3 ms·

Earlier discussion on this topic, with the original source link from ArsTechnica: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299921 https://news.ycombinator.com/it

by rchaud 3y ago

Earlier discussion on this topic, with the original source link from ArsTechnica: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299921 (Nov 17, 2023) As I said on that thread: the dangers of AI will always come down to human decisions made on how it should be applied. These 'solutions' will come from the McKinseys and IBMs of the world to serve hospital CEO needs, not those of patients or care providers. For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now?

hotnfresh 3y ago
Yep. The actual risk of “AI” in the medium term is that these things are gonna mostly be used for optimizing the shit out of extracting money from normal people (i.e. pushing down the standard of living) while all normal folks will get out of it is fancy autocomplete. Great. Shifting the power and information imbalance farther toward large corporations is exactly what our flavor of capitalism needed. /s (Mostly, in the legitimate, if you will, economy, that is—they’re also gonna be hugely useful to scammers and astroturfers)
- geodel 3y ago
  > The actual risk of “AI” in the medium term is that these things are gonna mostly be used for optimizing ... I like this. I will further add since In the long term we are all going to die it will be fine for everyone :-)
snowpid 3y ago
" For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now? " Can you elaborate? In countries like Denmark or Estonia electronic medical records are well used among doctors and patients.
- LegibleCrimson 3y ago
  I think the point is that one of the big hype phrases is that it will decrease costs of healthcare and lower people's bills, but even if you lower the cost, there is no actual incentive to lower patient bills, so the extra value simply goes to owners and investors rather than the end consumer.
  - staunton 3y ago
    Would you rather be treated in a modern hospital or one from 50 years ago? Would you choose the historical hospital if it charged you the same fraction of median income as it did back then?
    - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
      It's not that black and white. There's more at play than just charges. Things can be better and still shockingly corrupt, with extreme amounts of unjustified overhead. Things are minimally better for any individual patient, while being extremely more expensive, and the insurance overhead has skyrocketed. The question is a little bit like responding to a complaint about industrialized agriculture's effects on the environment by saying "Would you rather eat sausage from 100 years ago or now?" It's not actually that relevant to the initial complaint, and it reads like it's trying to just terminate the conversation on a loophole. Things can be better and still also be filled with many problems, particularly modern problems that weren't relevant in the time period you're comparing to. To actually answer the question honestly, it depends on my condition. For the kind of thing I would typically see my GP for, including run-of-the-mill checkups, definitely one from 50 years ago. For any serious medical issues, modern (as long as I can convince the doctors that it's actually serious so they spend more than 30 seconds on investigation). As far as charges go, per-capita healthcare expenditure is now over 5 times as high as it was in 1980. Are we getting a 5-fold improvement in medical care? When I go to the doctor for anything more than a checkup, 90% of my time is spent waiting, and I spend twice as much time with RNs who repeatedly ask me the same questions, before a frazzled doctor comes in, asks a couple questions, then rushes out, maybe handing me a prescription for antibiotics regardless of what my concern is.
dinvlad 3y ago
It seems the Big Data hype never really died down - it just changed the name
tuatoru 3y ago
The Economist thinks things are better[1]. In that costs are not rising faster than average inflation any more. So not lower than before, but lower than was expected for 2023 a few years ago. For those blocked by the paywall, the article lists causes for the slowing growth as: productivity improvements in paperwork, cheaper technology for dialysis, among other things, the Affordable Care Act, non-US countries insisting on generic drugs more often, and slower-than-inflation growth in median income (the rich hoovering up all the money). 1.https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/26/how-health-care-costs-stopped-rising https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/26/h...
rqtwteye 3y ago
" These 'solutions' will come from the McKinseys and IBMs of the world to serve hospital CEO needs, not those of patients or care providers." That's the pattern for most internal enterprise software that's being purchased.

by rchaud 3y ago

hotnfresh 3y ago

Yep. The actual risk of “AI” in the medium term is that these things are gonna mostly be used for optimizing the shit out of extracting money from normal people (i.e. pushing down the standard of living) while all normal folks will get out of it is fancy autocomplete. Great. Shifting the power and information imbalance farther toward large corporations is exactly what our flavor of capitalism needed. /s (Mostly, in the legitimate, if you will, economy, that is—they’re also gonna be hugely useful to scammers and astroturfers)

geodel 3y ago
> The actual risk of “AI” in the medium term is that these things are gonna mostly be used for optimizing ... I like this. I will further add since In the long term we are all going to die it will be fine for everyone :-)

snowpid 3y ago

" For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now? " Can you elaborate? In countries like Denmark or Estonia electronic medical records are well used among doctors and patients.

LegibleCrimson 3y ago
I think the point is that one of the big hype phrases is that it will decrease costs of healthcare and lower people's bills, but even if you lower the cost, there is no actual incentive to lower patient bills, so the extra value simply goes to owners and investors rather than the end consumer.
- staunton 3y ago
  Would you rather be treated in a modern hospital or one from 50 years ago? Would you choose the historical hospital if it charged you the same fraction of median income as it did back then?
  - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
    It's not that black and white. There's more at play than just charges. Things can be better and still shockingly corrupt, with extreme amounts of unjustified overhead. Things are minimally better for any individual patient, while being extremely more expensive, and the insurance overhead has skyrocketed. The question is a little bit like responding to a complaint about industrialized agriculture's effects on the environment by saying "Would you rather eat sausage from 100 years ago or now?" It's not actually that relevant to the initial complaint, and it reads like it's trying to just terminate the conversation on a loophole. Things can be better and still also be filled with many problems, particularly modern problems that weren't relevant in the time period you're comparing to. To actually answer the question honestly, it depends on my condition. For the kind of thing I would typically see my GP for, including run-of-the-mill checkups, definitely one from 50 years ago. For any serious medical issues, modern (as long as I can convince the doctors that it's actually serious so they spend more than 30 seconds on investigation). As far as charges go, per-capita healthcare expenditure is now over 5 times as high as it was in 1980. Are we getting a 5-fold improvement in medical care? When I go to the doctor for anything more than a checkup, 90% of my time is spent waiting, and I spend twice as much time with RNs who repeatedly ask me the same questions, before a frazzled doctor comes in, asks a couple questions, then rushes out, maybe handing me a prescription for antibiotics regardless of what my concern is.

dinvlad 3y ago

It seems the Big Data hype never really died down - it just changed the name

tuatoru 3y ago

The Economist thinks things are better[1]. In that costs are not rising faster than average inflation any more. So not lower than before, but lower than was expected for 2023 a few years ago. For those blocked by the paywall, the article lists causes for the slowing growth as: productivity improvements in paperwork, cheaper technology for dialysis, among other things, the Affordable Care Act, non-US countries insisting on generic drugs more often, and slower-than-inflation growth in median income (the rich hoovering up all the money). 1.https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/26/how-health-care-costs-stopped-rising https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/26/h...

rqtwteye 3y ago

" These 'solutions' will come from the McKinseys and IBMs of the world to serve hospital CEO needs, not those of patients or care providers." That's the pattern for most internal enterprise software that's being purchased.