ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Pricing models for diagnostic AI based on qualitative insights from healthcare decision makers.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI-enabled diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) could improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, yet adoption is often impeded by pricing approaches that rely on opaque technical usage metrics. We examined how pricing can remain clinically legible and budgetable while accounting for AI-specific technical and organizational cost drivers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with healthcare decision makers (n = 17) across hospital, outpatient, laboratory, and industry settings and conducted a deductive-inductive thematic analysis. Ten themes emerged, including widespread resistance to purely usage-based pricing and strong preferences for transparency and predictability. Participants supported hybrid models combining a base fee with variable components defined in clinically meaningful units (per patient, per test, or per episode) and emphasized reimbursement alignment alongside integration, training, and support as integral value elements. Outcome-linked payment was viewed as ethically compelling but operationally difficult. We synthesize these findings into stakeholder-informed design principles and actionable recommendations for pricing models that facilitate procurement, reimbursement fit, and sustainable scaling of diagnostic AI.
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.