Defensible AI in healthcare. With the audit to prove it.

A vendor pilot graduated. Or an innovation team’s AI-mediated symptom checker shipped to production. Or your patient portal added an AI summary feature. Now your privacy officer has a question — what’s our exposure? — and the answer is some combination of “the vendor said it’s HIPAA-compliant,” “we have a BAA somewhere,” and “we ran axe-core once.” Those answers may not be sufficient under OCR enforcement scrutiny, malpractice discovery, or class-action proceedings. The audit produces evidence-backed documentation calibrated to those scrutiny lenses.

PHI plus AI is a regulated deployment whether or not anyone treated it as one. An innovation team put a pattern-completion engine into a system that holds protected information, and OCR enforcement does not turn on whether the CCO was briefed first. The audit enumerates what was deployed, where it touches PHI, what it can reach, and what it logs; the BAA chain closes the contractual gaps; and the regulatory grounding — 45 CFR 164.302–164.318, FDA AI/ML SaMD screening, breach-notification mechanics — is what makes the deployment defensible under scrutiny rather than a liability surface no one has measured.

Generic compliance audits don’t fix this. Most run a checklist scored from interviews; they don’t read the code, don’t enumerate the BAAs, don’t screen for SaMD exposure, and don’t model the agentic-attack threat surface against your environment specifically. The findings are advisory. The privacy officer’s job is not advisory.

You need an engineering audit. Specific to AI. Specific to healthcare. Specific to your system. BST is the operator that built HELiX — our open-source healthcare-grade component library built to WCAG 2.2 AA — so the same regulatory and accessibility constraints your system has to meet are the constraints we build inside as a matter of practice. The Compliance Review is not a healthcare-curious security firm doing a side project; it is a healthcare-credentialed engineering audit run by a principal who works inside those regulatory and accessibility constraints as a matter of practice.