Clinicians are embracing AI faster than hospitals can handle, report finds
Healthcare professionals are saving weeks of working time each year thanks to AI, but health systems are struggling to keep pace with demand, according to a new report by Philips.
Artificial intelligence is reshaping healthcare, from the way clinicians take notes during a consultation to how informed they arrive at an appointment
The report, Future Health Index 2026, carried out by the health technology giant Philips, aimed to quantify and measure the exact impacts of AI on doctors' and nurses' daily tasks.
It found that clinicians' use of AI-enabled tools provided by their organisation has increased in the past year.
More than eight in 10 healthcare professionals said they are optimistic that AI can improve patient outcomes, up 4 percentage points from 2025, and seven in 10 believe the benefits already outweigh the risks.
“This is the first year where the signals from the clinicians are that actually AI is having an impact that's measurable by them, or at least they sense it,” Shez Partovi, Chief Innovation Officer at Philips, told Euronews Health.
Partovi said that one of the main results of wider AI use in healthcare settings is time-saving, something especially valuable in systems already strained by workforce shortages.
“That time is resulting in better work-life balance, less stress, less overtime, more time with patients, more equity, and access.”
The report included answers from more than 2,000 clinicians and over 20,000 patients in 10 countries: Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Close to half of the clinicians (46%) said that thanks to AI, they save at least 132 hours annually, equivalent to more than three full working weeks. Those who reported saving the most time from administrative or non-clinical tasks were nurses.
“Nurses led the way, and they said, will you give that time back to me? I put it into collaboration with other clinicians, I put into spending more time with patients, more time reflecting on the case itself, the patient's medical information, and what I need to do,” Partovi said.
Around 71% of medical professionals reported improved workflow efficiency, and 50% said AI has increased their capacity to see more patients.
The benefits extend beyond work itself. Around 50% said AI has improved their work-life balance and reduced their stress levels.
How are clinicians using AI?
Some of the most commonly reported uses of AI involve administrative tasks such as transcribing clinical notes or scheduling patient appointments.
Clinicians also reported using it as a “buddy” to discuss work-related ideas, speed up X-rays, or flag dangerous drug combinations.
The report found that 39% of respondents have already seen AI identify or prevent potential medical errors at least three times in the past three months, and more than 65% of clinicians said that using AI has increased their confidence in decision-making.
Can health systems keep pace with AI development?
The report found that clinician demand for AI is moving quickly, sometimes faster than organisations can respond.
“There is such a high desire by clinicians to use tools that they're actually also using their own personal tools because they said that their organizations aren't moving fast enough,” said Partovi.
The report found that nearly two-thirds of healthcare professionals turn to personal AI tools when workplace options don’t meet their needs.
The tools are available, but many clinicians say they need more support to use them effectively. Seven out of 10 said that training for AI-enabled tools is unavailable, limited or inconsistent at their organisation.
“This is the first time that I recall that the adoption of the tool is so fast that the organization can't keep up,” added Partovi.
The pace of change is so rapid that organisations sometimes do not know where to begin – and it goes beyond that, questions of privacy, safety, security, governance and role-specific training all need to be addressed, he said.
How does the future look?
Nearly all healthcare professionals expect their roles to evolve due to AI. Around 96% expect it to change how they work, and 53% anticipate a significant shift in their role.
Around 44% worry about losing clinical skills through over-reliance on AI, while 37% say their role is changing faster than they’re comfortable with.
While embracing the new tools and looking for ways to incorporate them in their daily tasks, clinicians also consider it essential to keep a human in the loop.
Approximately 86% said all AI outputs require human oversight, and more than 80% said AI will never replace the relationships clinicians build with patients.
At the same time, seven out of 10 healthcare professionals believe that with the increased use of these tools, human interaction skills will become more important than ever.
Anthropic releases public version of its most powerful AI model in the US, citing new safeguards
_0.jpg)
US-based Anthropic released Claude Fable 5, the first publicly available model in its most capable AI class, on June 9, two months after the company said an equivalent system was too dangerous to put in general circulation.
The launch sharpens a tension at the centre of the US AI industry, where firms racing to demonstrate ever-greater capability to investors are simultaneously warning that the technology is advancing faster than safety measures can keep pace, a contradiction made starker by Anthropic's confidential filing for a stock market listing days earlier.
Fable 5 draws on the same underlying technology as Claude Mythos, which Anthropic unveiled in April and restricted to a small group of organisations over fears it could be used to attack computer systems. The company said a public release was now possible because it had added safeguards that block responses on high-risk subjects such as cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, redirecting those queries to a less capable model, Claude Opus 4.8.
"Fable's capabilities exceed those of any model we've ever made generally available," the company said in a blog post, adding that releasing a model of that strength "comes with risks".
