ArticleNEJM AI2025
Catalyzing Health AI by Fixing Payment Systems.
Article in NEJM AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extending the Fundamental Theorem of Biomedical Informatics for the AI era.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Advances in In Vitro Diagnostics for Cholangiocarcinoma: From Biomarker Discovery to Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) across sectors, health care remains one of the least transformed domains. This stagnation is not due to lack of data, clinical need, or innovation, but rather to persistent regulatory and economic misalignment. Even AI tools cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that meet clinical efficacy standards often face major barriers to adoption, largely driven by outdated reimbursement frameworks and fragmented incentives among stakeholders. The result is a systemic failure to deploy technologies that could meaningfully reduce clinician workload, shorten wait times, and improve patient lives. In this article, we examine the reimbursement landscape for health AI, focusing first on tools that fit existing regulatory pathways, outlining payment barriers and proposing policy reforms. These include resolving Current Procedural Terminology adoption bottlenecks, addressing integration overhead, and aligning pricing models with AI cost structures. We then extend the discussion to the emerging domain of generative AI in health care, highlighting the urgent need for prospective regulatory frameworks to ensure patient benefits. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.).
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.