Future of AIAI

How Regulated Industries Can Implement Vertical AI That Actually Improves Outcomes

By Eric Beck, CEO of ESO

Imagine you’re approached by an AI vendor promising to “revolutionize your industry” with their latest large language model. Their pitch is impressive: sleek demos, buzzword-heavy presentations and promises of dramatic efficiency gains.  

But when you ask a simple question like, “Can you explain how your system reached this decision so we can document it for auditors?” you get 20 minutes of deflection instead of concrete answers.  

This scenario plays out frequently across regulated industries, revealing the fundamental gap between AI’s technical capabilities and its compliance readiness. Whether you’re running a hospital system, managing a financial services compliance program or overseeing critical infrastructure, the stakes are too high for experimental technology deployments that can’t withstand regulatory scrutiny. 

The AI Reality Check 

Regulated industries operate under a fundamentally different set of constraints than typical technology environments. When a bank deploys AI for fraud detection, lives aren’t immediately at stake, but regulatory compliance, customer trust and financial stability are. When a utility company implements AI for grid management, the consequences of failure could cascade across entire regions. When a hospital deploys AI in its trauma centers and emergency departments, the margin for error is measured in seconds and lives. 

Yet too many AI vendors and industry leaders approach regulated sectors with the same “move fast and break things” mentality that works in consumer tech and non-regulated verticals. This fundamental misalignment is why we see AI pilot projects that generate impressive proof-of-concept but never scale to production, or worse, implementations that create new or more complex operational risks while delivering marginal benefits. 

In examining the regulated industry landscape, a clear pattern emerges: Successful AI implementations don’t happen by accident. They require a disciplined approach that addresses the unique constraints of health care organizations, financial institutions, government entities and others that can’t afford to get it wrong. 

So what does that disciplined approach look like in practice? It’s built on a series of core AI governance principles that separate successful deployments from expensive experiments.  

Data Infrastructure Must Come First 

The most common mistake in regulated AI deployments isn’t technical—it’s foundational. Organizations rush to implement AI without establishing data governance that can withstand regulatory scrutiny. It’s not just about data quality. It’s about building data infrastructure that treats compliance as a design principle rather than an afterthought. 

Consider how this manifests across different sectors. In health care, leading organizations generally train on de-identified data sets with rigorous oversight to ensure compliance with HIPAA and similar frameworks like GDPR in the EU. Financial institutions are taking similar approaches, training AI models exclusively on institution-specific transaction patterns and regulatory-approved datasets rather than relying on external data sources that could introduce compliance risks. Energy companies implementing predictive maintenance AI operate on certified sensor data with full audit trails that satisfy regulatory reporting requirements. 

The lesson here cuts across industries: Data discipline drives success. Quality data infrastructure isn’t a prerequisite you can skip. It’s the foundation that determines whether an AI implementation enhances or undermines regulatory compliance. 

Keep Humans in Control 

In regulated industries, the question isn’t whether AI can make better decisions than humans, it’s whether we can afford to remove human accountability from critical processes. The answer is no and involves more than a philosophical stance about human dignity or job security. It’s a practical necessity when lives, finances and public safety hang in the balance.  

Professionals across regulated industries share similar concerns about AI implementation. This skepticism is something I’ve witnessed firsthand through my work in emergency medicine, from the field as a paramedic to the hospital as a physician. Whether they’re emergency medical providers exploring AI-generated documentation, financial compliance officers worried about algorithmic bias in lending decisions or air traffic controllers concerned about automated routing systems, the underlying fear is the same: If automated systems are making critical determinations, are these professionals losing control over outcomes for which they’re ultimately responsible? 

These concerns are particularly important in an industry like health care, where documentation serves multiple purpose—clinical, legal and reimbursement. Consider AI-powered documentation tools that can generate patient narratives from structured data. The technology can synthesize dozens of data points into coherent clinical summaries in seconds, but the real value comes from what happens next: The clinician reviews, edits, supplements and approves the output based on their direct patient interaction and clinical judgment, adding to the output what only a human can. The AI handles the initial data synthesis, but the professional makes the final determination about accuracy and completeness. This isn’t AI replacing humans—it’s AI eliminating the tedious transcription work, improving accuracy and consistency so clinicians can focus on patient care. 

Explainability Isn’t Optional 

Here’s a simple test for any AI system in a regulated environment: In sectors where lives, safety or rights are at stake, AI without explainability isn’t just unusable—it’s unacceptable. Period. This requirement eliminates a surprising number of AI solutions that work perfectly well in certain applications but fall apart under regulatory scrutiny.  

Black-box algorithms might generate impressive results, but they create insurmountable problems when auditors start asking questions. Regulated industries need systems that can walk you through their reasoning step by step, including citations for relevant references. That means documenting how models were trained, what data they use and why they reach specific conclusions. It means building systems that automatically track when AI makes recommendations and when humans override those recommendations or elect a different path. It also means regular testing to ensure the AI isn’t developing biases or performance issues that could create compliance problems further down the road. 

Think of it this way: When your legal team gets a subpoena asking how your AI system made a particular decision, you need answers that make sense to judges and juries, not data scientists. 

Start with Mission, Not Technology 

Organizations often fall into the trap of optimizing for technology adoption rather than mission alignment. It’s easy to approach AI with the mindset of “we need an AI strategy because our competitors have it” rather than asking what problem are we trying to solve—whether AI capabilities will measurably advance your core mission while maintaining regulatory compliance and operational safety.   

For companies operating in highly regulated environments, this means AI tools should demonstrably improve core mission outcomes, reduce administrative burden on professionals or enhance operational efficiency with quantifiable metrics and clear accountability. If an AI feature can’t meet any or all of these standards, it’s worth questioning whether deployment makes sense. Impressive technology that doesn’t serve a clear purpose can ultimately just become expensive overhead that distracts from real operational priorities. In fact, the addition of technology has not historically improved productivity in health care in line with other industries. 

Why Governance Actually Accelerates Results 

The business case for a more disciplined approach to AI extends well beyond risk management. Organizations that implement AI tools with proper governance frameworks achieve faster regulatory approval because compliance is built in, not bolted on. They see higher user adoption because professionals trust systems they can understand and control. They generate measurable ROI because AI deployments target real operational challenges rather than theoretical efficiencies. Most importantly, they reduce implementation risk and support change management because governance frameworks catch problems before they scale across the organization. 

For those that have implemented these principles correctly, the results speak for themselves. Our team has returned more than 160,000 hours to emergency medical professionals while maintaining full regulatory compliance and clinical accuracy standards. This wasn’t luck—it was the result of disciplined development focused on measurable outcomes rather than technological novelty. 

The Path Forward 

Regulated industries have an opportunity to lead responsible AI development rather than simply adapt technologies designed for less constrained environments. The choice isn’t between embracing AI or avoiding it—it’s about how you implement AI responsibly. In regulated industries, where the consequences of failure extend far beyond quarterly earnings, we can’t afford to get it wrong. 

The future belongs to organizations that can harness AI’s capabilities to amplify human performance and drive improved outcomes while ensuring regulatory compliance. That’s not just good technology strategy—it’s good leadership. 

 

Author

Related Articles

Back to top button