History, however, offers a useful caution. Breakthrough technologies in medicine rarely achieve their full potential simply because they exist. Their real impact depends on whether the institutions responsible for health-care delivery know how to adopt them wisely, integrate them responsibly and align them with their mission to improve patient health.

Artificial intelligence now stands at that same threshold. The industry has moved beyond fascination with what algorithms can do and entered a more demanding phase: determining how these tools should be evaluated, governed, and integrated into the environments where care is delivered. At the same time, some health professionals are turning to AI – not to augment their knowledge – but assuming the information is patient-care ready.

Across the health ecosystem, leaders are discovering that the most important questions about artificial intelligence are not technological. They are organizational, ethical and operational. Which AI systems genuinely improve clinical decision-making? Which tools strengthen the efficiency of hospitals and health systems? Which innovations introduce complexity without delivering measurable benefit?

Answering those questions requires a perspective that bridges policy leadership, real-world care delivery, and the scientific foundations of biomedical informatics. That convergence of experience sits at the center of a “Views From the Top” mainstage discussion at the HIMSS Global Health Conference & Exhibition, where some 35,000 leaders whose work spans the global health ecosystem will examine how organizations can recognize the true value proposition of artificial intelligence applications before embedding them into health-care systems.

The perspectives shaping this discussion reflect three essential dimensions of responsible artificial intelligence in health: governance frameworks that guide innovation, operational insights from large-scale health care delivery, and scientific rigor grounded in biomedical informatics. Together, these vantage points illuminate the path from technological promise to practical value.

Governing Innovation in a Rapidly Changing Health Ecosystem

Digital transformation in health rarely succeeds simply because technology exists. It succeeds when organizations develop leadership frameworks capable of evaluating innovation, managing risk and aligning new tools with patient-centered goals.

Few leaders have observed the evolution of digital health across as many national systems and institutional environments as Hal Wolf, president and chief executive officer of HIMSS, Ran Balicer, MD, PhD, chief innovation officer of Clalit Health Services and Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, chair of biomedical informatics at Harvard Medical School. The three will step onto the mainstage at HIMSS to share their “View from the Top” in a session titled: “Recognizing the ‘Value Proposition’ Criteria While Selecting AI Applications.”

Through his work with global government health ministries, hospital networks, and technology innovators worldwide, Wolf has consistently emphasized that technological progress must be anchored in governance and trust.

“Digital health transformation is not about technology alone. It is about leadership, governance, and the trust that allows innovation to improve care,” Wolf has said in discussions about global digital health transformation.

Artificial intelligence intensifies this leadership challenge because its influence extends far beyond traditional clinical tools. AI systems increasingly operate across multiple layers of healthcare delivery. Some applications assist clinicians by analyzing medical data or suggesting treatment options. Others function within hospitals’ and health systems’ operational infrastructure, helping manage patient flow, prioritize diagnostic reviews, and allocate scarce resources.

These operational algorithms rarely capture headlines; however,  they shape the environment in which health care is delivered. Decisions about which cases are reviewed first, how clinicians allocate their attention, and how health systems manage capacity can profoundly influence patient outcomes.

For leaders responsible for health systems, artificial intelligence cannot be treated as simply another technological upgrade. It must be evaluated through governance structures capable of understanding how algorithms function, what assumptions shape their recommendations, and how their use aligns with institutional priorities.

Without that oversight, innovation risks amplifying complexity rather than improving care. Instead of informing, it can spread misinformation.

Aligning Artificial Intelligence With the Values of Medicine

Governance provides the policy foundation for responsible adoption of artificial intelligence, but real-world implementation reveals a second challenge: ensuring that AI systems operate effectively within healthcare delivery itself.

Large population health systems increasingly use advanced analytics to anticipate risk, manage chronic disease, and allocate clinical resources across diverse communities. Within these environments, artificial intelligence is no longer a theoretical innovation. It is already influencing how health organizations prioritize patients, coordinate care and deploy limited resources.

