The most (unintentionally) amusing story I read this week was Tim Higgin’s Wall Street Journal article Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI. Dr. Karp (yes, he has a Ph.D.), co-founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, is upset about how AI companies are using relationships with their business customers to harvest data and business insights from those customers. “Something has gone completely wrong,” he fumed.
![]() |
| AI is collecting our data; why aren't we being paid? Credit: Microsoft Designer |
Now, this
is Palantir, mind you; it may not have invented surveillance capitalism but it
might have perfected it. It has become essential to government and large corporations
across the world. Most of us are aware of how tech companies like Meta or
Google give us “free” services that exist primarily to collect more data on us,
which they then use to target ads to us, but Palantir’s data collection and
analysis operate at a level we often don’t recognize. But make no mistake; it is using our data, and
not necessarily in our best interests.
Mr. Higgins quotes former White House AI czar David Sacks in support of Dr. Karp’s concerns:
Anthropic has launched Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, and of course Claude Code—each expanding into categories previously served by companies building on top of their models. The pattern is consistent: Watch where value is being created, then move in directly. Dominate the model layer, then use that position to capture the most lucrative verticals.
So it is
delicious irony that Dr. Karp and others are finding themselves at the wrong
end of the power inequality with their data.
I’ve
worked in healthcare for longer than I care to admit, and at no point did
people not complain that healthcare in general, and health insurance in
particular, was too expensive. And yet, costs have kept rising. We’re closing
in on $6
trillion in U.S. healthcare expenditures. No matter what kind of health
insurance you have – large
employer, small
employer, ACA
Marketplace, Medicare
Advantage, even Medicare
Supplements for traditional Medicare – your premiums (and/or out-of-pocket
costs) are likely going up at rates we haven’t seen in years.
Two well
known facts about rising costs are, one, that it is not so much we’re using too
many services as it is that Americans pay way higher
prices for healthcare than in most countries, and, two, that a relatively
small percentage of people account for the vast majority of healthcare
spending. The latter has an insidious effect on health insurance premiums, as
people with fewer expenses are less likely to have or keep health insurance, making
premiums for the remaining people higher. Nobody wants to pay for the people
who use a lot of health care, but they want other people to help pay if they
end up being one of those people. It’s a conundrum.
Healthcare
generates massive amounts of data, increasing all the time. Some
estimates put it well in the exabyte level, which, trust me, is way more
than any of us can comprehend. We generate data when we go to the doctor, when
we get lab work, when we fill a prescription, when we go to the hospital, even
when we use a wearable like a smartwatch. All those health insurance claims and
all those healthcare bills generate data. And, yet, most
of that data isn’t effectively used, which I sure hope AI does something
about.
So we have
a system in which the people who use more health services generate more data,
and an AI industry that craves data. This seems like it should be a match made
in heaven.
Why couldn’t
we have a healthcare system in which AI companies pay people generating healthcare
data for that data? I.e., instead of heavy users of healthcare being drivers of
spending, they become a valuable resource? And, oh-by-the-way, why aren’t
we being paid for our data?
Our data,
healthcare data included, is being shared, bought and sold now. Sometimes it is
deidentified (supposedly), sometimes not. Either way, we’re not the ones
getting paid for it. That should change.
Now,
realists will point that that “value” of our healthcare data is nowhere near
the costs of our health care, so paying for the latter with the former is
impractical. I’ll grant that is currently true, but I’ll also ask: why is that?
I’d argue
that our health data is grossly undervalued, because the companies using it are
used to getting it so cheaply, and that our health services are wildly
overpriced. Reorienting the system so that the former funds the latter should
bring them closer into equilibrium.
If data
is, as has been said, the new oil, then I’ll point out that oil was also once
very cheap, until enterprising people figured out that they could control the
supply and thus raise the price virtually at will. We should be those people
when it comes to our data, especially our healthcare data.
So I’ll be
amused at Dr. Karp being faux outraged at other data companies profiting off of
his company’s data, and I’ll hope that we have a fundamental rethinking about
who generates value in our data world and how that value is realized. There can’t
be a better place to do this than in healthcare.


No comments:
Post a Comment