AI in Healthcare: Efficiency or the Beginning of Dangerous Delays?

The drive for “efficiency” has become a buzzword in the healthcare sector, but beneath the polished promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) lies a far more troubling reality. While automation may offer quicker processes and reduced administrative strain, it also introduces cold, inflexible decision-making that risks leaving real people behind. As AI creeps further into medical aid systems and patient management, the consequences are beginning to show—and they’re not as ‘efficient’ as we’re told.

AI has been positioned as the next great leap forward in healthcare. But for those on the front lines—healthcare workers and administrators—the reality tells a different story. One insider shared a perspective that echoes rising concern within the industry:

“It’s only because it’s easier and faster for AI to decline with no human intervention. I would flip my bean if I were booked into a hospital via AI. They will be hacked. Too many doctors’ practices have been hacked over the years.”

Which leads us to some uncomfortable questions: What guarantees are in place to prevent healthcare AI from being compromised? How secure are these systems, really? If a medical aid system is infiltrated, what are the consequences for patient data, treatment authorisations, and real-time access to critical care?

Moreover, treatments that don’t fit neatly into a system’s rigid logic are often flagged or rejected without context. In the past, human agents could be contacted to review and escalate such decisions. With AI at the helm, human discretion may disappear.

Another insider described the growing frustration:

“We just call the med aid and fight for the treatment. But with AI, that window for negotiation disappears—and that wastes precious time for a patient who may not have any to spare.”

The Fragility of Automated Systems

Even before AI was brought into the mix, system reliability was already a known problem. The same healthcare worker noted:

“There are days we can’t get through to them at all because the system is down.”

Now imagine this same fragile infrastructure attempting to manage critical patient authorisations via automation. Instead of reducing delays, AI may introduce even more. And when it fails, the consequences are not measured in productivity reports—they’re measured in human lives.

AI should be a tool that assists, not replaces. In a space where human lives are at stake, no system—no matter how sophisticated—should have the final say without the possibility of human oversight. Yet the trend seems to be shifting away from flexibility and compassion in favour of speed and profit.

We must ask:

• Can AI ever replace human judgement in healthcare?

• How do we protect patients from automated errors or security breaches?

• Who will be held accountable when an AI system makes the wrong call?

What begins as a promise of progress may very well become a system that prioritises efficiency over empathy and automation over accountability. In the race to digitise healthcare, are we losing the very thing that makes it human?