Federal health officials gave leading technology corporations and artificial intelligence developers direct, behind-the-scenes access to regulatory discussions through an unannounced government messaging channel, according to an investigation published by KFF Health News and CBS News.
The Slack workspace, named the Health Technology Ecosystem, began in August 2025 and expanded to roughly 1,700 participants. The roster featured executives and representatives from major technology and artificial intelligence firms, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, OpenAI, and Anthropic, alongside federal regulators. However, only a few patient advocates, physicians, and hospital representatives were included, the investigation found.
Concerns Over Public Oversight
Legal specialists raised concerns that the digital forum operated similarly to a federal advisory committee without adhering to statutory transparency rules. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, such groups generally must hold meetings in public and disclose their rosters to guard against regulatory capture.
Joseph Daval, a former Food and Drug Administration attorney now researching at Harvard Medical School, told KFF Health News that the messaging group appeared to function like an advisory panel by building consensus on policies without the required balance. Agency guidelines posted in the chat asserted that the group was not an advisory panel and barred federal workers from endorsing individual commercial products.
The channel was established under the leadership of Amy Gleason, a former acting administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency who now serves as chief product officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Office of Health Technology and Products. In a written statement, Gleason characterized the initiative as an “open, voluntary technical collaboration” intended to expand digital access to medical records for patients and providers.
Unannounced Meetings and Commercial Promotion
According to documents and recordings reviewed by CBS News and KFF Health News, federal officials used the platform to organize private regulatory sessions. In February, the FDA hosted an unlisted listening session with at least 35 industry organizations to discuss patient-facing conversational AI tools, asking companies how their chatbots handle private medical data.
During video conferences tied to the workspace, agency personnel also suggested federal programs could boost commercial adoption. Jacob Shiff, chief AI and technology officer at the CMS Innovation Center, told industry figures in February that the agency hoped its efforts would serve as a “sales engine” for effective tools, according to recorded remarks.
In April, CMS launched the Medicare App Library, presenting roughly two dozen digital tools to millions of seniors and people with disabilities. Agency officials told tech executives during private calls that inclusion in the library would build consumer trust and could position products for future Medicare reimbursement for AI tracking and advice.
Physician Pushback and Data Access
The push has drawn criticism from healthcare providers who question whether medical chatbots are ready for widespread use. American Medical Association CEO John Whyte expressed alarm over safety, noting that medical professionals lack sufficient information on how these tools operate or protect patient details.
“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” Whyte said. “There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”
Tech vendors in the Slack group have also pushed for streamlined access to electronic medical records via the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, arguing authorized apps should legally stand in the shoes of patients when requesting medical files.
CMS declined to answer questions about the legal status of the Slack channel or the criteria used to select commercial products for its app directory, while the FDA did not respond to requests for comment. It remains uncertain whether federal regulators will formalize public advisory procedures or introduce binding rules before reimbursing AI-driven health services.
