one imagines that the shareholders of these companies would certainly benefit.