AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The American Health Law Association (AHLA) is the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization devoted to legal issues in the health care field. AHLA's Speaking of Health Law podcasts offer thoughtful analysis and insightful commentary on the legal and policy issues affecting the American health care system.
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
Health Care Corporate Governance: 2025 in Review and 2026 Trends
Rob Gerberry, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Summa Health, speaks with Michael Peregrine about the most significant governance developments for the health care industry in 2025 and projections on the governance trends that will impact the health care industry in 2026.
Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_p7E3Brqg
Essential Legal Updates, Now in Audio
AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.
Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education
Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.
This episode of AHLA Speaking of Health Law is brought to you by AHLA members and donors like you. For more information, visit AmericanHealthlaw.org.
SPEAKER_01:Hello, everyone. This is Rob Gerberry. I'm the Chief Legal Officer of SUMA Health and the President-elect Designate of the AHLA. I'd like to welcome you to the latest in our continuing series of podcasts on corporate governance issues affecting healthcare organizations. Today's episode is our annual year-end presentation, where we review the most significant governance developments for our industry in 2025, and we offer our projections on the governance trends we think they'll impact our industry the most in 2026. Retrospective reviews can often be a resource from which board and executive leadership can be reminded of some of the more important governance takeaways of the just concluded year. Trend projections can simply be a resource from which the board and executive leadership can orient their governance training, education, and agenda for the coming year. As leading governance advisor to the board, the general counsel, likely teaming with the chief governance officer, is well situated to assist the board with both its retrospective review and prospective consideration of governance trends and developments. As always, for our podcast today, I'm joined by our HLA colleague, my friend Michael Perrin, who is both an HLA fellow and a fellow of the American College of Governance Council. Michael, I can't think of a better way to say happy holidays to our HLA membership and a couple of top 10 reviews of what's happened and what we see coming up in the upcoming year related to corporate governance.
SPEAKER_02:That's right, Rob. And I hope our viewers will appreciate my special Christmas-oriented bow tie today. Santa Claus Red and Winston Churchill polka dots. Trying to keep in the spirit of things.
SPEAKER_01:And Michael, that's on brand for you. You're known as a free spirit and living on the edge. I've been distracted a lot lately, though, trying to guess your number one 2025 corporate governance development. I did not get the top 12 teams right in the college football playoff. Let's see if I got this right.
SPEAKER_02:Well, we start with Notre Dame and whether it should be kicked out of the NCAA, but I digress. I think the question of uh just uh uh uh drinking from a fire hose has been a huge issue, and it's got to be considered in three elements that we start off with in terms of looking back at 2025. I think the first element is how the year's extraordinary volatility from what political, economic, regulatory, global, and social perspectives, I think has really worked to suggest whether corporate officers and directors in this volatility have heightened expectations of their fiduciary duties, especially at oversight. Uh and especially when volatility threatens the stability of the organization's business or creates unpredictable or hostile climates for operations. So I think that's number one. The ongoing question: do board members owe a higher sense of care and loyalty in a volatile environment.
SPEAKER_01:And we certainly have seen that volatile environment play out extensively in the healthcare sector this year.
SPEAKER_02:Oh, that's right. And that's why it ties directly into the second development, which I think relates to the need for boards to review and better manage the scope of information they receive. The amount of information now needed to brief board members, I think threatens to overwhelm their capacity for preparedness. And that creates a real threat to effective governance. So I think there's a need to explore changes in how information is identified, formatted, edited, and made available at the timing of delivery.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, what's the third development from that volatility concern?
SPEAKER_02:Well, and unsurprisingly, I think it's the rise of director fatigue, which is a problem that just has to be addressed. 2025 gave us so many signs, Rob, that board members are just becoming exhausted by their fiduciary workload. It's a fatigue that can be the byproduct of service on multiple boards, complex board agendas, certainly greater third-party scrutiny, and dealing with constant change, as we've discussed in our podcasts, going back to the you know, the executive orders of January, February. But the need for credible solutions is acute. Board members are just getting worn out, and that just is not a recipe for good governance.
