The same obligation looks different from every seat
The pain, the metrics and the artifact you build first genuinely differ by role. Start where you sit.
healthcare CFOs
Every AI business case that reaches you counts gross revenue against a vendor invoice, and you have no way to tell a real one from an optimistic one without doing the analysis yourself.
chief compliance officers
AI multiplied your compliance surface without multiplying your team, and the frameworks that describe what good looks like do not tell you what to file.
FQHC and community health center leaders
You are asked to govern AI with a compliance function that is already carrying HRSA site visits, UDS reporting, 340B and a sliding-fee scale — and with no dedicated informatics staff to hand the work to.
CMIOs and clinical informatics leaders
You are accountable for tools you did not procure, embedded in products you did not choose, and the governance framework everyone cites stops exactly where your job starts.
health system COOs
The board asked what your AI governance looks like, the answer has to survive a follow-up question, and the people who would build it are the same people running the operation.
medical group executives
You have the same governance obligation as a health system and roughly a twentieth of the staff to meet it with, and most published guidance assumes an academic medical centre.
urgent care operators
Your volume is unpredictable by design, your staffing model has to absorb it, and every AI vendor pitching you assumes a scheduled-visit workflow you do not run.