eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)
Insurance companies have increasingly been turning to artificial intelligence and automated systems to process claims and make coverage decisions. This has led to the rise of what consumer advocates have dubbed "robo-rejecters" - algorithms and machine learning models that systematically deny claims without human oversight.
While AI promises efficiency and consistency, critics argue its application in the high-stakes world of insurance has gone too far. Policyholders around the country have reported receiving denial letters seemingly spit out by a computer with little explanation beyond generic legalese.
Jennifer Smith of Seattle was diagnosed with a rare autoimmune disease in 2020. Despite paying premiums for years, her medical bills were denied by her health insurance company's automated system which concluded her expensive treatment wasn't "medically necessary." She was never able to speak with an actual human to plead her case.
James Howard of Denver suffered minor injuries after a fender bender in early 2022. But his claim for repairs and medical expenses was rejected by his car insurer's AI which scanned the police report and concluded he was "at fault" despite questionable circumstances.
Eva Chen of New York City had her disability claim denied by an algorithm that parsed her doctor's report and decided she wasn't "fully disabled." Never mind that her physician specifically said she couldn't work due to chronic pain.
Across all lines of insurance, the stories are similar. Policyholders feel baffled and betrayed when opaque AI systems reject their claims for reasons they can't comprehend. Consumer advocates note these technologies often embed biases that lead to more frequent denials for minorities and other vulnerable groups.
While automation can streamline simple approvals, relying on AI to make complex judgment calls affects real lives. Most insurers do little to audit or explain their black-box algorithms. And lengthy appeals to a human remain difficult if not impossible.
One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with AI-powered insurance denials is the lack of explanation behind the decisions. Policyholders often receive what amount to form rejection letters with vague, boilerplate language that provides little insight into why their claim was denied.
For example, disability claims are frequently rejected due to failure to meet the insurer's definition of "total disability." But the denial letters rarely explain what specific activities the AI reviewed or what level of disability is required under the policy. Applicants are left guessing as to what information might swing a reconsideration in their favor.
Cancer patients are sometimes informed their expensive chemotherapy or radiation treatments don't meet "medical necessity" criteria per the insurer's guidelines. However, the denial doesn't detail what protocols or research the AI consulted to make this judgment call. Patients have no ability to challenge an adverse decision if the rationale remains a black box.
In the case of auto accident claims, drivers will simply be told they were "majority at-fault" based on the insurer's AI reviewing the police report. Without further details on what facts or logic the algorithm applied, the human has no recourse to correct faulty assumptions.
Homeowners similarly receive curt claims denials citing "water damage is excluded" or "earthquake claims require ultra premium coverage." The AI makes no attempt to explain its analysis or acknowledge nuance. In complex cases, a boilerplate rejection leaves families feeling cheated and disregarded.
Healthcare attorneys have noted that insurance companies face no obligation to reveal their proprietary claim algorithms. While opacity protects commercial interests, it prevents accountability. With no visibility into how decisions are made, errors and biases go undetected.
The lack of transparency into how insurance claim algorithms make decisions adds insult to injury for many denied applicants. Not only are their claims rejected, but the rationale behind the denial remains a black box, making the process even more Kafkaesque.
Without visibility into the step-by-step logic, policyholders struggle to pinpoint exactly where the AI went wrong or how to correct any erroneous assumptions. The algorithms provide no audit trail showing which data points were analyzed and how they were weighted. Users receive no feedback on which aspects of an application need strengthening versus which criteria they clearly meet.
Healthcare attorneys note that opaque claim algorithms often overlook important nuances in medical reports. For example, a physician may state a patient can perform basic activities but not work due to chronic migraines. However, an AI may score this as "not fully disabled" based on the ability to perform basic tasks, ignoring key details on inability to maintain employment. With no transparency into the AI's reasoning, applicants have no recourse to fix misinterpretations.
In auto accident cases, investigators found insurers' black-box liability models frequently misjudged fault based on flawed police reports. However, drivers were simply informed they were "majority at fault" with no further explanation, leaving them no path to correct erroneous police narratives. Opaque algorithms provide zero feedback to guide an informed appeal.
