Lambert here: AI won’t develop into a super-consciousness, like “Eunice” in William Gibson’s stupid Agency. Rather, it will be used for grubby, rentier-driven, crapification like this.

By Brett Wilkins, a staff writer at Common Dreams. Cross-posted from Alternet.

As Medicare Advantage plans rely increasingly upon artificial intelligence to determine—and often deny—payment for patient care, a group of Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Friday urged Medicare’s top official to strengthen oversight of AI and algorithmic tools used to make coverage determinations.

“In recent years, problems posed by prior authorization have been exacerbated by MA plans’ increasing use of AI or algorithmic software to assist in their coverage determinations in certain care settings, including inpatient hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health,” 32 House Democrats led by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Books LaSure.

“Advocates and the media report that the use of such software has led to coverage decisions that are more restrictive than allowed under traditional Medicare rules, as well as more frequent and repeated denials of care,” the lawmakers wrote. “Absent prohibiting the use of AI/algorithmic tools outright, it is unclear how CMS is monitoring and evaluating MA plans’ use of such tools in order ensure that plans comply with Medicare’s rules and do not inappropriately create barriers to care.”

The lawmakers are calling on CMS to take steps including, but not limited to:

  • Requiring MA plans to report prior authorization data including reason for denial, by type of service, beneficiary characteristics (such as health conditions), and timeliness of prior authorization decisions;
  • Comparing “guidance” generated by AI and algorithmic tools with actual MA coverage decisions;
  • Assessing how and to what extent initial prior-authorized AI determinations for services are adjusted to account for unanticipated changes in a patients’ condition;
  • Requiring attestation from MA plans and contractors that their coverage guidelines are not more restrictive than traditional Medicare; and
  • Determining whether MA plans are inappropriately using race/other factors in these algorithms.

MA plans are not part of Medicare. They are a private health insurance “scam” created by a GOP-controlled Congress and signed into law 20 years ago by then-President George W. Bush “as a way of routing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of for-profit insurance companies,” according to frequent Common Dreams opinion contributor Thom Hartmann.

A report published last month by Physicians for a National Health Program revealed that MA plans are overcharging U.S. taxpayers by up to $140 billion per year, enough to completely eliminate Medicare Part B premiums or fully fund Medicare’s prescription drug program.

The lawmakers’ letter is endorsed by advocacy groups including the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Public Citizen, Social Security Works, Center for Health and Democracy, and Business Leaders for Health Care Transformation.

“The use of AI by Medicare Advantage insurers to deny needed care to seniors and people with disabilities represents the most recent and dangerous step by greedy companies focused on profit instead of patients,” Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert said in a statement.

“Now is the time for CMS to crack down on companies that are using AI and other mechanisms to deny care that would be covered if the enrollee were covered by traditional Medicare,” Gilbert added. “Understanding how Medicare Advantage insurers are using AI to deny needed care and holding bad actors accountable are crucial steps to protecting seniors and the Medicare program.”

Last year, a U.S. Senate probe found that insurance companies and other brokers are “running amok” with “fraudsters and scam artists” making false or misleading claims to dupe senior citizens into purchasing MA plans.

Progressive lawmakers have also criticized President Joe Biden for delaying promised curbs on Medicare Advantage plans amid heavy insurance industry lobbying.

Earlier this year, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)—one of the 32 lawmakers who signed the letter to Brooks LaSure—Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky reintroduced a bill to change the official name of MA to “alternative private health plan” to make clear that such coverage is offered by for-profit companies.

“The scheme is called Medicare Advantage,” Pocan and Khanna explained. “But in reality, so-called ‘Medicare Advantage’ is neither Medicare nor an advantage.”

This entry was posted in Banana republic, Health care on by Lambert Strether.

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.