The biggest barrier to adopting AI in healthcare isn't model capability — it's safety. How do you use powerful LLMs like Grok or GPT-4 on sensitive patient records without risking a HIPAA violation?
The answer isn't to avoid AI, but to wrap it in a Security Cage.
The Problem
Every healthcare CIO faces the same dilemma: AI models need data to be useful, but the data they need — Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, diagnoses, lab results — is exactly the data that regulations demand you protect. Traditional approaches force a choice: use AI and accept the risk, or stay compliant and stay manual.
AKIOS eliminates that trade-off.
The Regulatory Landscape
Healthcare AI in the United States must comply with multiple overlapping frameworks:
| Regulation | Scope | How AKIOS Enforces It |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA / HITECH | Strict rules on Protected Health Information (PHI) storage, transmission, and access | In-memory redaction at ingestion. The AI never sees raw patient identifiers. |
| 21 CFR Part 11 | FDA requirements for electronic records and electronic signatures | Merkle-chained audit trail with cryptographic signatures satisfies e-signature requirements. |
| EU AI Act (High-Risk) | AI systems in healthcare classified as high-risk, requiring conformity assessments | Full audit trails and human-in-the-loop controls satisfy high-risk AI requirements. |
| HITECH Breach Notification | Mandatory breach notification within 60 days if PHI is exposed | Zero-exposure architecture — PHI is redacted before AI processing, so there is nothing to breach. |
| State Privacy Laws | California CCPA, Texas HB 300, New York SHIELD Act — state-level health data protections | Policy templates per jurisdiction ensure the cage enforces the strictest applicable rules. |
AKIOS enforces these at the runtime level — not as a checklist, but as code.
The Concept: Policy as Code
AKIOS introduces the concept of a "Security Cage" — an ephemeral, sandboxed runtime environment where data is processed under strict, code-defined policies. Unlike traditional compliance built on documentation and trust, the Security Cage makes violations physically impossible at the infrastructure level.
The Workflow: Automated PHI Redaction
| Step | What Happens | Security Control |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Ingestion | Raw patient admission record (SSN, Name, Address, MRN) loaded into the cage | Data enters via read-only filesystem agent. No copies outside the cage. |
| 2. Redaction | 50+ PHI patterns detected and masked before AI processing | SSN, MRN, NPI, DOB replaced with tokens. The original never reaches the LLM. |
| 3. AI Analysis | LLM performs clinical analysis on redacted content — coding, summarization, risk flags | Budget capped ($1.00/record), network isolated, no persistent storage. |
| 4. Integration | Sanitized output deployed to whitelisted EHR API (Epic/Cerner via FHIR/HL7) | HTTP agent locked to approved FHIR endpoints only. No other destinations allowed. |
| 5. Audit | Every byte read, written, and transmitted logged with cryptographic hash | Merkle chain — if any entry is altered, the entire chain is invalidated. |
Architecture
graph LR
EHR["EHR System\n(Epic/Cerner)"] -->|"patient records\n(encrypted)"| FS["filesystem agent\nread-only"]
subgraph CAGE["AKIOS Security Cage"]
FS --> PII["Redaction Engine\n«SSN» «NPI» «MRN» «DOB»"]
PII --> LLM["llm agent\nclinical analysis"]
LLM --> TE["tool_executor\ncoding & classification"]
TE --> VALID["Output Validation\nraw data check"]
VALID --> MERKLE["Merkle Chain\nSHA-256 signed"]
MERKLE --> COST["Cost Kill-Switch\n$1.00 / record"]
end
COST -->|"coded output\n(redacted)"| HTTP["http agent\nFHIR endpoint only"]
HTTP --> EHR
MERKLE -->|"audit export\n(immutable)"| CISO["Compliance Officer"]
CISO --> HHS["HHS / OCR\nAuditor"]
Policy Configuration
The entire compliance posture is defined in a single YAML file:
# healthcare-hipaa-policy.yml
security:
sandbox: strict
network: isolated
allowed_endpoints:
- ehr-fhir.internal:443
pii_redaction:
enabled: true
patterns: [ssn, mrn, npi, dob, phone, address, insurance_id]
mode: aggressive
budget:
max_cost_per_run: 1.00
currency: USD
audit:
merkle_chain: true
export_format: jsonl
retention_days: 2190 # 6 years — HIPAA retention requirement
What the Compliance Officer Sees
At the end of the workflow, the compliance team receives a structured report:
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Record | admission-2026-0206-****4281.pdf |
| Clinical Code | ICD-10: E11.9 — Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications |
| Risk Flags | Drug interaction alert — metformin + contrast dye imaging scheduled |
| Confidence | 94% |
| Audit Hash | b4a7c1...d82f |
| PHI Exposed | ❌ None — all identifiers redacted before analysis |
| FHIR Submission | ✅ Coded output submitted to Epic FHIR R4 endpoint |
No SSNs. No patient names. No raw medical records. Just clinically actionable output with a cryptographic proof chain.
Why It Matters
- Zero PHI Exposure: Patient identifiers are redacted before any AI processing. Even if the model is compromised, there is nothing to leak.
- Auditable Decisions: Every clinical code and risk flag includes a cryptographic proof chain. HHS/OCR auditors can trace exactly how a decision was made.
- Cost Control: Hard budget limits per record prevent runaway API bills — critical when processing thousands of patient admissions.
- HIPAA Retention: Merkle chain logs are exportable in JSONL format, satisfying the 6-year HIPAA retention requirement.
- EU AI Act Ready: Full audit trails and human-in-the-loop controls satisfy high-risk AI classification requirements.
Try It Yourself
AKIOS is open-source. You can run this exact workflow today:
pip install akios
akios init my-project
akios run templates/file_analysis.yml
Secure your AI. Build with AKIOS.