Homeowners described the helplessness of having damage claims denied for opaque reasons like "flood damage exclusion" when no flooding occurred. With no visibility into what data the AI analyzed, they could not effectively dispute its reasoning. The rejections seemed arbitrarily imposed by a faceless system.
Consumer advocates note opaque claim algorithms disproportionately impact minorities, lower income applicants and those with limited English proficiency. With no transparency, biases become impossible to detect or prove. Applicants struggle to dispute adverse decisions when the decision-making process remains a black box.
While trade secrecy prevents full disclosure of insurers' proprietary systems, technologists have proposed measures to improve transparency without compromising IP. Providing applicants with a basic audit trail of key data points influencing the decision is feasible without revealing coding details. Allowing limited user testing to validate results is another option.
Unless claim algorithms are made more interpretable, frustrated applicants will continue battling robo-rejections blindly. Lack of feedback on where applications are deficient fosters distrust in the system. Opaque AI hinders due process and makes denials seem arbitrary rather than merit-based. It prevents accountability and leaves applicants powerless.
One recurring issue with insurance claim AI is the misinterpretation of complex medical reports from physicians. While doctors provide nuanced analyses of a patient's condition including limitations and prognoses, AI systems often misconstrue this qualitative data in denying coverage.
Healthcare lawyers cite many cases where algorithms focused on specific phrases in reports without considering the broader clinical context. For example, an AI may latch onto a statement that a cancer patient can "perform basic daily tasks" as evidence they are not fully disabled. However, it ignores adjacent language on the patient's inability to maintain employment or handle strenuous activity due to treatment side effects.
In other cases, algorithms struggle to weigh subjective criteria like pain levels and mental health impacts. A system may determine a patient doesn't meet the threshold for "chronic pain" if they can technically sit at a desk, disregarding descriptions of severe daily migraines that impair concentration. Subtle factors like motivation loss in depression may be overlooked if a patient can theoretically perform simple work tasks, albeit with great difficulty.
Doctors also report feeling pressure to use simplified language in their assessments to avoid AI misreads. For instance, stating a back injury patient can "occasionally lift light objects" may be interpreted as having greater mobility than intended. Vague algorithmic scoring systems also incentivize binary "disabled/not disabled" classifications rather than nuanced functional evaluations.
Contributing to the problem, insurers rarely allow doctors to review or appeal algorithmic denials based on clinical report misinterpretation. Physicians lament the helplessness of seeing their medical judgment discarded by rigid AI systems. They argue coverage criteria fails to account for real-world complexity.
Healthcare advocates say doctors from minority communities face additional barriers getting through to algorithms. Cultural nuances in language or holistic assessments of family/social circumstances are more likely lost in translation. Patients then suffer the consequences through denial of coverage.
While AI promises to streamline claim reviews, experts caution it is not currently capable of replicating human understanding or making sound judgements in complex cases. Doctors panning algorithmic denials emphasize the need for "human in the loop" reviews by experienced medical staff attuned to nuance. They argue AI-assisted human underwriting still produces better results than fully automated assessments of clinical data.
Healthcare attorneys emphasize that rigid algorithms often fail to account for real-world complexity in assessing medical disability claims. For instance, an AI may latch onto phrases indicating a cancer patient can "perform basic tasks" while ignoring adjacent descriptions of severe side effects impairing their ability to work or handle daily living over an extended period. Unlike a human specialist who understands nuance, the algorithm strictly focuses on keyword matching.
Lawyers also describe cases where AI systems struggled to analyze subjective criteria like pain levels in back injury claims. Two patients may theoretically have the ability to sit at a desk, but only human evaluators can discern that one suffers from excruciating daily migraines while the other has only mild sporadic pain. Such nuances make a significant difference in assessing work capacity.
In mental health cases, the empathy gap of algorithms becomes apparent. Rigid scoring systems have denied disability claims based on checkboxes showing a patient "can focus" or "can socialize", while disregarding doctors" notes on severe motivational loss and isolation due to depression. Measuring functionality proves more complex than an AI can currently handle.