That operational perspective is central to Ran Balicer, MD, PhD, of Clalit Health Services, one of the world’s most advanced data-driven health systems. The Clalit integrated infrastructure connects hospitals, clinics, and community health programs through longitudinal datasets that support predictive analytics at the national scale.

Experience within such systems reinforces an important insight: artificial intelligence models do not function independently of human judgment. They reflect priorities embedded in their design and the assumptions guiding their deployment.

“Algorithms are opinions embedded in code,” Balicer has observed in discussions about the role of artificial intelligence in population health.

In practice, this means that AI systems interpret clinical data through frameworks shaped by human choices. The way a model defines risk, prioritizes cases, or recommends interventions reflects decisions about what matters most within a healthcare environment.

Those decisions carry ethical implications. When artificial intelligence helps determine which patients receive immediate attention or which cases are escalated for further review, transparency about how algorithms function becomes essential to maintaining trust among clinicians and patients alike. The scientific frontier of health-care AI reinforces that concern.

Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, who has also served as a co-author of the Institute of Medicine Report on Precision Medicine, which has served as the template for national efforts, has spent decades exploring how machine learning can advance medicine while preserving the judgment that defines clinical practice. His research emphasizes that artificial intelligence in healthcare must align with the ethical traditions and professional responsibilities of medicine.

“AI systems in medicine must ultimately reflect the values of the profession they serve,” Kohane has written in discussions about AI alignment in biomedical informatics.

This perspective highlights a crucial distinction between technological capability and clinical responsibility. Many AI models entering healthcare environments were originally designed for broader computational tasks rather than the nuanced realities of patient care. Medicine operates within a landscape shaped by uncertainty, empathy, and accountability, and technologies introduced into that environment must reflect those values.

Ensuring that artificial intelligence aligns with the principles guiding health-care delivery, therefore, represents one of the most important scientific and ethical challenges facing the future of health.

The Discipline Required to Make Innovation Matter

The health sector has experienced waves of technological enthusiasm before. Electronic health records promised seamless information exchange, but then introduced administrative burdens on health professionals when implemented without thoughtful workflow design. Data analytics promised unprecedented insight, but sometimes led to fragmentation when systems failed to communicate across institutions.

Artificial intelligence now stands at a similar moment in the evolution of health technology.

Its capabilities in supporting decision-making flow are extraordinary, yet realizing them will require disciplined leadership to evaluate, integrate and govern AI tools within health-care delivery systems. Health leaders must learn to ask deeper questions before embracing the next algorithmic breakthrough. What problem does this system truly solve? How does it strengthen clinical practice? What assumptions guide its recommendations? How does its use advance the mission of improving patient health?

These questions move the conversation beyond technological novelty toward operational practicality. It’s among the many reasons these three global leaders step to the HIMSS stage together.

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly reshape the health ecosystem in the years ahead. Its long-term impact, however, will not be determined solely by the sophistication of algorithms or the speed of technological progress. Along with how to leverage AI, ChatGPT and LLMs, users require heightened cognitive awareness.

It will be determined by whether the health community develops the discipline and ability required to translate innovation into systems that strengthen care, support clinicians and improve the health of the populations they serve.

The real story of artificial intelligence in health is no longer about what machines can do. It is about how wisely the health sector chooses to use them.

The post From AI Excitement to Execution: Why Health Leaders Must Now Master the “How” appeared first on Medika Life.

Around the nation, there is a partisan swirl around ESG. The concern of being targeted for boycotts or protests has made it more important for organizations to thoughtfully plan and implement a strategy that moves key priorities forward without creating unnecessary churn in public policy, news, and investment communities.

Setting the Baseline

With the substantial debate surrounding ESG priorities, it’s helpful to remind ourselves what ESG priorities actually are and what they seek to achieve. At its core, ESG is a relatively straightforward concept: ESG includes varied criteria companies use to evaluate performance beyond traditional financial metrics. For instance, environmental factors consider a company’s impact on nature, including its carbon footprint, resource usage, and pollution levels. Social factors assess a company’s relationships with its employees, communities, and broader society, covering labor practices, diversity and inclusion, and community engagement. Governance factors focus on a company’s internal governance structures, including its board composition, executive pay, and transparency.

