A lot of good can be done by extending "one size fits all" solutions for simple things there's just no capacity for
There are so pitifully few health care practitioners compared to what we need in most developed countries I don't think too many jobs are going to be at risk any time soon if AI picks up some of the slack.
Ironically it's probably easier to replace a lot of what doctors do with AI than what nurses do.
1. Go to a GP and explain symptoms 2. GP orders some tests based on symptoms 3. GP refers you to a specialist based on test results 4. Specialist orders more tests 5. Specialist analyzes results and orders more tests, or prescribes treatment plan 6. Check in with specialist in weeks or months to evaluate results and update treatment
It seems to me that for many common issues, 1-4 could plausibly be replaced by AI guided care with minor downsides.
If you are normally spending a lot of time waiting between steps for a practitioner to become available, then it's going to be a net win for many people.
For instance, if you read up on the frankly cruel residency process which doctors are forced to clear in the US, the insane hours are in large part because one of the doctors who was influential in shaping the current practice was an abuser of stimulants.
So I think it's a bit of a "just so" story to assume that the version of the medical profession we have is the best possible version.
And indeed Cuba is a good counter-example to your argument. Unless Cubans are just a lot more clever and resilient on average than Americans for example.
I.e. I don't need "Dr House" to tell me to take 2 and call him in the morning. There is a whole large swath of routine medicine which AI could probably do.
And I am happy if you and your family have been lucky to be blessed with good health and good care, but many people have experienced having a mysterious medical condition, and going to several doctors or waiting months before it can be properly diagnosed. Human medicine is far from perfect.
That is the artificial scarcity he was referring to.
There is no reason to lump all medicine together in a MD degree /certification.
Why not have one certification for each common problem?
90% of medicine is stuff like people going to the doctor with the flu to get a sick note to stay home from work and instructions to rest and drink fluids. I don't think you need an MD for that.
It goes the other way as well. My aunt is an RN and she loves to tell the story about the time that a doctor was in such a rush one time she had to call his attention to the fact that his patient was dead.
It seems to me the US healthcare system sits in this weird gap where it's not funded by private individuals, but it's also not publicly funded (excluding medicare/medicade/VA/tricare etc)
So it doesn't benefit from efficiencies of a single-payer system like the UK has, and it doesn't have to obey proper market forces either, since you have a bunch of for-profit entities in the middle, but the costs are obfuscated from the consumer unless you're unlucky enough not to have employer-funded health insurance.
So until you fix those core issues, I don't see how technological advancements are going to have much of an effect either positive or negative.
It's an orthogonal issue.
I mean arguably subsidizing med school would be a pretty sensible thing for a government to do if it wanted to increase the number of doctors. The other elements of the venn diagram can't be modified I agree, but affordability of med school doesn't have to be there
Things must really really bad for someone to defect to Brazil