SPEAKER_01:Michael, what about the developments that relate to board members' personal commitment?
SPEAKER_02:Well, you're talking around about the whole engagement issue, and I think you're right that it was a major 2025 development. During the year, we saw serious concerns arise about what is the appropriate commitment expected from a corporate director. Does he or she have the time to do the job given all the external distractions like duties they owe to their own employer, to other boards, and to personal interests? Do they have the time to commit to what is necessary to be an effective board member? And what you see is that it's prompted two things. One, uh, we're getting more uh healthcare boards uh adopt a policy on outside board service, which is an old Sarbanes theme, but it's still important. And we're also seeing some uh forward-thinking boards uh uh adopt what uh what they call a director commitment policy, which is essentially a confirmation of this is what we expect for you in terms of energy, time, and commitment and re- and preparation. That can rub some people the wrong way, but it underscores the issue. We need your we need the best of your time and energy if you're gonna be our board member.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, this year we spent quite a bit of time talking in our podcast about AI-related issues. I got Notre Dame wrong, but I'm sure that's got to be in our top 10, right?
SPEAKER_02:Absolutely. And uh two of these immediately come to mind, and we've talked about them a little bit in some of our more recent podcasts. Uh the first is the extent to which boards are giving more serious consideration to their AI duties, both oversight and structure, uh, that by which they exercise those duties. And I think that's been prompted by uh the NACD report uh that came out late last year, technology in the boardroom. It was the first indication, I think the first substantive indication from a major respective thought leadership organization that yes, the board has a responsibility to monitor the deployment of AI in the organization. Um and again, we've been seeing that in terms of I think a substantial development this year where boards are saying we need to define our role, we need to exercise our role, we need to pursue our role in this regard before it gets too late, before we lose control of the whole deployment issue.
SPEAKER_01:Michael, you said two developments. What would be the second one?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I think pretty clearly it's the emerging perspective, Rob, that the board, in its human capital role, has a responsibility to address the workforce displacement issues that might arise from the deployment of AI and related technology. You know, we're we're starting to see quite a bit of rumblings about this from the workforce surveys. I read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today that talked about this as well. Um, boards cannot just sit by and allow um AI decisions and AI-related expense line efficiencies to proceed at any cost. Uh there is a fiduciary and dare I say, a moral obligation that's arising to say, at least what's going on here? Are these efficiencies necessary? What's the impact on our workforce? What and on both on culture and the jobs that they have right now?
SPEAKER_01:Mike, it always seems like in our daily briefings we're hearing that constant beat of executive suite turnover, especially in the CEO uh office. Does your top 10 issues reflect that?
