| | | | |  | | By Shawn Zeller, Ruth Reader, Carmen Paun, Daniel Payne and Erin Schumaker | | | | | 
Polis signed into law new AI regulations, but had some reservations. | David Zalubowski, File/AP | A new Colorado law regulating artificial intelligence “could open the floodgates to AI over-regulation across the nation,” or it simply represents “baseline accountability and transparency” for technology that makes critical decisions, including those involving patient care. Those were two of the reactions to Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis’ decision to sign into law the first comprehensive state plan for regulating AI, with the first response coming from the R Street Institute, a think tank that supports a free market, and the second from the Consumers Union, which is pro-regulation. For his part, Polis said he wants to prevent discrimination and protect consumers — the law’s intent — but he worries “about the impact this law may have on an industry that is fueling critical technological advancements.” Polis said he hopes the legislature will finetune the law before it takes effect in 2026. What the law would do: The legislation will bolster consumer protections when key health care-related decisions are made via AI, and require developers and deployers to address algorithmic bias based on reproductive health, genetic information and other data. Developers must also make disclosures about AI systems that make high-risk decisions, our Ben Leonard reports. The legislation has carve-outs for technology that complies with existing standards finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services in December. The standards require AI developers to disclose more details about how their products work. The backstory: In the lead-up to Polis’ decision, tech industry advocates pleaded with him to veto the measure. They argued that the law will launch a patchwork of state rules that will make compliance difficult and that Congress is better suited to regulate. They succeeded in convincing Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat like Polis, to oppose a similar bill that his legislature had passed. At the same time, consumer advocates are concerned that AI systems could harm patients if bias is entrenched in care, or if the tools make diagnostic mistakes. They have lately urged lawmakers to do more.
| | | | THE GOLD STANDARD OF HEALTHCARE POLICY REPORTING & INTELLIGENCE: POLITICO has more than 500 journalists delivering unrivaled reporting and illuminating the policy and regulatory landscape for those who need to know what’s next. Throughout the election and the legislative and regulatory pushes that will follow, POLITICO Pro is indispensable to those who need to make informed decisions fast. The Pro platform dives deeper into critical and quickly evolving sectors and industries, like healthcare, equipping policymakers and those who shape legislation and regulation with essential news and intelligence from the world’s best politics and policy journalists.
Our newsroom is deeper, more experienced and better sourced than any other. Our healthcare reporting team—including Alice Miranda Ollstein, Megan Messerly and Robert King—is embedded with the market-moving legislative committees and agencies in Washington and across states, delivering unparalleled coverage of health policy and the healthcare industry. We bring subscribers inside the conversations that determine policy outcomes and the future of industries, providing insight that cannot be found anywhere else. Get the premier news and policy intelligence service, SUBSCRIBE TO POLITICO PRO TODAY. | | | | | | | | | 
Washington, D.C. | Shawn Zeller/POLITICO | This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Newborns of mothers who speak one language respond differently to sound than newborns of bilingual mothers, according to a study published today in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Daniel Payne at dpayne@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com. Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.
| | |  Rodgers and Pallone have proposed a big change in internet law. | Francis Chung/POLITICO | Both Republicans and Democrats on a key House committee are calling for the end of a law undergirding the internet: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act, which says that people who post material on websites are liable for what they say, not the sites themselves. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, have proposed draft legislation to sunset the law at the end of next year in an effort to bring social media companies to the table to come up with legislation to replace it. The lawmakers are concerned that posts on social media sites like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, are harming child mental and physical health, and enabling sexual exploitation and human and drug trafficking. They don’t think the sites are doing enough to stop it. Industry has pushed back, arguing that repealing Section 230 will make it much more difficult for sites to allow posts by users for fear of litigation, and said that sunsetting the law would take a particular toll on smaller firms. Even so: There’s still plenty of support for Section 230 in Congress, including from one of the law’s authors, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that repealing it “would dramatically alter, and imperil, the online world.”
| | | | LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today. | | | | | | | | |  Blinken sees reason for optimism about China's efforts to crack down on fentanyl ingredients. | Getty Images | Secretary of State Antony Blinken pressed China in his most recent visit to Beijing to crack down harder on companies selling the ingredients to make illicit fentanyl, he told senators in two separate hearings Tuesday. China should make public its enforcement actions against companies dealing with fentanyl precursors; put some of the ingredients on a list of controlled substances; and cut connections between Chinese financial entities that launder the proceeds of the drug trade, Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He outlined some progress China has made on those tasks since President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, agreed last November to restart cooperation on illicit drugs. “When I was just there, a few weeks ago, I made the case that while this was a good start, and an important one, more needs to happen,” Blinken said. Why it matters: The Biden administration hopes Chinese cooperation will help drive down fatal overdoses in the U.S., which are running more than 100,000 a year. Blinken called illicit fentanyl “the number one challenge we face in terms of public health and in terms of the security of the American people,” citing an often-used statistic that the synthetic opioid is the top killer of people aged 18 to 49. Even so: Lawmakers aren’t so sure China is committed to helping. Last month, the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party issued a bipartisan report alleging the Chinese government holds stakes in companies tied to drug trafficking and that it has subsidized online sales of fentanyl-making chemicals through tax rebates. | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment