7 ms·
The American Medical Association owns copyright to all the codes and their descriptions. They have an extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options and
by ecosystem 11mo ago
The American Medical Association owns copyright to all the codes and their descriptions. They have an extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options and they strictly forbid training models with the codes.
This month, the practice was called out (https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy-rebukes-ama-for-abusing-cpt-system-raising-health-care-costs-on-american-families https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy...) so the Overton window may be opening.
The AMA (a nonprofit!) clears ~$300M/year revenue from the codes, which is the direct cost passed through to consumers, but the indirect costs are the byzantine nightmare of OP.
- topaz0 11mo ago$300M/year is less than $1 per person. This is not why healthcare is expensive.
- paulryanrogers 11mo agoThe opaque costs add up. If nothing else all the layers make things slow, when time is the difference between life/health and death/illness.
- ecosystem 11mo agoIt's ~$1/person direct, but how much indirect cost? Things become inexpensive when automation and technological progress makes them so, and the code copyright and restriction is a major barrier to do that.
- newZWhoDis 11mo agoInsurance companies get a lot of (deserved) hate, but the doctor cartel seems to skate on by in the eyes of the public. The white coats are far from blameless here.
- mr_toad 11mo ago> extremely restrictive and expensive licensing options The license is meaningless if training AI is considered fair use, and if you never agreed to the license. They might be able to lean heavily on medical researchers and the like (who probably need a license for other uses), but when push comes to shove I suspect Google and OpenAI would win.
- ecosystem 11mo agoThe bigger issue is software development, imo. eg the IT team at a hospital or the medical office can't build a tool to help coding efficiency or accuracy. Further, public resources/websites with code-related information get DMCA takedowns. It's a stranglehold on innovation/progress.
- Danjoe4 11mo agoQuick guys someone make an MCP server with the codes. Fuck em!
- GrinningFool 11mo agoReading between the lines, it seems like this is a threat made to bring AMA in line with the administration's policies around medically supporting transgender people. I would expect that if (when) the AMA folds on the matter, concerns around the codes will be somehow forgotten
- ecosystem 11mo agoProbably, but it wouldn't be the first time an axe grinding broke a sponsored monopoly.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 11mo agoA code is not an artistic expression and so can't be copyrightable. The layout of a book of codes, for sure, but the information in it... might be protectable with other IPR but not copyright. Does not stop people threatening you though. This is my opinion only, not legal advice, and does not relate to my employment.
- gpm 11mo agoJudging by Judge Alsup's ruling even if the codes were copyrighted it would most likely not be copyright infringement to train on them either, and as such even if they are copyrightable and they do own copyright on them it remains beyond their abilities to forbid training on them. (Also opinion, also not legal advice, I'm also not a lawyer and sort of doubt the person I'm responding to is).
- pbhjpbhj 11mo agoIANAL, you're right.
- themafia 11mo ago> not be copyright infringement to train on them either Copyright is about reproduction. It does not cover uses. Once you bought it, it's yours, as long as you don't reproduce it outside of fair use. The problem with most language models is they will often uncritically reproduce significant portions of copyrighted works.
- MostlyStable 11mo agoIf you buy the codes, yes. If you only license them (which is what the original comment claims is the only way to get them legally), and that license explicitly forbids training, that seems to be less clear-cut. I have no idea if such restrictions are legal or would hold up to challenge, but it's less clear than the case where you buy a book and can then do whatever you want with it.
- onionisafruit 11mo agoAnd yet people are collectively paying $300M licensing these non-copyrightable codes? With that kind of money somebody must have looked into not paying for licensing
- BurningFrog 11mo agoIt's important to understand that a "nonprofit" can be just as greedy as any other organization. It can't pay out profits to shareholders, but it can hire its owners as employees and pay them any number of millions.
- antisthenes 11mo agoAny non-profit can always claim to inflate their expenditures up to (and above) their expenses and pay lavish bonuses to their employees, like you said. Doesn't change what it basically is - aka Scamming the Public, and privatising the gains.
- broguinn 11mo agoDoesn't the AMA serve the medical industry? They don't have to make profits themselves. If a byzantine coding process raises medical treatment costs, they'll do it. Just like how they intentionally cap med school admissions to keep doctors in demand and inflate their salaries.
- BurningFrog 11mo agoThe AMA is functionally the trade union for doctors. They work to maximize the income of their members. Maintaining a shortage of doctors is one of their primary tools. If this also helps the medical industry, it's an accidental side effect.
- tw04 11mo ago>This month, the practice was called out (https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy...) so the Overton window may be opening. So you think the same Senate that is planning on gutting healthcare for millions of Americans is going to go after the AMA billing codes? Is this real life? They MIGHT demand some donations to the ballroom, but I doubt they care enough to even do that. Ahh, here's the correct link and as I suspected, this has absolutely nothing to do with reducing healthcare costs for the average american. It is a direct attack on the AMA for advocating for supportive care for transgender citizens. https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy-rebukes-ama-for-abusing-cpt-system-raising-health-care-costs-on-american-families https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy... With opinions like this, you can rest assured Cassidy is concerned with healthcare costs for the average citizen: >This comes after Cassidy denounced the AMA for defying President Trump’s Executive Order by promoting gender mutilation and castration of children.
- bnjms 11mo agoI have heard this also how some state law works. That it’s difficult to directly reference state law or relevant information which define the meaning of state law.
- datavirtue 11mo agoThe codes are data. The restrictions are empty threats.
- RandallBrown 11mo agoGoogle tells me that the AMA made about 468 million last year in revenue. If they made that much from the codes it seems like they wouldn't necessarily pass the IRS Public Support test. (Unless somehow this licensing counts as "public support." I seem to remember this test is why the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation exist, but I could be mistaken. Edit: Seems that the AMA is a 501c6, which is a different kind of non profit.
- ecosystem 11mo agoRight, it seems a lot like the public support test fails for the AMA -- their purpose and actions are highly misaligned on CPTs, but IANAL.
- like_any_other 11mo agoSo what you're saying is the AMA is openly hostile to Americans.
- iAMkenough 11mo agoYou could argue the lawmakers that granted copyright protections are openly hostile to Americans. Many fine people are saying that Congress values profits over people.
- aqme28 11mo agoIt’s quite literally a cartel and it acts like one. They heavily restrict the supply of doctors, which means our medical costs are higher in favor of higher doctor salaries.
- red-iron-pine 11mo agotake a look at the Fortune 100 list and notice how many healthcare companies are in the top 20 the AMA is their homie and is sponsored by them
- almosthere 11mo agoIt has been forever, what planet are you on? Their official policy would be to make any native american cure (upon which many of the medications we use from big pharma, are based on in origin) to be illegal. They would want all profit going through them, whether that is good for you or not.
- antisthenes 11mo agoAnything related to healthcare (except some genuine minority of doctors and staff) is almost openly hostile to Americans. I used to think American healthcare was in part expensive because Americans have poor health (e.g. high obesity). Now I am beginning to think that Americans have poor health by design for the healthcare industry to be able to maximize their profits. Making some Americans healthy just seems to be a side product.
- kldg 11mo ago
- almosthere 11mo agoA subscriber of the code can use it agentically by using snomed,icd,cpt etc.. in their official capacity to look up meanings. It would also be permissible to search existing records and prices (if an actor has them) to cross check average prices for some procedure.