Your AI agent can book your haircut and find you a cheaper flight, so why not send it to collect your medical records? Behind that helpful little bot is a company, a set of terms you probably didn’t read, and some very real questions about who is responsible. If you asked for last month’s labs and the agent walked away with your entire medical history, whose problem is that?
Nolla’s AI prescribing pilot is being celebrated as a win for access to care. Byte also promised convenient, affordable treatment before the recall and reports of damaged teeth. But who determines whether a patient actually is “low risk,” and what happens when that judgment is wrong?
Yesterday, a federal court issued a highly anticipated ruling in Estate of Gene B. Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group—denying UnitedHealthcare’s attempt to dismiss certain state law claims and allowing breach of contract and good faith claims to move forward. It’s a major development in a case when back in November 2023 UHG was first sued over AI-driven coverage denials under its Medicare Advantage plans. Given this new ruling, it’s a perfect time to revisit the original lawsuit’s claims and the broader legal risks that AI poses in healthcare.
icial intelligence (AI) is supposed to make healthcare smarter, more efficient, and—ideally—better for patients. But as UnitedHealthcare Group (UHG) recently learned, AI can also go horribly wrong, leading to denied care, regulatory scrutiny, and class-action lawsuits. Today’s posts breaks down what happened in the UHG case, what it reveals about some of AI’s legal minefields, and how healthcare organizations can avoid becoming the next target of an AI-related lawsuit.