SPEAKER_02:Well, it sure does, absolutely. You know, I'm like you. The data I read suggests that there's constant CEO turnover, uh, whether voluntary or involuntary, and it's not just in college football. Um the the concept is that this CEO tenure is declining markedly. It's not really whether they get paid for that or not, it's the fact that oftentimes they're much more short-termers than we're used to seeing, certainly that you and I grew up in the industry with. So I think a major 2025 development involves the need for boards to be more alert to the stability of the CEO office. And by that I mean, how are you doing, Rob? Uh how are things coming along? How's the pressure? Are you are you able to um uh uh enjoy coming to work? Are you comfortable with this position? What's the pressure like on you, um as well as how they're performing? And but at the same time, to have what I call ready-to-go executive search and succession practices, including uh but not limited to emergency succession plans. Uh I don't I'm not sure that's happening fast enough, Rob. I'm I'm surprised at the boardrooms I've been in where there's just where succession plans aren't really in place or or haven't been have been on the shelf way too long. And I think it's almost an easy fix. This is something the boards can immediately jump in on. And I've seen some of my um really most effective uh uh board clients are those that not only look at it at the CEO level, but also at the board level succession at the board level and succession at senior executive officer level. So I think it's been a very important development this year.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, what about the developments related to board composition as we think about the skill sets that are necessary in 2026 to effectively govern?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I think you you're always going to have, Rob, the debate about well, should we have a competency-based board or a strategic vision-based board? And I'm I'm not sure that's a major development this year, but I do think that there have been three concepts uh uh that that are within the broader development relating to board composition. Uh, number one, it at least in my experience, we're I'm seeing a significant increase in the use of off boarding to uh excuse ineffective board members from future service. In other words, it's a gentler, kinder, more respectful way to say your history to that board member who's clearly not performing or clearly uncomfortable from this position. Um second, is that you know, while term limits and retirement requirements are are popular, they're not quite best practice in and of themselves. But I think there's an increasing recognition that that they're tools to be used in conjunction with a variety of uh refreshment techniques that generate turnover that's balanced with the retention of expertise. Um but it's not again, they're not in and of themselves the most effective way to address uh turnover. And the third um element of this particular development is uh you know, for obvious reasons, the director's nomination process really needs to be focused on selecting the best possible candidates and avoiding measurements like quotas, mandates, preferences, and percentages for reasons that we have been living with, obviously, for the entire year. Uh, and it's an area where the general counsel can be particularly helpful, making sure that the nomination matrix for the board is uh cleansed of references or tools or uh uh relationship points that would suggest the type of standards that the federal government might not appreciate.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, is there any recent pronouncements or regulatory guidance that reminds us we can't forget about the importance of corporate compliance in the boardroom?
SPEAKER_02:You know, I've always been worried, Rob, that you know, some people feel that corporate compliance, which is now what 25 years old is a major concept, has has had its 15 minutes of fame. Uh clearly, if you uh listen to some of the more recent speeches from uh the Deputy Attorney General and the other Department of Justice officials, they're gonna disagree with that analysis. Um while a lot of law firm memos uh earlier this year uh talked about a significant shift uh away uh from Biden administration sponsored corporate fraud enforcement initiatives. Um, I think the Department of Justice is of the view that is that individual accountability and healthcare fraud remain key, if not primary, enforcement objectives. So I think the message is um don't make the mistake of toning down your compliance emphasis because you will be surprised that the Department of Justice feels that they are as strong or stronger on concepts of individual accountability and pursuing healthcare fraud.
SPEAKER_01:So, how did we get here so quick, Michael? We're down to the last development. It's time for the unveil. What is number 10?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I think that's gonna be one on culture-related matters, or something probably I wouldn't have suspected uh a year ago. Uh, but there are very uh several aspects of board and corporate culture that I think have coalesced to to become a major issue in the past year from a governance perspective. One has to be the sharp increase in attention to intraboard collegiality and how it can impact board effectiveness. Um, I think that there's simply a rising intolerance, and there should be, for you know, what are you gonna call the bad actors for adversarial and disrespectful boardroom dynamics? A much greater appreciation when you have that disruptive director in the room and just generally a pain in the ass, or is rude or or is you know, with with by body language, is chilling other board members from participating in the conversation. I think there's a greater recognition that that kind of uh uh ill uh uncollegial, uncollegial, what's the right word, conduct, uh is going to affect negatively the boardroom discourse, and that's a problem. So that's number one, people are paying attention to that. The other is something we've talked about in one of our uh podcasts earlier this year, and that's the emphasis on director candor. Uh it's you know, it's not necessarily transparency, but it's more you have an obligation to share with your other board members information that you believe is necessary for the performance of their duties. And there was a major court case in this regard as well, uh which resulted, you may remember, in the shaming of a director by a court, which is a highly unusual situation. You just can't pull punches with your other board members. You have to be upfront and transparent in your communication with them. It's part of the duty of loyalty. You've got to have your cards on the table so everybody has the same information that you're working from. And I think that's another, again, cultural development that's critical as a major development from this year.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, as we get ready for that ball to drop and uh we move into 2026, let's ask you to put on your Karnak, the magnificent costume, and share with our listeners your wisdom on what you think will be the top trends for 2026. All right, so let's start with number one.
