Skip to content
MarketScale
‹ Back to IndustriesHealthcare

Navigating AI Malpractice in Healthcare: Balancing Revolutionary Benefits and Growing Concerns

As the saying goes, “To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.” This proverb rings truer than ever in the age of AI healthcare, where the potential for mistakes is groundbreaking and concerning.  Since the rise of ChatGPT and similar AI platforms, healthcare has been buzzing with the potential of…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Healthcare teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.

Share

Get featured

Want to get featured in MarketScale Healthcare?

Create a free MarketScale workspace and get your company's expertise featured across our Healthcare coverage. No credit card, no demo required.

Start free

As the saying goes, “To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer.” This proverb rings truer than ever in the age of AI healthcare, where the potential for mistakes is groundbreaking and concerning. Since the rise of ChatGPT and similar AI platforms, healthcare has been buzzing with the potential of AI to revolutionize diagnoses, cut waiting times, and provide remote consultations. But with great power comes great responsibility, and cases of AI misdiagnoses and improper medical advice have already raised red flags. Are we truly prepared to entrust our health to AI, and if things go south, who will be held accountable for AI malpractice in healthcare?

While AI innovations like ChatGPT and Google’s chatbot-integrated search feature hold promise for improving healthcare, concerns around the quality and reliability of AI-generated medical advice are growing. A notable example was when Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician, tested ChatGPT and discovered that the sources cited by the AI did not even exist. Calls for the implementation of minimum standards for AI technologies in healthcare are becoming louder, but the question of responsibility for AI malpractice in healthcare remains unanswered.

Liudmila Schafer, MD, FAC, Medical Oncologist at The Doctor Connect, delves into the double-edged sword of AI in healthcare, emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between its potential benefits and pitfalls.

Liudmila’s Thoughts:

“Artificial Intelligence has been invading the healthcare system for a while. AI has the potential to be both helpful and dangerous, and it depends on us how we develop, deploy and regulate it. 

On the bright side, AI in healthcare can be helpful. For example, we could use artificial intelligence tools and combine the skills of health and wellness coaches and motivational speakers with healthcare professionals such as board-certified physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers to facilitate better coordination and collaboration in patient care. In the US, a federal rule was implemented to mandate Clinical notes to be shared with patients. 

In many circumstances, patients can’t even understand the doctor’s notes, and by reading them, patients get nervous and anxious and put themselves at risk trying to figure out what to do. AI could help to convert complex medical terminology to layman terminology. But patients are still reluctant to trust AI and want explanations from human doctors.

Artificial intelligence also could help to improve the interpretation and diagnosis of medical images. How can AI be dangerous? Currently, physicians and healthcare practitioners spend a significant amount of time dealing with technology. It requires up to 50 computer clicks necessary to place a single treatment order for one patient.

It increases the time the physicians spend with the computer and decreases the time with the patients, which decreases patient satisfaction and increased physician burnout. 

AI systems may store sensitive patient data, which can be vulnerable to hacking or other security bridges. AI can be biased, resulting in patients being misdiagnosed, and receiving less effective, or even ineffective treatment advice.

Who will be responsible? Even the AI system that is used makes a mistake and inappropriate diagnosis and treatment advice. Who will be responsible if ChatGPT delivers information that is malpractice, and who will correct it? It is essential to carefully consider the risks and benefits of AI in healthcare to ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly to protect our safety and privacy.

Stay tuned as we discuss more on AI breakthroughs in the healthcare industry.

Article written by: Azam Saghir

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Healthcare starts with a company putting its clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Service-line buyers vet vendors quietly, and your clinicians become the proof they find while doing it.

Get your team featuredSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

Follow Healthcare Insights

Get new expert content in your inbox.

Healthcare: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Healthcare buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. Explore how your experts, customers, and partners can become useful content for buyers and AI search.

Free plan

You just read one Healthcare expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers into the articles, video, and social content Healthcare buyers are searching for. Create a free workspace and see it with your own people. No credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What you get, free

Your own MarketScale workspace, up to 10 people
One professional video edit a month for qualifying companies
Media requests to your crowd, remote recording, AI writing tools
$0, no credit card, nothing that expires

More Healthcare Insights

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are choosing alliances over mergers, per a July McDermott Will & Schulte analysis and four July deals tracked by Becker's Hospital Review. St. Christopher's, Nemours, Jefferson and Temple signed a nonbinding alliance letter; Palomar UC San Diego Health launched July 1. Ownership stays put; governance, purchasing and outpatient investment absorb the change.

  • 01In an alliance, the contract does the integrating that an org chart does in a merger: McDermott Will & Schulte says governance design, exclusivity, antitrust review, community commitments and exit rights all have to be settled before signing.
  • 02Purchasing is now explicitly on the table in at least one no-ownership deal, the St. Peter's Health and Billings Clinic-Logan Health talks in Montana, which means shared supply contracts can arrive without a change of control.

Sep 19, 2026

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

An Ophthalmology Times commentary by T.Y. Alvin Liu, Ferdinand Hui and Phillip Phan sorts eye patients into three telemedicine tiers by clinical need. Patients needing regular OCT scans benefit less unless a home device can send the image. Video tools already sit inside Epic and Cerner; the deciding purchase for retina clinics is the imaging device in the patient's living room.

  • 01The dividing line for eye telemedicine is imaging, not video: patients who need regular OCT scans benefit less from remote visits unless a device at home can send the scan, so a video license alone shifts few of those encounters.
  • 02The provider-side requirement, a HIPAA-compliant secured video platform, was already built into Epic and Cerner by 2020; the patient-side requirements (1.5 MB up and down bandwidth, a quiet private room, comfort with the technology) sit outside the health system's control and are the ones worth screening for at scheduling.
  • 03Self-administered home color fundus photography for tracking non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy was named as the nearer route into retina telemedicine; home OCT for wet AMD is the harder gate and the device to watch.

Sep 19, 2026

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Wolters Kluwer Health argues value-based care software is judged on whether customers hit incentive thresholds and avoid penalties. A Fierce Healthcare-reported survey it cites puts value-based care at a quarter or more of revenue for 30% of organizations. The analysis is a vendor publication that ends by pitching its own UpToDate Connect API.

  • 01The sharper question for any population health or care coordination platform is whether it changes what a clinician does at the moment of decision, or only reports afterward what happened. Wolters Kluwer's reading of the evidence is that many platforms still struggle with the first.
  • 02Vendors selling into value-based contracts now face a build-or-license decision on clinical content, because Wolters Kluwer names current, trusted content, consistent clinician adoption across sites, and a traceable link from guidance to quality metrics as the three hard problems.

Sep 18, 2026

Explore More Healthcare Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Healthcare.

Browse Healthcare Hub

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Healthcare and beyond.

Book a 15-minute demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512