Though it’s evolved into a political hot-button issue in recent years, ESG priorities, though perhaps itemized as separate workflows, have been a consideration in boardrooms and c-suites for decades. There’s nothing particularly new about the individual components, just how they’re grouped and classified.

The Evolution of ESG Priorities

Initially, ESG priorities were driven by compliance and risk management concerns. Companies focused on meeting regulatory requirements and mitigating potential risks, such as environmental fines or reputational damage. However, as the understanding of sustainability deepened and climate concerns became more acute and amplified, ESG priorities shifted toward mindful value creation. Companies started to see ESG as a set of rules to follow and as a way to create long-term value for their stakeholders and society at the same time — a win-win scenario.

Today, regardless of how public-facing their efforts are or aren’t, leading companies consider ESG a priority rather than a compliance checkbox. They recognize the potential for ESG initiatives to encourage innovation, enhance brand reputation, attract talent, and strengthen stakeholder relationships. Consequently, ESG priorities have expanded to include innovation for sustainability, supply chain resilience, human rights protection, and ethical leadership.

While adopting ESG principles gained momentum in the business world, it has not been without strife, especially against political turmoil. The intersection of ESG with politics sparked debates on various fronts, including the role of businesses in social and environmental issues, the impact of government policies on sustainability efforts, and the polarization of ESG discourse.

ESG Nomenclature

Alongside the evolution of ESG priorities, the terminology surrounding ESG has changed. Initially, terms like “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “sustainable development” were commonly used to describe efforts to address social and environmental issues. However, these terms often lacked specificity and failed to capture the holistic nature of ESG.

In recent years, the term “ESG” emerged as a more comprehensive framework for addressing sustainability issues within the business context. Unlike CSR, which often focuses on reputation, philanthropy, and corporate donations, ESG includes broader considerations, including governance practices, diversity of the workforce, and financial performance. This shift in terminology reflects a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between environmental, social, and governance factors and their impact on business outcomes.

Then, ESG became a flashpoint for controversy owing to varied factors, with the term becoming toxic for some organizations. There are many reasons why that toxicity grew pervasive:

1. Political Polarization

Political polarization has entered the discourse surrounding ESG in many parts of the world. Ideological differences often shape perceptions of sustainability initiatives, with some viewing them as essential steps toward addressing pressing global challenges. In contrast, others see them as burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth.

This polarization can manifest in various ways, from debates over climate change policy to disagreements on social justice issues. For example, in the United States, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the rollback of environmental regulations under past administrations fueled tensions between proponents and opponents of sustainability measures, putting corporations in an uncomfortable position straddling public policy on both sides.

2. Regulatory Uncertainty

Political turmoil can also contribute to regulatory uncertainty, complicating business ESG implementation. Shifts in government leadership or policy priorities may lead to changes in regulations and standards, creating challenges for companies trying to navigate complex and evolving compliance landscapes.

Even simple regional variances in regulatory frameworks can pose significant compliance risks and operational challenges for multinational corporations operating in multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, regulatory uncertainty may deter investment in sustainable initiatives as companies weigh long-term sustainability investments’ potential risks and rewards against short-term political uncertainties.

3. Stakeholder Activism

Political turmoil often fuels grassroots activism and social movements, influencing ESG agendas and priorities. Stakeholder activism, ranging from consumer boycotts to shareholder resolutions, has become a powerful force driving corporate action on sustainability issues.

However, the alignment of stakeholder activism with political ideologies can sometimes increase tension within ESG discourse. For example, debates over corporate social responsibility have, at times, become entangled with broader political debates over the role of government in addressing social and environmental issues.

The question then becomes whether businesses should take up leadership positions on these issues and if so, to what extent.

