Why Pharma Needs Better Oversight, Not Just Better AI

Here’s the paradox keeping pharmaceutical executives up at night: 44% of life sciences organizations now dedicate 20% or more of their commercial budgets to AI initiatives, yet only 11% report having AI-ready data systems. The gap between AI ambition and execution capability has never been wider.

Our latest DHC Group Point of View, Human + AI in Pharma, tackles this tension head-on with insights from our most recent qualitative research and a roundtable discussion with IQVIA Digital, EVERSANA, and Healthline Media.

From Human-in-the-Loop to Human-at-the-Core

The research reveals a fundamental shift: leading organizations are moving from reviewing AI outputs after generation to establishing strategic parameters upfront—where human judgment defines brand voice and compliance guardrails, then AI operates autonomously within those boundaries.

A Practical Framework for 2026

The report introduces risk-based tiering built on three variables: therapeutic area severity (oncology vs. dermatology), audience type (HCP vs. consumer), and product lifecycle stage (launch vs. mature brands). As Andrew Burkus from IQVIA notes: “The administration saying they’re going to double down on enforcement really validates how important this is for 2026 and beyond.”

What You’ll Learn

• How to map every AI initiative to risk tiers architecturally (rather than retrofitting later)
• How to redefine marketing roles as “AI conductors”
• Detailed action steps organized by timeline (0-3 months through 12+ months)

The competitive advantage belongs to organizations that view oversight as an enabler, not friction.