When Innovation Outpaces Oversight: Lessons from IV Spas to AI

We have heard, alongside “change the world,” that to innovate one must “move fast and break things.” It feels like Silicon Valley gospel, or certainly just part of the narrative at this point. But move too fast without a conscious effort of answering “why” and “what,” and you might break something serious that cannot be fixed. Certain innovations, specifically those referred to as “asymmetrical goods,” hit the market without real transparency around risks. This is a problem, for when the incentives of a profit-driven motive are not checked thoughtfully, you lose control. 

Today, the most obvious example is the sprawling integration of AI in practically every industry – including, critically, healthcare and health tech. The trouble is, when risks are opaque, buyers cannot make informed decisions around the trade-offs and benefits. And when there is not an informed buyer, the risks compound in the face of the growth that defines venture capital.  

Case in point: the recent rise of IV clinics, or “IV spas,” delivering a cocktail of vitamins, minerals, and medications straight to the bloodstream. They sit at the intersection of consumer service and medical practice, where governance, credentials, dispensing practices, and compounding procedures determine whether care is safe or dangerous. 

A $15-billion business, IV clinics have risen quickly in number and value, yet their claims and benefits are often hard to vet. The reality is, without proper legal frameworks, there are no clear incentives for owners to act in accordance with medical standards. 

In a recent article, JAMA highlighted the risks and the unique relationship between healthcare delivery and regulation – specifically, how those lines are drawn. Before last year, 32 states had issued positional policy statements about expectations for care delivery and oversight at medical spas, but no state had formal legal oversight on the books. That changed after an unfortunate and tragic death in Texas in 2023.

Following that tragedy, Texas H.B. No. 3749 – “an Act relating to the regulation of the provision of elective intravenous therapy” – was passed. Also known as “Jennifer’s Law,” it addresses the core oversight categories, standardizing them closer to traditional medical practice.

Regulation aims to create a system in which risks are properly assessed, communicated, and managed. It also establishes a framework for advisement and, ultimately, liability. In healthcare, mistakes can escalate to civil or criminal charges based on the “Level of Intent.” Under Jennifer’s Law, a medical plan must be developed following an initial assessment before IV therapy is administered. Administration itself must be performed by a licensed healthcare professional and include patient monitoring. If you don’t have a license and you administer IV therapy, it’s a criminal offense. 

These are basic expectations in medicine, now applied to a setting that had been operating without them.

None of this is new to physicians. Most take the Hippocratic Oath at the outset of their careers and aim to live by the creed of “do no harm,” practicing medicine responsibly and humbly. Yes, practices evolve. New tools arise. New knowledge and standards of care are developed. Taking action – or choosing not to – can heal or harm, and it should be guided by judgment as well as rules. Within this professional ethic sits a robust and long-standing legal framework designed both to protect patients and to hold decision-makers accountable when harm occurs.

The IV clinic example shows why similar oversight must track with other fast-moving innovations. The public, faced with vague, asymmetric information – whether in IV therapy or AI-enabled healthcare tools – often can’t evaluate risk or verify claims on their own. 

We should never wait for tragedies to force a conversation around clear governance and accountability. Oversight has to evolve alongside innovation to protect people before harm occurs. The IV clinic case shows us the path: define minimum standards, require qualified supervision, mandate appropriate monitoring, and make accountability real. Now apply the same approach to AI in health tech – and to the next innovation arriving in three to five years. 

The question is not if problems will surface, but when. The responsible response is to create a smart framework now.

Photo: YDL, Getty Images

This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.