Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
AMA Seeks More Reliable AI Tools, Proposes Third-Party Verification
The American Medical Association has adopted a new policy that calls for clinical AI tools that can explain their answers. It also wants the AI purveyors to provide safety and efficacy data. To make AI explainable means that the AI should be able to cite sources or back up its decisions with data clinicians can review. The AMA adopted the policy at its annual house of delegates meeting in Chicago this week, and it calls for an independent third party — like a regulatory agency or other certifying body — to verify that AI tools are actually explainable. (Reader, 6/12)
In other health and pharma news —
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan said Thursday it has laid off nearly 220 nonunion staff members and eliminated more than 400 unfilled, nonunion positions. The cuts are part of a long-term, $600 million cost savings plan the insurer began in 2024 to reduce administrative expenses over three years. Last year, the company said it saved more than $200 million in administrative costs. (DeSilva, 6/12)
Medtronic announced Thursday that its new diabetes company will be called MiniMed. The move comes after the news on May 21 that the company intends to separate its diabetes business into a standalone company. The company said at the time that the decision would allow it to focus on high-margin growth markets. The diabetes business accounted for 8% of its $33.5 billion in revenue for fiscal 2025, which ended April 25. (Dubinsky, 6/12)
The collaboration boosts AstraZeneca’s presence in ChinaAstraZeneca said it entered into a strategic research collaboration with China’s CSPC Pharmaceuticals, focused on artificial intelligence-driven research, valued at up to $5.33 billion. The partnership aims to advance the discovery and development of novel oral candidates, with the potential to treat diseases across multiple indications, the British pharmaceutical giant said Friday. (Figueras, 6/13)
Systematic reviews, which involve pooling data from multiple studies and analyzing them together, are increasingly popular as a way to produce more authoritative conclusions than can be derived from the individual smaller papers. In recent weeks, systematic reviews have been used to justify policy around gender affirming care as well as in the MAHA report. (Oza, 6/12)
