Are we truly striking the right balance between innovation, safety, equity and trust as our health systems rapidly evolve? This question was at the heart of two days of inspiring discussion at the recent Health Transformation Summit in Amsterdam (with thanks to HLTH, World Economic Forum and BCG).

Whilst there has been lots of discussion about the areas on which delegates aligned, one of my big take homes was the many areas in which clear differences of opinion emerged, showing that, across the global stage, there are still significant areas where culture, policy (and frankly politics) play an enormous role in the uptake of digital and connected health solutions.

Some of these areas were:

  • The Pace and Scope of Digital Transformation: While digitisation and AI integration are widely embraced in concept, many shared concerns regarding the real-world safety and impact of advanced technologies like large language models (LLMs). The importance of robust clinical evidence and the need to avoid overhyping these tools without a strong evidence base was clear.
    ‍
  • Regulatory Oversight: It was fascinating to see the differing perceptions on regulation, including hearing from some of the world’s leading regulators. There was a clear differential between those who see AI and advanced digital technologies as just another innovation in the waves of innovation that regulators have always had to deal with, and those who believe these types of technologies need their own (or minimal) regulation. The comment which resounded the most with me, however, was the one which noted that during the gap between the deployment of these technologies and the regulation of them (if they go to market without regulation), that there is a risk of significant patient harm. In my mind this also begets the question – Are our regulators adequately funded and resourced to keep up with technology?
    ‍
  • Equity and Patient Empowerment: Whilst the empowered patient may very well be the blockbuster to end all blockbusters, we must be vigilant to ensure that digital tools don’t exacerbate health inequities. All players, innovators, policy makers, regulators and payers need to be highly sensitive to the risks that these technologies, which can solve so many problems, are not built on inherently biased data sets. We also need to be vigilant in recognising that many underserved populations don’t have access to the hardware, the digital literacy and the connectivity required to fully embrace these technologies.
    ‍
  • Funding and Commercial Models: As always the question of who pays and the shift toward alternative funding – such as greater involvement from private payers and employers – sparked lively debate. The reality is, that in the absence of payment reform, digital health technologies will continue to struggle to achieve widespread uptake especially in areas of greatest need, including women's health, First Nation health and mental health.
    ‍
  • Clinical Evidence and Outcomes: The need for rigorous, evidence-based evaluation was universally accepted, stressing that innovations should demonstrate clear clinical benefits before wide scale adoption. We have since seen evidence of the focus on manufacturers/developers being responsible for outcomes with MHRA’s requirement that AI Scribes be regulated as medical devices, shifting liability from the Healthcare provider to the Software Manufacturer.
    ‍
  • Data Privacy, Consent and Trust: I was fortunate enough to chair and summarise a round table that selected these issues for discussion.  The expansion of digital health records and seamless data sharing through the summit sparked debates about privacy, consent, and governance. Whilst publicly funded research relies on the premise that the public good outweighs the privacy and consent rights of individuals, many consumer studies reflect consumer views that consumers strongly prefer case- by case consent models. Striking a balance between the public good and the rights of individuals remains an area of tension. And whilst the public good of free moving data for research purposes is well understood, where does research end and development and commercialisation begin?

If one puts a future forward hat on, we, as the health and care industry as a whole, also need to contemplate the fact that some of the most valuable insights occur outside of the health and care system, and that is data that we cannot access without consumer buy-in. As an industry we have an infinite desire for access to data but consumer sensitivities in terms of consent remain…. Which begets the question, should we be over-indexing on consumer consent and education now, so that we can access the holistic data in the future? Or should we be using the data we can access now and hoping consumer attitudes change in the future?

Through the day, the overarching themes underscored both the promise and the complexity of transforming healthcare. So, as an industry, we need to ensure that we champion innovation that is safe, equitable, and worthy of public trust and that, in all things, we respect the rights and values of the patient/consumer.

‍

Bronwyn attended the HLTH Europe Health Transformation Summit on behalf of the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), as Chair of the NHMRC-MRFF Industry, Philanthropy and Commercialisation Committee.