The safeguards trigger in under 5% of sessions and remain stricter than the company considers ideal, according to its announcement. Anthropic said an external bug bounty programme running more than 1,000 hours of testing found no universal way to bypass the model's restrictions.
Joel Pen, a member of Anthropic's technical staff, told CNBC that Fable 5 marked a significant jump in capability that required additional guardrails to prevent misuse, citing the example of a user asking how to produce the toxin ricin.
The release lands as Anthropic, led by chief executive Dario Amodei, prepares for an initial public offering after a funding round valued the firm at $965bn (£721bn), ahead of rival OpenAI. Anthropic said in May its revenue run rate had reached $47bn, up from about $10bn a year earlier.
Organisations already testing Mythos will gain access to an updated version, Claude Mythos 5, without the cybersecurity and biology limits, the company said. Firms using the earlier model have reported finding more than 10,000 critical security flaws in their systems.
Fable 5 is priced at roughly twice the level of Opus, at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens, CNBC reported.
Apple lays out its AI with a new Siri: Here's what to know from Tim Cook's last WWDC
Apple's keynote at its annual World Wide Developers Conference unveiled new and long-awaited artificial intelligence advances, including upgrades to its Siri assistant.
It was also the last one to be held by CEO Tim Cook before he turns his post over to John Ternus in September.
Cook received an extended standing ovation and told the audience he is “deeply grateful to have been on this journey with you” and said “the energy around Apple platforms has never been stronger.”
Here are the key takeaways from the event.
The new Siri AI
The new Siri, which Apple is calling Siri AI, will be available on Apple devices and will analyse what is on a user’s screen and incorporate information from a person’s Apple devices to better answer questions.
Apple emphasised a focus on privacy and day-to-day use as the iPhone maker tries to catch up to rivals when it comes to AI.
It will be available both in a standalone app and throughout the company’s software, and Apple plans to launchSiri AI in beta later this year.
Apple said Siri is now a “much more capable assistant” that can help users find what they need and get things done across various Apple devices.
For instance, it can create a menu and gather recipes from the web or from your own text messages for a World Cup viewing party and invite friends from a group chat.
Siri mode on your camera, meanwhile, can tell you what you are looking at and give you relevant information, such as the nutritional details of a plate of food.
Siri's visual intelligence also works with images on your screen. For example, it can tell you whether a backpack you are thinking of getting will work as a carry-on for a flight or whether a pair of bulky hiking boots will fit inside it.
Apple focuses on helpful AI
Apple software chief Craig Federighi took some swipes at AI companies — without naming them — that seem to be “pursuing AI for the sake of AI” without clear regard for the people it is supposed to serve.
At Apple, he said, “we believe that truly helpful AI should be centred around you and your needs,” which means integrating AI into the products people use every day while prioritising privacy.
Apple is partnering with Google on the models that will power its new Siri and other features.
Apple also announced improvements to its popular AI photo editing tools, including spatial reframing that lets you adjust how a photo is framed after it was taken — as if you had moved the camera to a better position while you were snapping the picture.
Apple's announcement follows Google's and OpenAI's launches of tools that allow users to incorporate photos and other media into AI queries.
A standalone Siri AI app will launch later this year, though Apple said it will not initially be available in Europe and it won't be available in China while the company works out regulatory issues.
Tim Cook's last WWDC
Cook announced his retirement in April, ending a 15-year run that saw the company’s market value soar by more than $4 trillion (€3.47tn) during an iPhone-fueled era of prosperity.
Ternus has been with Apple for the past quarter century, including the past five years overseeing the engineering underlying the iPhone, iPad and Mac — a role that made him a prime candidate to succeed Cook.
Ternus did not take the main stage during Monday’s event.
The transition to a new CEO comes at a pivotal time for Apple. Artificial intelligence has proved the most disruptive force in the technology industry since Steve Jobs unveiled the first iPhone in 2007 — and Apple, the company he built, has been slow to keep up.
The firm stumbled in its efforts to deliver AI features it promised nearly two years ago, and has yet to fully recover lost ground. Cook called his time at Apple “the honour of a lifetime.”
“I truly believe the best is still ahead.”
AI, Creative Destruction, And The Politicization Of Economic Change – OpEd
.jpeg)
June 10, 2026
By Joseph Solis-Mullen
Throughout history, innovation has often provoked worry, and artificial intelligence has become the latest source of economic anxiety. Workers fear displacement, recent graduates worry that entry-level jobs may disappear, and politicians increasingly speak of the need to manage the transition. Across the world, governments are searching for ways to soften the disruptive effects of a technology that promises dramatic increases in productivity.
The debate is often framed as a struggle between technological progress and employment. But that is not the real issue. The more important question is whether economic decisions will remain economic or become increasingly political.