4. Globalization and Geopolitical Risks

In an interconnected world, geopolitical risks and global events can have profound practical implications for ESG priorities and practices. Trade tensions, geopolitical conflicts, and geopolitical instability can disrupt supply chains, exacerbate environmental degradation, and impact social stability, posing challenges for companies seeking to uphold ESG standards.

For example, geopolitical conflicts in regions rich in natural resources may raise concerns about ethical sourcing and human rights violations in supply chains. Similarly, trade disputes between significant economies can disrupt the flow of goods and services, affecting businesses’ ability to meet sustainability commitments and deliver on ESG goals.

5. Ethical Dilemmas

Political turmoil can also give rise to ethical dilemmas for businesses navigating ESG issues. Companies may face pressure to take a stance on politically sensitive issues, such as human rights abuses, corruption, or discrimination, especially in authoritarian regimes or conflict-affected regions.

Balancing business interests with ethical considerations can be challenging, particularly when governments impose conflicting demands or restrictions on companies operating within their jurisdictions. In such cases, companies may find torn between upholding their ESG principles and complying with local laws or regulations, raising questions about the limits of corporate responsibility in politically charged environments.

The Role of Stakeholder Engagement

One key driver behind the evolution of ESG priorities is increased stakeholder engagement. With growing pressure from investors, customers, employees, and communities to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, these stakeholders demand transparency, accountability, and tangible action on ESG issues, pushing companies to elevate their priorities beyond mere rhetoric.

Investors mainly play a crucial role in shaping ESG priorities. The rise of sustainable investing and impact investing has prompted companies to integrate ESG considerations into their financial decision-making processes. As a result, ESG performance has become a significant factor in investment decisions, influencing capital allocation and valuation.

Emerging Trends in ESG

As ESG continues to evolve, several emerging trends are shaping the future of sustainable business. One such trend is the emphasis on impact measurement and reporting. Companies are increasingly adopting standardized frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to assess and communicate their ESG performance. This trend enhances transparency and facilitates comparability and benchmarking across industries.

Another emerging trend is the integration of ESG considerations into corporate strategy and decision-making. Instead of treating ESG as a standalone function, companies embed sustainability principles into their core business operations, from product design to supply chain management. This integrated approach ensures that ESG considerations are aligned with overall business objectives and drive value creation across the organization.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the evolution of ESG priorities and metrics represents a positive step toward sustainable business, several challenges remain. One challenge is the lack of globally standardized metrics and reporting requirements, which can hinder comparability and credibility in ESG disclosure. Addressing this challenge requires collaboration among stakeholders to develop consistent and transparent reporting frameworks.

Another challenge is the need for greater accountability and oversight in ESG practices. As companies increasingly tout their sustainability commitments, there is a risk of greenwashing — the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of products or practices. To combat greenwashing, regulators, investors, and civil society organizations must hold companies accountable for their ESG claims and ensure transparency in reporting.

Despite these and other challenges, the evolving landscape of ESG presents significant opportunities for businesses to drive positive change and create long-term value. By embracing sustainability as a strategic priority, companies can enhance their resilience, competitiveness, and relevance in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

What’s Next?

The evolution of ESG priorities and terminology reflects a broader shift toward sustainable business practices in the global landscape. As companies recognize the importance of addressing environmental, social, and governance factors, ESG is no longer viewed as a peripheral issue but a strategic imperative for long-term success. By aligning ESG priorities with meaningful outcomes and embracing transparency and accountability, businesses can contribute to a more sustainable — and potentially lucrative — future for all stakeholders.

However, the controversy surrounding ESG amid political turmoil underscores the complexity of sustainability challenges in a rapidly changing world. While ESG offers a framework for addressing environmental, social, and governance issues, it is only that — a framework. Its implementation is often intertwined with political dynamics that shape regulatory environments, stakeholder expectations, and business strategies, all of which can be open to interpretation on a national or regional level.

