2 Comments
User's avatar
Dr Teodora Szasz's avatar

The car analogy is the right one. This article nails it.

Here is the part that gets missed: the rulebook is not written after the technology proves itself.

It is written while the technology is still landing.

Whoever moves first, moves the definitions.

Doctronic goes state by state. Certuma goes through the FDA. Same destination. Different doors.

The quiet fight is not whether clinical AI works. It is whether it counts as a tool or an actor. That single word decides who carries liability, who supervises whom, and which business model becomes legal to scale.

Watch the definitions. That is the whole game.

Ryan Sears, PharmD's avatar

Teodora, this is a beautiful distillation of the article’s premise. I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

You’re right that the same goal can be achieved by two rivals acting in different ways. The question is “what is the strategy to maximize your regulatory leverage?”

The interesting detail about Certuma is for them to act as a truly autonomous “AI doctor,” they still need licensure at the state level, even with FDA clearance.

So my read is that the starting line for each is possibly the finish line/“endgame” for the other. But that’s my own speculation which is not based on public record or legal understanding.