3 ms·
Id be more concerned about the false negative. My report says nothing found? Sounds great, do I bother getting a 2nd opinion?
by captainkrtek 1y ago
Id be more concerned about the false negative. My report says nothing found? Sounds great, do I bother getting a 2nd opinion?
- jayknight 1y agoYou pay extra for a doctor's opinion. Probably not covered by insurance.
- ares623 1y agoThat's horrific. You pay insurance to have ChatGPT make the diagnosis. But you still need to pay out of pocket anyway. Because of that, I am 100% confident this will become reality. It is too good to pass up.
- CSSer 1y agoI mean, we already have deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. If anything, this kind of policy could align with that because it's prophylactic. We can ensure we maximize the amount we retrieve from you before care kicks in this way. Yeah, it tracks.
- falcor84 1y agoEarly intervention is generally significantly cheaper, so insurers have an interest in doing sufficiently good diagnosis to avoid unnecessary late and costly interventions.
- Workaccount2 1y agoPeople will flock to "AI medical" insurance that costs $50/mo and lets you see whatever AI specialist you want whenever you want.
- captainkrtek 1y agoThink a problem here is the sycophantic nature. If I’m a hypochondriac, and I have some new onset symptoms, and I prompt some LLM about what I’m feeling and what I suspect, I worry it’ll likely positively reinforce a diagnosis I’m seeking.
- sokoloff 1y agoIt sounds fairly reasonable to me to have to pay to get a second opinion for a negative finding on a screening. (That's off-axis from whether an AI should be able to provide the initial negative finding.) If we don't allow this, I think we're more likely to find that the initial screening will be denied as not medically indicated than we are to find insurance companies covering two screenings when the first is negative. And I think we're better off with the increased routine screenings for a lot of conditions.