In recent months, there has been a significant shift in public perception of artificial intelligence due to the work of ChatGPT. This change has challenged previous beliefs about AI’s limitations and opened up new possibilities for the future. One area where technology’s rapid growth is expected to have a significant impact is the healthcare industry, but its success will depend on regulators’ willingness to embrace the future rather than holding onto outdated ideas.

A significant challenge in adopting new and revolutionary innovations is that people often struggle to understand their potential fully. Scottish inventor James Watt faced a similar challenge when introducing the steam engine in the 1760s. To market his product, he used the measurement of horsepower, claiming that his steam engine could replace 10 horses. This comparison allowed people to appreciate the machine’s power and spurred sales. However, this measurement remains in use today despite its outdated nature. Similarly, people often find it challenging to understand the potential of new and powerful technology and prefer to stick to what they know, hindering the full potential of future opportunities.

Unfortunately, this is often the case in healthcare regulation, where outdated 20th-century assumptions are applied to 21st-century innovations, leading to fatal consequences in some cases. Therefore, it is essential to embrace the future and new technologies to achieve maximum benefits for healthcare.

Here are three ways regulators can hinder progress by not keeping up with the times:

Underestimating the Value of Virtual Visits The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), established in 1973 to fight drug abuse, is now confronted with an opioid epidemic that kills over 100,000 people every year. Telehealth, which combines modern information technology with an effective form of addiction treatment, has been suggested by public health advocates as a solution to this crisis.

Thanks to the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) declaration, telehealth usage has surged during the pandemic. Regulators relaxed previous telemedicine restrictions, which allowed more patients to access medical services remotely and physicians to prescribe controlled substances such as buprenorphine via video visits.

Buprenorphine, a medication that produces slight euphoria, is a “Goldilocks” drug because it has just enough efficacy to prevent withdrawal without causing severe respiratory depression, overdose, or death. Research conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that buprenorphine improves drug-treatment program retention, and it has aided thousands of individuals in reclaiming their lives. However, drug officials are concerned that this opiate may be abused, and telemedicine prescribing may make it simpler for bad actors to sell buprenorphine on the black market. With the PHE declaration set to expire, the DEA has proposed limitations on telehealth prescribing of buprenorphine.

According to the proposed regulations, physicians would be allowed to prescribe a 30-day course of the medication via telehealth, but in-person visits with a doctor would be required for any refills. The agency believes that this will “prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”

The DEA’s belief that an in-person visit is safer and less corruptible than a virtual visit is outmoded and contradicts clinical research. An NIH study found that overdose deaths involving buprenorphine did not increase proportionally during the pandemic, for example. Additionally, a Harvard study found that telemedicine is as effective as in-person care for opioid use disorder.

Regulators must, of course, monitor the prescribing frequency of controlled substances and conduct audits to detect fraud. Furthermore, they should require prescribing physicians to receive appropriate training and document their patient-education efforts regarding medical risks. However, these requirements should apply to all clinicians, whether the patient is physically present or not, since abuses can occur just as readily in person as online.

The DEA must update its thinking to the 21st century because our nation’s outdated approach to addiction treatment is not working. Over 100,000 deaths each year demonstrate this fact.

Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, has the potential to revolutionize American life, including healthcare. The rate of progress in generative AI has been impressive, and it is predicted to transform medicine, giving patients greater access to medical information and control over their own health. However, regulators are concerned about the risks associated with this new technology.

Regulators, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), have expressed concerns about how generative AI, like ChatGPT, can either help or exacerbate the challenge of making informed health decisions. Despite these worries, attempts to regulate generative AI will likely be difficult due to the technology’s broad facilitation of information.

While U.S. regulators have evaluated hundreds of AI applications as medical devices or “digital therapeutics,” ChatGPT is different. It is not a narrowly focused clinical tool, and any user can type in a query and receive detailed medical advice in seconds. Regulators cannot evaluate the safety of how people use ChatGPT any more than they can regulate the safety of how people use the telephone.

Therefore, rather than trying to restrict its usage, government agencies should focus on educating Americans about the technology to ensure its safe use.

Doctors in the United States are required to apply for a medical license in each state where they want to practice medicine, even if they are already fully trained and board-certified. This practice dates back to the Bill of Rights in 1791 when the practice of medicine varied greatly by geography, and states were granted the right to license physicians through their state boards.

Despite the standardization of medical education and the requirement for all U.S. physicians to pass national medical exams, doctors are still restricted by state-based licensing regulations. This deprives patients in other states of their medical expertise and limits access to care. The high cost of licensing fees supports state medical boards and limits competition from out of state, which drives up prices. Outdated regulations prevent patients from improving their health, and they limit access to the best medical expertise.

The solution to these challenges is to allow all doctors in the U.S. to join a single care-delivery pool, rather than retaining 50 separate ones, which would enable economies of scale and improve healthcare quality, access, and affordability. Regulators must recognize the harm they are causing and catch up with the changing healthcare landscape.