It's even worse with some physicians. When I got an MRI a year or two ago, getting an AI diagnosis cost extra. I am very positive about AI, but I can understand why people would be hesitant to pay extra when they hear about false positives and the unreliability of AI.

▲

elicash 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Additionally, BCBS reports that hospitals are using AI to find ways to charge more money: https://www.bcbs.com/about-us/association-news/bcbsa-analysi...

> New analysis from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) finds that hospital systems are increasingly billing patient hospital stays as more medically complex, driving nearly $1 billion in additional healthcare costs in just two years. [...]

> More than 60% of hospital systems are now using AI-enabled technologies that can scan lab results and electronic records to identify secondary diagnoses, which could move a patient into a higher-severity, higher-reimbursement billing category.

▲

judge2020 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Upcoding is a tale as old as time (and one of UHG's main tactics for making truckloads of money), but this does seem new and interesting.

Like, obviously only a doctor can diagnose. But, they can use technology to help them look at problems, including AI (literally the most versatile pattern matching software we have, just in natural language and with lower success rates). And they can make their own judgement call on if what the tool output is saying is correct.

However, if a Doctor were to see a bogus secondary diagnosis on their screen, and then dismiss it, they're opening themself up to medical malpractice liability, no? Like, it seems like the safest option would be to run (and bill for) the extra tests to confirm if the AI's story is true or untrue.

▲

hammock 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That…doesn’t sound like a bad thing for patients? That sounds like an increase in the standard of care. I’m not surprised a health insurer is mad about it though

	▲	judge2020 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Adding false secondary diagnoses is one of the most prevalent forms of healthcare upcoding and makes hospitals and health providers a boatload of money. It sounds like AI is making doing that a lot easier, and probably hard to contest what it finds without running extra tests.

▲

mcoliver 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Always ask for your imaging data. I have never been denied it. Then take that and run it through your own analysis. Years ago I had some lab work done looking for a specific genetic marker that could explain something. While that was running I took my 23andme genome and cross referenced it with snpedia and had my answer (didn't have the marker) before my doctor did. She was blown away. This was 10 years ago. I'm guessing things have improved quite a bit.

▲

fluidcruft 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are there even any FDA labeled AI diagnostics for MRI? Just about everything I've seen is more things that are meant to help radiologists do things faster (and it's rather debatable whether they ultimately achieve that). The things I've seen gaining traction are very specific measurements (that are not themselves diagnostic) or things that improve workflow.

▲

youniverse 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep one imaging center in LA is charging $45 out of pocket for the AI diagnosis.

▲

dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Setting aside the unreliability of AI, healthcare is already expensive and confusing. It's hard to know what's covered or not ahead of time and it sucks to feel nickel and dimed on something that is already so expensive, especially when you consider we are not trained medical professionals, so we can't really have an informed opinion on what this is really worth...

▲

pkaye 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

can you say no to an AI diagnosis in that case?

	▲	Skyy93 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, sorry should have mentioned that. Of course the easy solution is then to simply decline.