SPEAKER_02:Well, Rob, but let me throw you a curveball and say it's trust and reputation. I think that's going to be the that would be the number one trend, trust and reputation of the organization with respect to its constituents. I think we're gonna be seeing more surveys that suggest the public is losing confidence in major corporations and institutions. We started the year with the Edelman Trust Barometer, which they do every year, and and I think it's outstanding, and they zeroed in on the Grievance Society, and darned if they weren't dead on uh I was gonna say the other word from my cousin Benny, they that they were absolutely correct in their analysis. Now we see at the end of the year the new Harvard Kennedy School study on uh Gen Z and their uh issues, and it again it's a question of elements of society losing faith in institutions and corporations. And what does I think a governing board in any sector, certainly healthcare, that deals so directly with the public and on many levels, has to be aware of this. How are how do we need to deal with our constituents? Um, it's a foundational issue, and boards I think need to be really alert to this development.
SPEAKER_01:A really important issue. So on the topic of volatility, can we take an exhale? Will this be a calmer year ahead?
SPEAKER_02:I don't not necessarily. I I don't think there's a chance that volatility moves off the table um this year because it's an election year, if anything else. And and without trying to be political in any way, uh, boards should not expect to catch a breath when it comes to volatility as to again the the the lineup, government affairs, global developments, the global supply chain, the economy, social concerns, and political developments. Would it be the case that we would have a columnar year? But I don't think that I don't know anybody, and I haven't read anybody who expects 2026 to be tranquil. And I think the key thing is from a board perspective, Rob, that we know from experience that public turmoil, turbulence, and controversy will find their way in some uh element onto the board agenda. So I think the question is if we're talking about uh how much engagement board members should have be uh in 2026, I think the volatility question will answer certainly no less than they had last year.
SPEAKER_01:So during our period of reflection on 2025 issues, we talked about board members drinking from a fire hose. What do you expect to be coming out of that fire hose in 2026 that board members should be ready for?
SPEAKER_02:Two related thoughts. And and one might be might seem a little odd, but I think we're already seeing signs of it now. And that is that there will be developments in the public health sector, I think, uh that boards are going to be called upon to address issues that they didn't anticipate addressing, issues that they don't necessarily want to be called into to addressing. Uh the whole vaccination question is one of them. Uh the decisions uh regarding the uh the hepatitis vaccine is is, I think, the tip of the iceberg in terms of the kinds of issues uh where there's confusion about the appropriate public health response, which will arise not only in consumers, but in medical staff members. And ultimately it the board will need to be prepared to support management in deciding how we how much of this is a concern, how much of it is a liability exposure, how much is it a PR issue for us, how much is it a staff relations issue. I just think that that's going to be a big issue that people aren't seeing coming. Um it's just it's part of that whole category of issues, Rob, that I think board members are going to say, you know, I didn't sign up for this. I I, you know, I don't really want to deal with this. And the problem is you're in that seat, you have to deal with it. Um then there's a related trend, uh, which is the need for board and executive leadership to be much more aggressive on director retention efforts. We've spent a lot of time over the last couple of years talking about how uh removal, how to get rid of the problematic board member. I think we're gonna see a shift now to saying how can we keep good board members if they have other options, if they're just tired of it. I think the the potential brain drain from the boardroom is something we really have. Be concerned about.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, thinking about intra board matters, any other issues that you've seen that you would forecast for the year ahead?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I do. I think that uh what what I'm kind of projecting uh uh is a byproduct of the expanding, you know, expanding board portfolio that I've been talking about. And and I think there's going to be an increased emphasis on really meaningful board and individual director evaluation processes. And that I mean by that mean really serious grading. My sense is boards are having an increasing intolerance for not only disruptive directors, but underperforming directors and disengaged directors, um, as well as those who are disruptive and uncollegial. I think board members are saying, look, if I'm going to assume all these additional responsibilities, if this is becoming a more challenging and stressful job for me, I'm not going to sit around and have Michael and Rob dozing off in board meetings, not being prepared, not thinking things through. If uh it's the risk on me is too great if we've got certain numbers of board members uh who just aren't up to the task. And I think you'll find that as in the past, some of the uh consulting firm surveys that will come out in the beginning of the year will say the same thing, which is CEOs want to replace a large number of board members. So the the best way to do that from a variety of perspectives is to have strong indications from really well-prepared evaluation processes to say the data all shows and your peers all show that you're not doing the job. See you, goodbye. So I think that's going to be a big, a big issue uh in 2026.