China’s response to artificial intelligence offers an early glimpse of this dilemma.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, Chinese officials surveyed major employers about the likely impact of AI on their workforces. Some firms reportedly estimated that full implementation could eliminate 30 percent or more of existing positions. The response from Beijing was telling. Rather than allowing firms to adapt as they saw fit, regulators reportedly began warning employers—particularly technology companies with younger workforces—not to cut jobs as they embraced AI.
The concern is understandable. China’s economy is already struggling with slowing growth, a prolonged property crisis, and persistently high youth unemployment. For a regime that derives much of its legitimacy from economic performance and social stability, the prospect of AI-driven labor displacement presents a serious political challenge.
Yet this episode illustrates a broader truth about government intervention: political leaders inevitably view economic questions through a political lens.
For a business owner, the relevant question is straightforward: how can labor and capital be combined most effectively to satisfy consumer demand? For politicians, however, the primary concern is often social stability. The worker who loses his job is visible and immediate. The future jobs, industries, and opportunities that innovation may create remain unseen. This difference in perspective creates a powerful temptation to intervene.
More than a century ago, Joseph Schumpeter described capitalism as a process of “creative destruction.” Economic progress does not occur because existing patterns of production remain unchanged. It occurs because entrepreneurs continually discover better ways to satisfy consumers. New technologies, business models, and production methods replace older ones. Some firms expand while others fail. Some occupations disappear while new ones emerge.
The destructive side of this process attracts headlines. The creative side is often overlooked because it unfolds gradually and unpredictably.
History is filled with examples. The automobile displaced the horse-and-buggy industry. Mechanization dramatically reduced agricultural employment. The computer eliminated countless clerical tasks that once required armies of workers. Had governments successfully prevented these transitions in order to preserve existing jobs, economic growth would have stagnated and living standards would be far lower today. Artificial intelligence is simply the latest chapter in this story.
Austrians, such as F. A. Hayek and others, understood that a key problem facing policymakers is one of knowledge. No government official possesses the information necessary to determine how resources should be allocated throughout a complex economy. Those decisions emerge through the market process itself, guided by prices, profit-and-loss signals, and entrepreneurial judgment.
When governments intervene to preserve particular jobs or industries, they do not eliminate economic change. They merely substitute political preferences for market signals.
China’s emerging approach to AI demonstrates this problem. Beijing wants firms to adopt productivity-enhancing technologies while simultaneously minimizing workforce reductions. These objectives may appear compatible in the short run, but they become increasingly difficult to reconcile as AI capabilities improve.
After all, the very reason firms invest in labor-saving technologies is that they enable greater output with fewer inputs. If artificial intelligence allows a company to accomplish the work of ten employees with six, forcing the company to retain all ten workers may satisfy a political objective, but it does not alter the underlying economics. It simply raises costs and reduces efficiency. Such policies can delay adjustment, but they do so at a price.
The real danger is not that governments will fail to stop technological change. In many cases, they can slow it considerably. Regulations, mandates, legal restrictions, and subsidies can preserve existing economic arrangements for years or even decades.
The danger is that slowing creative destruction also slows the creation of new wealth.
Resources tied up in politically-protected activities are resources that cannot flow toward more productive uses, firms become less competitive, investment declines, innovation slows, economic growth weakens. In attempting to protect workers from the disruptions of change, policymakers often reduce the prosperity upon which future employment depends. This lesson extends beyond China.
In the United States, calls for government intervention are already growing. California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order seeking ways to assist workers displaced by AI. Such measures may appear modest today, but they reflect the same underlying impulse: the belief that policymakers can successfully manage the economic consequences of technological change. That belief should be viewed with skepticism.
No politician, regulator, or planning agency knows which occupations artificial intelligence will ultimately eliminate, just as none could have predicted the countless professions created by the automobile, the personal computer, or the internet. The future shape of the economy is not known in advance, it is discovered through entrepreneurial experimentation.
This is why the debate over AI is ultimately not about technology, it is about whether economic change will be guided by market processes or political considerations.
Artificial intelligence may indeed transform entire industries. Some occupations will shrink, others will disappear, new ones will emerge. Such disruption is neither novel nor avoidable; it is a normal feature of economic progress.
The greater danger lies elsewhere. As governments confront the uncertainties created by AI, they may become increasingly tempted to subordinate economic rationality to political objectives. China’s response offers a warning of where that path can lead. The challenge is not to stop creative destruction, it is to resist the urge to politicize it.
About Joseph Solis-Mullen
A graduate of Spring Arbor University and the University of Illinois, Joseph Solis-Mullen is a political scientist and graduate student in the economics department at the University of Missouri. A writer and blogger, his work can be found at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Eurasia Review, Libertarian Institute, and Sage Advance. You can contact him through his website http://www.jsmwritings.com or find him on Twitter.
View all posts by Joseph Solis-Mullen →
.jpg)
