31 ms·

There's another option, which is to have the consultation recorded and then transcribed by a third person, or at least have the transcript reviewed while listen

by tdeck 2mo ago

There's another option, which is to have the consultation recorded and then transcribed by a third person, or at least have the transcript reviewed while listening to the recording. I think for medical situations it's more than reasonable to put in the labor to ensure correctness.

selestify 2mo ago
Cost of medical care is already sky high (in the US). Are you sure you want to introduce even more administrative overhead?
- tdeck 2mo ago
  How were people doing this a few years ago before generative AI? Did the cost of care go down significantly and I just missed it?
bpodgursky 2mo ago
Think about what this literally means. There are a million doctors in the US. Doctors spend their day consulting patients, so, you need a million transcription reviewers. Let's say you pay each of them $50k/yr (aka rock bottom US entry-level wage). That's $50 billion a year, and a million people pulled out of the labor force. Is that worth it? Is that really the best thing you can do with $50 billion dollars? In real life, tradeoffs exist.
- nradov 2mo ago
  There are already a lot of people doing manual review and editing of medical transcription speech recognition output. That has been the status quo for decades. A lot of those workers are offshore in India and Philippines. Overall transcription work is slowly declining as more physicians switch to direct EHR template data entry and AI scribes.
nradov 2mo ago
Medical transcription isn't the same thing as medical scribing. Transcription has been done primarily by speech recognition software with human review for decades. The output is just a text chart note, which isn't particularly useful because none of the clinical findings are coded. The coding can either be done up front by a human or AI scribe, or as a second step after transcription. In any case the human attending clinician is legally accountable for reviewing and approving the output before it's officially added to the patient chart.

by tdeck 2mo ago

selestify 2mo ago

Cost of medical care is already sky high (in the US). Are you sure you want to introduce even more administrative overhead?

tdeck 2mo ago
How were people doing this a few years ago before generative AI? Did the cost of care go down significantly and I just missed it?

bpodgursky 2mo ago

Think about what this literally means. There are a million doctors in the US. Doctors spend their day consulting patients, so, you need a million transcription reviewers. Let's say you pay each of them $50k/yr (aka rock bottom US entry-level wage). That's $50 billion a year, and a million people pulled out of the labor force. Is that worth it? Is that really the best thing you can do with $50 billion dollars? In real life, tradeoffs exist.

nradov 2mo ago
There are already a lot of people doing manual review and editing of medical transcription speech recognition output. That has been the status quo for decades. A lot of those workers are offshore in India and Philippines. Overall transcription work is slowly declining as more physicians switch to direct EHR template data entry and AI scribes.

nradov 2mo ago

Medical transcription isn't the same thing as medical scribing. Transcription has been done primarily by speech recognition software with human review for decades. The output is just a text chart note, which isn't particularly useful because none of the clinical findings are coded. The coding can either be done up front by a human or AI scribe, or as a second step after transcription. In any case the human attending clinician is legally accountable for reviewing and approving the output before it's officially added to the patient chart.