Reference no: EM132533264

Physicians in a multi-specialty clinic in New Orleans, LA desperately attempt to treat waves of patients who have the COVID-19 virus. State and local shutdowns of businesses and social distancing helped reduce the rate of increase, but new cases still occur. Over 100 potential treatments and vaccines have emerged, but health experts question which one will work. One day, the clinic's board meets virtually to discuss its medical - and economic - future. The numbers look bleak.

But then a new board member who is an executive with a major pharmaceutical manufacturer offers a ray of hope. He states that the manufacturer has leveraged artificial intelligence to pinpoint research that has significant promise for a viable solution. AI-powered tools sift through massive amounts of data to identify the best studies. Could the resource aid the clinic's patients? Perhaps. Our board member expresses optimism that tests so far have offered good models. He will "pull all strings necessary" to push research for this metropolitan health care clinic that struggles to treat in severe need.

Only one catch exists. The manufacturer insists on remaining anonymous to everyone. It will not disclose its identity, leadership and funding sources. "Ugh," exclaims the hassled chair of the clinic's board, as she realizes many people will question this "veil of secrecy." However, other board members press her and the CEO to proceed. AI will find answers more quickly and also help discredit research that lacks scientific validity.

Advise the board, including its CEO. What legal and policy issues do you find with this situation? Provide specific guidance.