SPEAKER_01:Michael, as you know, since COVID we've had some shifting dynamics around the logistics of conducting board meetings and just how we position board members to effectively get together and govern. What do you see happening in that space?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I think there are a couple things that I see part of a of a trend in 2026. First, from a general perspective, uh it'll be kind of like the return to work uh pressures that we're seeing now in the general business world and certainly within law firms. I I think we can see much greater emphasis on um in-person time in the boardroom that that the and the effective use of that time. And by the effective use of that time, Rob, I mean um better agenda control, uh tighter issues. Uh, you and I have talked about this in the past. That is not to suggest that uh that I'm endorsing um uh uh a broad-based consent agenda because I think that's a real dangerous process. But it is the concept of the CEO and the general counsel and the chair working together to have a board agenda that's focused on the truly important issues, the strategic issues, and less the tactical issues to make sure that we're getting the most bang for the buck in board meetings. I uh at the same time, um, I'm not trying to dismiss the value of remote board activity. The question is, let's take a look and see if that really works. How is there any is there any suggestion that those meetings are less effective? They can be, you know, it would when properly structured, they can be extremely effective. But as you and I both know, there's really no substitute for people actually being around the boardroom together, watching their uh body language, looking at their expressions, getting a sense. Um, and I do think just as we're seeing the shift back to the office in terms of uh white-collar work, I think that there needs to be a shift back to the boardroom, in-person meetings, but with the concept that they're effectively maintained. We're not going to waste your time. We're going to keep a tight rope on the agenda, and we're not going to allow filibustering by board members and things of that nature. Uh the second related uh development, Rob, is that I think uh, as I kind of mentioned uh a few minutes ago, boards are going to be encouraged to refine the flow of information uh to them in order to make it more make them more effective and more responsive to current board issues. And by that I mean um are we getting the kind of information we need to tackle the big issues? Um two issues that I've been talking about this week with my clients. Uh one is the uh MIT uh uh study, the iceberg project study, which uh talks about um the both the pre the the obvious and the hidden uh workforce costs of AI deployment. And it's it's it's a computer simulation that's designed to help uh organizations plan for uh what may be uh appropriate or what may be inappropriate workforce displacement in the application of AI. It's an interesting study, and it's going to be important from a strategy perspective. It's an example of the kind of things boards need to have in front of them. The same way with the uh Harbor Kennedy study. Uh, we need to ask ourselves, and I think this is a question of the general counsel, the corporate secretary, the board chair working together, what's the kind of information we do? We don't want to just do an information dump, but what are the kinds of things that you think you will really need and as a board member uh going forward? But that does really help uh depend on having other people like the general counsel uh and the CEO say, given what we see coming, we think you need information here. And it may mean pruning some information back that you're used to getting. Um the the third issue is um that uh and this reflects a personal prejudice, but the board's going to need to discipline itself to resist well-intentioned, but nevertheless, what I would call unstable or uh or um immature proposals to use AI in support of board activities. Uh many consultants and many tech uh executives and other well-meaning and extremely bright people are proposing all sorts of great ways to use AI to um improve the conduct of the board. Uh, there was an even in a study, Rob, that uh in Deal Book in the Times a week or so ago about the prospect of using AI agents as board members in the future. We just have to be, we just have to be prudent about this. We have to be careful and and not jump on the bandwagon quite yet uh before uh we we can trust uh the use of AI to replace uh traditional board development practices.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, it sounds like you're not a fan of that greater role of AI. Let me ask you a practical question. I keep getting asked. How do you feel about AI becoming our minute taker for our board meetings and privilege?
