Not to be antagonistic, but a healthcare CIO in which country? This is very relevant because outside of the US, I think it is probably fair that most people who are most active on HN are from countries with public health care, and stronger consumer protection and privacy laws.

The healthcare outcomes are absolutely critical in evaluating the use and value of these tools, but there are second and third order effects from using the tools that need to be contextualized with the specific motivations of executives endorsing the tools.

> Not to be antagonistic, but a healthcare CIO in which country?

USA. I should have said that.

> and stronger consumer protection and privacy laws.

No, they may have stricter privacy laws outside of healthcare, but HIPAA is extremely strict and heavily enforced. In 2018 our legal team asked me if we were GDPR compliant if we accepted cash pay clients from Europe. I said from the healthcare side we're already adherent, and the department you'll have problems with is marketing because HIPAA already meets or exceeds GDPR rules. Same for CCPA in California.

I've been the legal Data Security and Privacy Officer in 5 healthcare orgs, I'm more scared of OIG and HHS than I am of the EU.

> specific motivations of executives endorsing the tools.

My job doesn't include profit motives, and I'm extremely strict. Privacy and regulatory compliance trumps profit ideas. Yes, this tool absolutely helps us not have to pay for human scribes, but we weren't going to employ them anyway. Human scribes are EXPENSIVE. Usually the alternative was a microcassette recorder, or a digital recorder that produced digital files. Then we'd have to send those files, securely, to a licensed medical transcriptionist, then ensure the recording is destroyer and the transcript comes back, and then the doctor uses that to chart. These tools mean we skip most of that, so it's faster, cheaper, and more secure. It IS good for business, but frankly, so is good patient care.