• Glent@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is the license to kill the insurance companies have been wanting. Killed your husband, oopsie daisy silly computer, we’ll put in a ticket. Btw, shareholder dividends have been off the fookin hizzie lately, noone knows why.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yup, exactly this. Insurance companies don’t want to keep doctors on their payroll, because they’re expensive and inconvenient when the doctor occasionally says that medical care is necessary. But they want to be able to back up their claim denials, so they’ll need to keep some whipped doctors around who will go in front of an appeal and say “nah this person doesn’t actually need chemo. They’ll be fine without it. It’s not medically necessary.”

      Now they’ll be able to just spin up an AI, get it licensed, and then never let it actually say care is necessary. Boom, now they’re able to deny 100% of claims if they want, because they’re expensive have a “licensed” AI saying that care is never necessary.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 days ago

    I probably don’t need to point this out, but AIs do not have to follow any sort of doctor-patient confidentiality issues what with them not being doctors.

      • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        So why push to prevent abortion?

        Real question, no troll.

        Kill people by preventing care on one side. Prevent people from unwanted pregnancy on the other. Maybe they want a rapid turnover in population because the older generations aren’t compliant.

        With the massive changes to the Department of Education, maybe they have plans to severely dumb down the next few generations into maleable, controllable wage slaves.

        Maybe I just answered my own question.

        • blazeknave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Lack of abortion kills women. Disproportionately women of color die with all things pregnancy and birth related.

          • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I agree with both statements (and so do facts). I am trying to sound out why both actions are occurring simultaneously.

            My thought comes from a place thinking about the logic. Is it something like, “we don’t care if a handful (or even more) die in child birth, so long as we have a huge surge in fresh new population.”

            Maybe I am trying to understand logical reasoning that isn’t present.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          the older generations aren’t compliant

          Where are you coming from with this statement?

          In my experience the older the person, the bigger the bootlicker. Boomers as a group behave like obedient dogs, they will accept anything as long as their macmansion price and 401k goes up.

          • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I am trying to understand why they would both prevent abortion AND cut healthcare. I don’t believe any generation is more or less compliant. I think that each group is compliant to different things.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 hours ago

              why they would both prevent abortion AND cut healthcare

              fake news teevee told them that’s what they should support, they don’t give much thought to issues beyond that.

  • Fermion@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

    Currently insurance claim denial appeals have to be reviewed by a licensed physician. I bet insurance companies would love to cut out the human element in their denials.

    • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      A real world response to denied claims and prior authorizations is to ask a few qualifying questions during the appeals process. Submit claims and prior authorizations with the full expectation that they will be denied, because the shareholders must have caviar, right?

      Anecdotal case in-point:

      You desperately need a knee surgery to prevent a potential worse condition. The Prior Authorization is denied.

      You have the right to appeal that ruling, and you can ask what are the credentials for the doctor who gave the ruling. If, per se, a psychologist says that a knee surgery isn’t medically necessary, you can ask them which specialized training they have received in the field of psychiatry that brought them to that conclusion.

    • thallamabond@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m really interested in seeing the full text whenever that comes out, I agree and think this would be one of the first places they would use it.

  • BlueLineBae@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Very interesting. The way I see people fucking with AI at the moment, there’s no way someone won’t game an AI doctor to give them whatever they want. But also knowing that UnitedHealthcare was using AI to deny claims, this only legitimizes those denials for them more. Either way, the negatives appear to outweigh the positives at least for me.

  • Luci@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is great for Canada. We won’t be loosing as many trained doctors to the US now.

    Thanks!!!

    (I’m so sorry this happening to you guys)

  • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    So AI practitioners would also be held to the same standards and be subject to the same consequences as human doctors then, right? Obviously not. So this means a few lines of code will get all the benefits of being a practitioner and bear none of the responsibilities. What could possibly go wrong? Oh right, tons of people will die.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      So this means a few lines of code will get all the benefits of being a practitioner and bear none of the responsibilities.

      This algo told me to over charge rent, I am not price fixing…

      This is the new business tactic to extract while avoiding liability.

      There is no recourse any person has here either. And the government is too corrupt to protect the taxpayers.

      We are so fucked.