4 ms·

An implication is that very soon, the quality of diagnostics possible in less-regulated markets may exceed that available in more-regulated markets. The conserv

by dzdt 3y ago

An implication is that very soon, the quality of diagnostics possible in less-regulated markets may exceed that available in more-regulated markets. The conservatism and protectionism for the role of doctors in more-regulated markets will be a strong barrier to rolling out the use of AI diagnostics, patient explanations, and treatment recommendations. Of course other aspects of less-regulated markets will continue to be "buyer beware", so there is a tradeoff between progressive use of new technology and conservative approaches.

Workaccount2 3y ago
An AI will misdiagnose someone who will die as a result, and the media will run with it for weeks talking about how AI doctors cannot be trusted and are liable to get you killed. All the while ignoring that the medical field refers to "misdiagnosis leading to death" as "Wednesday".
- siva7 3y ago
  You're making the mistake into beliving that insurers and megacorps will make their AI liable. No, they will shop doctors around the world to sign off whatever InsurerGPT tells them, making the docs fully liable.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    That's been going on for a long time, and no one's liable, really. https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health... > The company has built a system that allows its doctors to instantly reject a claim on medical grounds without opening the patient file, leaving people with unexpected bills, according to corporate documents and interviews with former Cigna officials. Over a period of two months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the documents show.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 3y ago
  > the medical field refers to "misdiagnosis leading to death" as "Wednesday". Bull. One of the challenges of the medical profession in the XXI century is that google-assisted patients are ready to sue at the minimum sight of anything even slightly off the perfect diagnosis and treatment. Yes, a lot of doctors are assholes, often with a god-complex - not unlike every other human being out there - but the fact that you can sue the assholes keeps them increasingly in-check. AIs have no conscience and can't be sued - you can sue the parent company, at which point it will just become a business cost, in the same way chemical certain companies put aside a bit of cash to pay before they discharge crap into rivers.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    >One of the challenges of the medical profession in the XXI century is that google-assisted patients are ready to sue at the minimum sight of anything even slightly off the perfect diagnosis and treatment. No lawyer will take that case unless you pay cash up front; if you did, they'd be professionally obliged to tell you that you're wasting your money. Medical malpractice is defined and decided wholly in terms of the accepted standard of care. If you did what your competent peers would do in the same situation, if you followed the guidance of a recognised expert body, and if you documented that thoroughly, then you're legally in the clear. A great deal of medical care is demonstrably sub-optimal, but still very comfortably above the threshold of negligence. Overwhelmingly, patients don't sue because they have over-inflated expectations - they sue because clinicians and hospital systems make a lot of foreseeable and consequential errors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8667701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8667701/

by dzdt 3y ago

Workaccount2 3y ago

An AI will misdiagnose someone who will die as a result, and the media will run with it for weeks talking about how AI doctors cannot be trusted and are liable to get you killed. All the while ignoring that the medical field refers to "misdiagnosis leading to death" as "Wednesday".

siva7 3y ago
You're making the mistake into beliving that insurers and megacorps will make their AI liable. No, they will shop doctors around the world to sign off whatever InsurerGPT tells them, making the docs fully liable.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  That's been going on for a long time, and no one's liable, really. https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health... > The company has built a system that allows its doctors to instantly reject a claim on medical grounds without opening the patient file, leaving people with unexpected bills, according to corporate documents and interviews with former Cigna officials. Over a period of two months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the documents show.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toyg 3y ago
> the medical field refers to "misdiagnosis leading to death" as "Wednesday". Bull. One of the challenges of the medical profession in the XXI century is that google-assisted patients are ready to sue at the minimum sight of anything even slightly off the perfect diagnosis and treatment. Yes, a lot of doctors are assholes, often with a god-complex - not unlike every other human being out there - but the fact that you can sue the assholes keeps them increasingly in-check. AIs have no conscience and can't be sued - you can sue the parent company, at which point it will just become a business cost, in the same way chemical certain companies put aside a bit of cash to pay before they discharge crap into rivers.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  >One of the challenges of the medical profession in the XXI century is that google-assisted patients are ready to sue at the minimum sight of anything even slightly off the perfect diagnosis and treatment. No lawyer will take that case unless you pay cash up front; if you did, they'd be professionally obliged to tell you that you're wasting your money. Medical malpractice is defined and decided wholly in terms of the accepted standard of care. If you did what your competent peers would do in the same situation, if you followed the guidance of a recognised expert body, and if you documented that thoroughly, then you're legally in the clear. A great deal of medical care is demonstrably sub-optimal, but still very comfortably above the threshold of negligence. Overwhelmingly, patients don't sue because they have over-inflated expectations - they sue because clinicians and hospital systems make a lot of foreseeable and consequential errors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8667701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8667701/