We use AI in healthcare. Which AI Act rules apply there? (We take it from a vendor, We assess credit or insurance risk)

healthcare

Lawyers learn the technology, developers learn the law

Dedalus Healthcare, which among other things supplies AI that predicts complications for hospital patients, trains its legal staff, data protection officer, compliance function and quality and regulatory affairs department on the technical side. Developers and engineers conversely receive training focused on the legal and compliance aspects of the AI Act. The executive committee received its own session tailored to its role.

Provenance: This practice was submitted by the organisation itself to the Commission living repository. The repository collects and shares practices; it does not approve them or set them as a standard.

Look for knowledge deliberately outside a single discipline, because the repository names collaboration between industry and academia as one of the ways organisations build AI literacy.

Living repository of AI literacy practices, practice submitted by the organisation concerned

healthcare

Expert system that draws a conclusion from encoded knowledge

A hospital uses an older diagnostic support expert system in which physicians encoded knowledge, facts and rules. Based on the symptoms a doctor enters, the system independently draws a conclusion about possible conditions.

Provenance: The Commission guidelines on the definition of an AI system use this case to draw the line between software that does and does not fall under the regulation. The document is non-binding.

Machine learning is not a requirement, so you cannot argue that your system merely applies rules encoded by experts; logic and knowledge based systems that draw conclusions on their own are covered too.

Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5053 final, 29.7.2025, borderline cases under the definition in Article 3(1)

healthcare

Chatbot answering factual questions from a benefits case handler

A chatbot answers a case handler's factual questions relating to the evaluation of a natural person's application for healthcare benefits, for instance the applicant's age. The case handler can grant or deny the benefits based on those answers.

Provenance: The Commission draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 address this case when determining whether an application falls under Annex III. The document is a consultation version: non-binding and not yet final.

A chatbot that only returns existing facts in structured form falls under the exemption, but once it answers case-specific legal questions it steers the decision and is high-risk.

Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification, 19 May 2026, annex on Annex III

healthcare

Emergency triage system: two routes to high risk

A hospital uses AI to prioritise incoming patients at the emergency department. The question is not whether the system is high-risk but by which route: as a medical device under product legislation, or directly under Annex III.

Provenance: The Commission draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 state that an emergency healthcare patient triage system may qualify as a medical device; where it then meets Article 6(1), it is high-risk via Annex I and sectoral rules apply. A triage system that is not a medical device is high-risk via Article 6(2) and point 5(d) of Annex III. The document is a consultation version: non-binding and not yet final.

First establish whether your triage system is a medical device, because that question decides the whole route: via Annex I the assessment travels with the medical conformity assessment and its date, via Annex III the separate timeline of Article 6(2) applies. Either way the outcome is high-risk, so postponing that determination only creates uncertainty about which regime to set up.

Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification, 19 May 2026, annex on Annex III, paragraphs (334) and (335)

No mandatory course format, no certificate, no exam and no AI officer

The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that there is no one size fits all when it comes to AI literacy and that no strict requirements or mandatory trainings are imposed. On certification, the Q&A states literally that there is no need for a certificate and that organisations can keep an internal record of trainings or other guiding initiatives. On assessment, it states that Article 4 of the AI Act does not entail an obligation to measure the AI knowledge of employees. On governance, it states that no specific governance structure is mandated to comply with Article 4, so that unlike the data protection officer under the GDPR, no AI officer needs to be appointed. On the level, the Q&A states that following the Digital Omnibus amendment AI literacy remains an obligation for providers and deployers of AI systems, but that no specific or sufficient level is mandated and that the Regulation does not require guaranteeing any specific level of AI literacy of any individual. Against that, the Q&A states that simply relying on the AI systems' instructions for use or asking staff to read them might be ineffective, and that organisations should take into account general AI understanding within the organisation, whether they are a provider or a deployer, the risks associated with the systems deployed, staff knowledge gaps considering technical knowledge, experience, education and training, and contextual factors such as sector, purpose and affected populations. The Q&A further states that organisations may implement different levels of training or learning approaches depending on knowledge, experience, education and role, and that staff with a degree or experience in AI development are normally considered AI literate, while the organisation must still verify that those persons understand the specific AI systems of the organisation, know how to deal with them and are aware of all risks.

Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on required level, training formats, certificates, assessment of knowledge and governance structures (consulted 9 August 2026)

Article 4 reaches beyond your own staff, and the national supervisor enforces it

The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that Article 4 applies to providers and deployers of AI systems and in addition to other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, covering persons broadly within the organisational remit, with a contractor, a service provider and a client given as examples. On clients, the Q&A states that they may need AI literacy depending on the specific risk, reasoning that affected persons should understand how decisions taken with the assistance of AI will have an impact on them. On geographic scope, the Q&A states that the AI Act's legal framework applies to both public and private actors inside and outside the EU as long as the AI system is placed on the Union market, used in the Union, or its use has an impact on people located in the EU. On supervision, the Q&A states that the supervision and enforcement of Article 4 is not with the AI Office but under the remit of national market surveillance authorities, and that supervision and enforcement began on 2 August 2026, while Article 4 itself entered into application on 2 February 2025. On sanctions, the Q&A states that national market surveillance authorities could impose penalties and other enforcement measures for infringements of Article 4, that this will be based on national laws that Member States were due to adopt by 2 August 2025, that any sanction must be proportionate and based on the individual case taking into account factors such as the nature and gravity of the infringement and its intentional or negligent character, and that sanctions are more likely if there is proof of an incident due to a lack of appropriate training and guidance. Article 4 is not listed in the enumeration in Article 99(4) of the AI Act, which covers only Articles 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33(1), (3) and (4), 34 and 50, so the level of any penalty for Article 4 follows from national law rather than from the Regulation's own ceilings. The Q&A further states that Article 4 reinforces the transparency provisions of Article 13 and the human oversight provisions of Article 14 and indirectly contributes to the protection of affected persons, and that for deployers of high-risk systems the Article 26 obligation to ensure staff are trained to ensure human oversight is a distinct requirement; that requirement becomes applicable on 2 December 2027 for standalone Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems.

Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on target groups, geographic scope, supervision and enforcement, and sanctions (consulted 9 August 2026)

Article 6 has two separate routes to high-risk

The European Commission's draft guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI of 19 May 2026, which are expressly non-binding, state in paragraph (7) that an AI system is high-risk in two scenarios: first, where it is intended to be used as a safety component of a product, or is itself a product, covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I and required to undergo third-party conformity assessment; and second, where it falls within one of the use cases in the areas listed in Annex III. Paragraph (448) of those same draft guidelines notes that the Article 113 application dates have been postponed by the AI Omnibus to 2 December 2027 for the Article 6(2) route and 2 August 2028 for the Article 6(1) route.

Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification (19 May 2026), General principles chapter, section II, paragraph (7); section V, paragraph (448)

Broadly positioned and general purpose AI systems: a disclaimer is not enough

According to the non-binding draft guidelines of 19 May 2026 on the classification of high-risk AI, paragraph (12) provides that where the instructions for use, contractual arrangements, terms of service, usage policy, promotional and sales materials or technical documentation present the AI system as broadly applicable across a generality of contexts and functions, and do not consistently limit its application or exclude high-risk uses, the system's intended purpose will be deemed to also encompass high-risk use cases and therefore qualify as high-risk. Under these draft guidelines this applies in particular where such uses are feasible and reasonably foreseeable given the system's functionalities and capabilities. The same paragraph states that merely asserting, for example in the terms of service, that high-risk uses are excluded is insufficient where the provider's overall presentation, examples or product positioning effectively provides for or promotes such uses, and that any limitations of use must be described clearly, concretely and coherently across all materials.

Draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification (19 May 2026), General principles chapter, section II.2, paragraph (12)

ISO/IEC 12792: transparency taxonomy of AI systems

ISO/IEC 12792:2025 (Information technology: Artificial intelligence: Transparency taxonomy of AI systems) was published in November 2025 by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. It specifies a taxonomy of information elements to help stakeholders identify and address transparency needs, and describes the semantics of those elements and their relevance to different stakeholders' objectives. The text was adopted as a European standard as EN ISO/IEC 12792:2025. It is not cited in the Official Journal and therefore confers no presumption of conformity under Article 40. For Article 13 the designated deliverable is prEN 18229-3.