Yes, ESG is often a minefield for business leaders. Yet regulatory realities and the pressure from a public with increasing levels of climate anxiety require the conversation to take center stage — an uncomfortable position for C-Suite leaders to find themselves in.

Navigating these complexities calls upon companies to remain vigilant, adaptable, and conscientious in their approach to ESG. Businesses can navigate social turbulence by engaging with stakeholders, advocating for supportive policies, and upholding ethical standards while advancing meaningful progress toward sustainability goals. Ultimately, regardless of what the process is called, ESG remains a powerful tool for driving positive change in the face of political uncertainty, reinforcing the importance of sustainability as a shared global priority.

Finding a reasonable and impactful path forward is not easy, but not finding any path at all is no longer an option.

The post Whether You Like the Name or Not, ESG is Here to Stay appeared first on Medika Life.

A company’s ESG goals may align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These 17 items serve as a guide “for peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” They include gender equality, affordable and clean energy, responsible consumption and production, and other goals.

Historically, the pharmaceutical industry has had a negative reputation among consumers. The opioid crisis and drug pricing scandals have damaged the industry’s standing. In a 2019 consumer sentiment poll, pharma ranked last, its worst finish in the poll’s history.

Some view the COVID-19 pandemic as a reputational turning point for pharma and an opportunity to solidify a more positive impact on society. Many pharmaceutical companies are furthering this goal by incorporating ESG into their operations. 

“ESG is another way to analyze companies beyond their profit and losses, and to see the broader impact companies are having on society and future generations” says Monique Adams, Director of Clinical Innovation at Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and Vice President at Women of Color in Pharma (WOCIP).

Adam’s words are affirmed by an April 2020 poll which found that 40% of Americans had a more positive view of the industry than before the pandemic began, up 7% from the month before. In fact, for the first time, pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Moderna was ranked among the top five companies with the best reputations in America in 2021. The shift is a direct result of the pandemic and pharma’s tireless work in producing vaccines and other medications that have saved millions of lives worldwide. 

How are pharmaceutical companies adopting ESG?

More often, pharmaceutical companies grasp the significance of ESG and are taking steps toward implementing the strategy into their long-term goals. Environmental sustainability, or the “E” in ESG, has become a major focus for companies.

“We’re making drugs that are intended to save people’s lives,” Adams says. “But any time you have large manufacturing plants and sites, that also can have a negative impact on the environment.”

Many environmental sustainability programs from pharmaceutical companies center on lowering greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewable energy sources. These companies are also working to improve the environmental footprint of their products and value chain. For example, Johnson & Johnson has committed to sourcing 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2025. 

The “social” pillar of ESG considers health equity, including more equitable and affordable access to the medications that pharmaceutical companies develop. And it examines a company’s workforce. Do employees reflect the communities they serve? Goals for this pillar often include hiring and promoting more women and people of color, particularly Black and Latino employees. 

In addition to her role as director of clinical innovation, Adams is also the Global Head of Janssen’s R&D DEI Advisory Board. The Board has more than thirty-five members representing every therapeutic area, business function, and region within the company. One of its efforts is attracting diverse talent to the organization. 

“The only way to truly change culture is through people,” Adams says. “We believe in order to advance health equity, you need diverse leaders at the table making decisions about which diseases we’re going to study, trial design, and trial sites.”

The board is currently partnering with talent acquisition to develop a workshop that provides leaders with tools and resources for effectively tracking diverse talent.

The final pillar in ESG is “governance,” which examines issues such as shareholder rights, board diversity, executive compensation, ethics, and fighting corruption. In its ESG report, AbbVie outlines how, among other governance policies, every employee must complete training on its Business Code of Conduct and acknowledge that they will follow it. 

Pharmaceutical companies have begun officially announcing their ESG goals and how they are progressing against them. These goals may be part of a year-end report or a separate announcement. Adams says publicly sharing this information “ensures that they’ll be more accountable in helping create a more sustainable society.”

The post How ESG is Changing the Pharmaceutical Industry appeared first on Medika Life.