The adoption of new technology for diagnosis butts up against the same legal problem as driverless cars. Even if this system is better at detecting skin cancer than the average dermatologist (or even the expert), people are going to sue the manufacturer when it doesn't detect their cancer.

People sue doctors, too, but I'd put money on the proposition they'll be more willing to sue a company than the individual they met who seemed like he had their best interests at heart.

> Doctors aren't the ones making these decisions - hospital administrators generally are choosing what to invest in.

Most doctors don't work in hospitals, they work in family practices and most definitely are making the decisions about how their practices operate. Most of us don't go to hospitals to see our doctors, we go our doctors private office.

Here in the Silicon Valley, there are three very large medical groups: Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Health, and Sanford Health Care. They represent over 22,000 doctors.

Specialists still seem to work from private offices, but my experience is that most doctors work for large medical groups where they do not make the technology decisions.

You're right - I was thinking about HMOs where care is very systemically administered. I think we'll see players like Kaiser introduce these tools before smaller private offices.

They have more data than most other networks, and more resources to invest in R&D.

I think most doctors would go without any billing tech if possible, but most also hire billing employees to deal with billing to insurance companies - and to bill an insurance company, you have to conform to their standards...

Citation needed for this one