SPEAKER_02:You know, um I get to ask that question as well. And uh I I frankly don't see the benefit of it. I uh you know, I I think it's a certainly uh I the uh is it wrong? Is it illegal? Um no. Um let me talk about it in a positive way. I think that the concept of having a corporate secretary, the general counsel, the assistant general counsel taking minutes uh is going to be far more effective because that person's gonna be able to read the room, see the people, understand what to emphasize and what not to emphasize. Uh well-prepared minutes, and of course we could maybe we should spend some time on this uh in 2026, one of our upcoming podcasts. What are minutes for? They're for two reasons. They want to remind the board of it of its decisions and what's on its agenda going forward, and it's to be able to demonstrate the exercise of fiduciary duty uh by the board members. Uh and if you are unable to, if you are a machine and you are unable to have a take the pulse of of the emphasis of conversations or you are unable to know what's critically important in an exercise of duty and what's not, I got a problem with that. So um I I'm again how how is this different than taking the minutes by tape? You know, I I know there's all the question about what do you do with the tape and is there an obstruction issue? I I just think we got to wait a little bit on this. Um uh there's no substitute for a human taking stock of the boardroom and the culture and the climate of the boardroom and reflecting that in minutes and discernment.
SPEAKER_01:I won't refer to you as get off my lawn guy with that position. I think that's an appropriate pause as we look to implement some of these new initiatives. So, Michael, uh thinking about corporate compliance, will that be less of a focus this year, or where do you see it falling on our list of board priorities?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I I think it has to be a big priority, and just picking up what we talked about as a as a 2020 to by 2020 development. Uh I I think that we know now from a speech from the Deputy Attorney General that the Department of Justice will soon be introducing a new what they call single corporate enforcement policy that applies to criminal cases across the Department of Justice. And whether that uh means that they'll update the uh uh compliance uh uh guidelines that we are used to seeing from the Department of Justice, I don't know. But in this that speech, the Deputy Attorney General identified the core tenets of what that uh uh policy will be, and it uh and it will include self-disclosure, cooperation, ensuring individual accountability, and applying an evidence-based approach to corporate enforcement to individuals. So I just think we make a huge mistake if we downplay this administration's commitment to uh white-collar uh uh corporate fraud enforcement. Um and uh I think even though that we we may look for ways to decrease the amount of time the board spends on traditional issues like compliance, I think you're gonna see very early on in 2026 reasons to do quite the opposite. And so that that's something um uh that I would expect certainly in the first quarter of 2026, and it will require a response from the board.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, I have to keep going back to the well on AI, but are you sure there's no more AI spillover issues that you want boards to think about?
SPEAKER_02:Well, you know, as we're taping this today, um uh we've just seen a new executive order and the question of federal preemption of state laws on artificial intelligence. Again, I'm not making a political comment on that at all. What I am saying is that boards need to really be close and monitor the evolution of state and federal government policy on AI regulation, uh, especially as it relates to whether it's limited regulation, federal preemption, some overarching federal regulation, and what the states are doing. The reason is we don't have standards right now promulgated by any government per se on what the board should be looking at in terms of monitoring AI-related risk that could create some type of regulatory problem. We're flying blind. Um and uh I and I understand and appreciate the impact of keeping regulation low to enhance um uh development and uh and uh creativity and all, but boards when they're trying know that they need to have a AI-specific compliance function, but when you don't have any mature statutory scheme to address the the known risks of AI, again, you're kind of making it up as you go along. Um, hopefully there will be in 2026 some effort to articulate that more in terms of public policy so boards and management will have a better understanding of what they should be focusing on in terms of uh their work with management on uh AI-related risk. But I don't think we're there yet. And I think it's going to be a key compliance concern to get this resolved as soon as possible.
