Healthcare AI governance for FQHC and community health center leader

The problem from this chair

You are asked to govern AI with a compliance function that is already carrying HRSA site visits, UDS reporting, 340B and a sliding-fee scale — and with no dedicated informatics staff to hand the work to.

The metrics you are actually measured on

• Cost per visit against the 330 grant and payer mix
• UDS clinical quality measures and the reporting burden behind them
• No-show rate and the transport, childcare and phone-access reasons behind it
• Provider vacancy days and locum spend
• Days to third-next-available

Every framework in the library is anchored to metrics like these rather than to model performance, because model performance is not what you are asked about in a board meeting.

Where to start

The registry, then the committee charter. An FQHC governance committee is usually four people wearing eleven hats, and the charter’s job is to say which hat is on when the decision is made.

The honest limit

Nothing here removes the need for judgment about your own organisation. The instruments make the judgment faster and make it auditable. They do not make it for you.