Advocates note cultural and linguistic barriers also trip up algorithms. Assessments from minority doctors containing colloquialisms, references to community resources or discussions of family dynamics get lost in translation. A human reviewer is better equipped to analyze these holistic reports.
While AI has an important role in streamlining clear-cut approvals, lawyers emphasize the need for specialized medical staff to evaluate denials. They argue combining algorithmic processing with human judgment provides needed safeguards. Under this hybrid model, questionable system recommendations would face further scrutiny before a final adverse decision.
Doctors surveyed agreed that nuanced cases demand human oversight of AI denials. Many reported feeling helpless when insurers rejected disability claims based on rigid interpretations of their medical reports. They argued that while algorithms have uses in aggregating data, only trained humans can synthesize complex clinical information and make considered coverage determinations. Their professional expertise deserves acknowledgment.
As artificial intelligence and automated systems take on a larger role in insurance claim reviews, applicants facing adverse decisions have found it difficult to appeal or even understand the rationale behind AI-powered rejections. However, consumer advocates argue it is essential for regulators and lawmakers to ensure accountability and due process when opaque algorithms make high-stakes judgment calls affecting people's lives.
Healthcare attorneys emphasize that denied disability applicants must have recourse to challenge AI decisions based on misinterpretation of medical reports. They propose requiring insurers to share the clinical excerpts and keyword flags that influenced the automated denial. While protecting proprietary algorithms, this would provide transparency into potential misreads of physician assessments. Applicants could then request a second review by a medical specialist to resolve discrepancies between the doctor's intent and the AI's scoring.
Lawyers also recommend that ambiguous denials citing generic rationales like "not medically necessary" or "not totally disabled" should trigger secondary reviews by qualified personnel. Vague rejections provide zero feedback on where applicants fall short, hindering their ability to supplement their case. Human oversight would reduce erroneous denials and give applicants guidance on strengthening claims.
For auto insurance disputes, providing drivers with details on liability apportionment and which accident report details influenced the AI could allow correcting flawed crash narratives. Drivers have a right to understand and contest liability decisions impacting their rates.
Where loss claims are denied for murky reasons like "flood damage exclusion," homeowners deserve the right to a detailed claims inspection or at minimum an explanation of what property damage data led the AI to this conclusion. Opaque rejections erode trust when no fault is evident.
Consumer groups also advocate for external audits of insurers' AI systems to detect embedded biases leading to higher denial rates for minorities. Algorithms built on flawed data perpetuate injustice. Audits by independent watchdog agencies could identify discriminatory patterns without exposing proprietary code.
As AI-driven claim processing becomes the norm across the insurance industry, regulators face growing pressure to mandate more transparency and accountability in these automated systems. While algorithms promise efficiency and consistency in handling high volumes of applications, critics argue their opacity leads to unfair and erroneous denials that harm consumers.
Advocates say requiring audit trails, external validation and quality checks by medical experts represents a balanced approach to oversight. The goal is not to obstruct innovation or compromise insurers' IP, but to instill discipline in developing responsible AI that avoids embedded biases.
Healthcare attorneys note that providing applicants with the key excerpts and data points that influenced an AI claim denial gives them recourse to correct misinterpretations and appeal if warranted. For instance, if an algorithm misconstrued a physician's report on a patient's inability to work full-time, the applicant could request human review by a specialist to reconcile the discrepancy. This protects applicants from erroneous denials without exposing proprietary algorithms.
Lawmakers in some states have proposed bills mandating secondary reviews by personnel for ambiguous AI denials citing vague rationales like "not medically necessary." Such opaque rejections give applicants zero constructive feedback on where to strengthen their case. Qualified human oversight would reduce unfair denials and ensure applicants understand deficiency reasons.
Where AI liability decision are disputed in auto claims, providing the police report excerpts and logic that informed the decision allows drivers to contest errors. As algorithms interpret more qualitative data, traceability becomes key.
To detect embedded biases, some jurisdictions now require insurers submit denied applications data stratified by demographics for independent audit. Early results revealed higher AI denial rates for minority groups, prompting algorithmic tweaks. Ongoing bias monitoring ensures fairness.