SPEAKER_01:So maybe merging some concepts here, but Michael, do you see any changes coming forward with the culture of compliance?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I I I do, but less in terms of any new uh DOJ policy and more in terms of uh what I think would be greater board and executive leadership commitment to what we've called tone at the top. Um, you know, it's been uh it's gonna be almost 25 years, Rob, since uh we had the whole corporate responsibility movement uh and coming out of the Enron experience in Sarbanes. And and we've got generational changes in the executive and board leadership room, and there and and there's not a lot of history with some of those folks with the excesses that created uh the scandals then. And but I do think that I sense very clearly that there is a willingness in the board rooms to kind of go back and it's time to re-energize uh tone at the top, both at the board management level. Um part of this I think comes from a renewed awareness of the organizational and individual cost that come with breaches of ethics, breaches of integrity, and also a response to the seeming normalization of conflicts of interest. In other words, I just it's a sense that people are saying, maybe it's time that we we pay more attention to traditional principles of corporate responsibility and leadership, both walking the walk and talking the top. I that's that's my expectation from a culture of compliance perspective uh in the coming year.
SPEAKER_01:And how do you see all that affecting uh the executive leadership team?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I think this is gonna be an absolute critical trend going forward. Uh we're talking a lot in this podcast about uh greater duties being foisted on the board, uh, maybe greater duties being sought by the board and greater agenda issues and things of that nature. And you know what this is gonna do is gonna continue to put pressure on the board management dynamic and the question of what is management's role and what is the board's role. That middle ground is gonna become much grayer. Uh the National Association of Corporate Directors in October released their blue ribbon commission report for this year, and it's all about building a high trust board CEO relationship. And what I believe in 2026, Rob, is that we're gonna see many boards heeding in some way or another NECD's recommendation to make strengthening the board management relationship an absolute imperative. And so I just, you know, I just think that's critical.
SPEAKER_01:So, Michael, we made a reference over to CarMac. So Ed McMahon now has in my hand the last envelope. What is our governance to say or say is our last development or thought for 2026?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I'll go back to the well on that one, Rob. And again, I think it's a sense that boards will at some point recognize that they are going to need to urgently up their game on oversight of the company's AI deployment. Um, that it's going to be boards are going to be prompted by a sense that the pace of AI deployment is rapidly outpacing the current ability of the board to monitor it as to use, as to accountability, as to the impact on the workforce, and especially as to trust and risk. This is not a criticism of AI. It's essentially a recognition that deployment in our industry is going so rapidly and across so many fronts that the board's ability to monitor, to keep a finger on the pulse of what's going on, and to understand what's going on and to understand the expectations is going to be jeopardized because, again, it's we let's end where we started from. It's drinking from the fire hose. And I think it's going to be important that the board at some point come together and say is the mechanism that we have currently in place to monitor how AI is acquired, deployed, and monitored throughout the organization, is it working? What do we know? And what how do we need to make it better? That's the one, you know, as I said, that I just can't get away from that. This something is going to be an overwhelmingly important issue in 2026.
SPEAKER_01:Well, Michael, thank you so much for wrapping up 2025, for forecasting 2026. We appreciate all you've done for our listeners this year. We'll be back next month with our next governance podcast discussion where we'll dig into the latest developments around the role and conduct of the governing board. Michael, thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02:Thank you, Roman.
SPEAKER_00:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe to AHMLA Speaking of Health Law wherever you get your podcasts. For more information about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org and stay updated on breaking healthcare industry news from the major media outlets with AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast, exclusively for AHLA comprehensive members. To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast now. Go to americanhealthlaw.org slash daily podcast.