Paying for clinical AI: The bill is not the cost
- 1Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
- 2Department of Neurosurgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States of America.
- 3Departments of Biomedical Data Science, Computer Science, and Epidemiology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Abstract
Clinical AI is increasingly integrated into electronic health record workflows, but its cost is difficult to define. Health systems may pay through usage-based services, subscription or enterprise licenses, local hosting, or combinations of these approaches. Usage-based pricing introduces a distinct problem because billing units such as tokens or billable sessions are vendor-defined and may vary across data types, languages, and over time. Fixed licensing agreements can make vendor charges more predictable, while locally hosted AI models shift spending toward infrastructure and personnel. Regardless of the payment structure, the full resources required to use and maintain AI, including engineering, validation, oversight, and rights to clinical data, are difficult to capture. As the complexity of multimodal and agentic systems increases, so will that of the payment structures. Health systems will need to proactively develop ways to accurately measure the cost of AI use, evaluate its clinical value, and negotiate agreements with AI vendors that allow for regular reassessment of prices and terms. Doing so will help ensure that AI does not become yet another driver of healthcare spending detached from value delivered.
Related
- Optimising cost and treatment simplicity of PD-1 blockade in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an economic analysis of three clinical trials in China
- Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of elective spine surgery in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Time Course and Comparative Risk of Hypophosphatemia After Ferric Carboxymaltose versus Ferric Derisomaltose: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Clinical Cost Considerations
- Cost-Aware Active Feature Acquisition for Differential Diagnosis under Realistic Clinical Availability Constraints
- Real-World Direct Medical Costs and Clinical Outcomes of Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Cutaneous Melanoma: A Bottom-Up Cost-of-Illness Study in a Public Healthcare System
BibTeX
@article{natarajan2026paying,
title = {{Paying for clinical AI: The bill is not the cost}},
author = {Vishva Natarajan and Caleb Stewart and Jennifer Hong and Saeed Hassanpour},
journal = {PLOS Digital Health},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pdig.0001814},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001814},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Paying for clinical AI: The bill is not the cost
AU - Vishva Natarajan
AU - Caleb Stewart
AU - Jennifer Hong
AU - Saeed Hassanpour
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/01
JO - PLOS Digital Health
DO - 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001814
UR - https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001814
AB - Clinical AI is increasingly integrated into electronic health record workflows, but its cost is difficult to define. Health systems may pay through usage-based services, subscription or enterprise licenses, local hosting, or combinations of these approaches. Usage-based pricing introduces a distinct problem because billing units such as tokens or billable sessions are vendor-defined and may vary across data types, languages, and over time. Fixed licensing agreements can make vendor charges more predictable, while locally hosted AI models shift spending toward infrastructure and personnel. Regardless of the payment structure, the full resources required to use and maintain AI, including engineering, validation, oversight, and rights to clinical data, are difficult to capture. As the complexity of multimodal and agentic systems increases, so will that of the payment structures. Health systems will need to proactively develop ways to accurately measure the cost of AI use, evaluate its clinical value, and negotiate agreements with AI vendors that allow for regular reassessment of prices and terms. Doing so will help ensure that AI does not become yet another driver of healthcare spending detached from value delivered.
SN - 2767-3170
ER -