Will AI revolutionize healthcare? Will its application improve patient outcomes, ease the burden on clinicians, and help control costs? A few years ago, you could find many articles from professional services firms and other companies making that argument. Indeed, the global market for AI is expected to grow greatly. As is the case with all technology hype cycles, one might have expected things to settle down, followed by the publication of articles about why AI in healthcare wasn’t living up to its promise. But then along came generative AI and another round of thought leadership about how the new technology would change everything in healthcare.
That’s where we are today. We understand why companies are relentlessly upbeat about new technologies; it’s a way to get clients’ attention. At LEFF, we’re all for an enthusiastic tone in thought leadership. But we also think it’s important to respect your audience. That means bringing a balanced perspective to new subjects, assessing the opportunities as well as the challenges. So where does that leave us with respect to thought leadership about AI and healthcare today?
Show me, don’t tell me
Many healthcare organizations have already attempted to integrate AI into their operations, either in pilots or something grander. Among the best ways to build credibility in the marketplace is to apply one of your high school English teacher’s adages: Show me, don’t tell me. Use as many real-world examples of AI and healthcare as you can muster in your articles, both positive and negative ones. The more detail you can offer, the better. It shows you’ve done the work in the field and that many professional services firms have already served clients on the issue.
Give the reader examples of how a healthcare organization (sanitized as necessary) tried to apply generative AI and failed or didn’t achieve the results it expected. Was it lack of expertise? Change management issues? Much thought leadership across all subjects fails to cite cases in which corporate initiatives went off the rails.
Then offer examples of where it worked. We’ve all seen illustrative examples of AI’s ability to support physicians—such as by analyzing tests and more accurately diagnosing conditions—but you can also discuss the challenges an organization faced in getting there. That’s another place where thought leadership often falls short; readers are led to believe company executives waved a magic wand and everything fell into place.
If you don’t have enough experience to write about AI and healthcare, you could consider interviewing someone who does (a representative of a payer or provider) and publishing a Q&A. A rigorous survey of payers or providers is also useful.
Target your audience
Is your audience providers, payers, pharma, health services and tech companies, investors, or some combination or subset of these? There may be a place for a broad approach, but focusing your thought leadership on a narrower audience—even a handful of client leaders—is likely to produce a better return on investment.
It’s more than technology
There’s a case to be made for specialized articles or blog posts on the technical aspects of AI. It’s a way of demonstrating deep knowledge of the subject. But a longer report on AI should acknowledge that technology isn’t a magic bullet. Authors should also consider the people, processes, and culture parts of the equation.
Maintain an even keel
Every day seems to bring another solution or tech advancement, so prescriptive statements that try to predict the future should be avoided. Beware of bold proclamations that could easily be proved wrong in a matter of months.
Be up-front about AI-related risks
You don’t have to scare readers, but an honest account of the risks of employing AI in healthcare will build credibility.
Consider regulatory issues
Make sure to account for any federal, state, or local regulatory implications in your discussion of AI and healthcare, especially given the new presidential administration. Even acknowledging uncertainty about the direction of regulation is important.
Finally, a caveat that applies to all thought leadership: If you don’t have anything distinctive to say, don’t bother publishing.