The trial lawyer angle doesn't seem accurate. Did trial lawyers prevent pregnancy tests from rolling out? COVID tests? Or any other automatic diagnostic, as long as it was reasonably accurate?
Not as far as I know. Once an automated diagnostic is reasonably accurate, it replaces humans doing the work manually. The same would be true of anything else that can be automatically detected.
No comment on whether radiology is close to that yet, although I don't think a few-million-param neural network would tell us much one way or another.
Are you aware of any states in the US that have made it harder to sue doctors for malpractice?
My point, which I made poorly, is this: There's a reason doctors that went to medical school in India and trained as Radiologists in India can't read US cases remotely for a fraction of the cost of US trained and licensed radiologists.
It's not because the systems to read remotely don't exist.
It's not because they're poorly trained or bad doctors.
No, it's because the AMA lobbies to protect American doctors' jobs, and refuses to license them to practice in the US. Of course you can still sue for medical malpractice regardless of citizenship. Trial lawyers have nothing to do with it, American doctors who don't want competition are entirely to blame.
Not as far as I know. Once an automated diagnostic is reasonably accurate, it replaces humans doing the work manually. The same would be true of anything else that can be automatically detected.
No comment on whether radiology is close to that yet, although I don't think a few-million-param neural network would tell us much one way or another.