I do see your point but the reality is that improving the flawed healthcare system through supercharged billing is like fixing your car with extra hard praying

I work in this space. I agree with the gist of what you’re getting at; the catch is that it’s mostly just feeding the beast rather than breaking the dynamic.

With LLMs, the problem is that they’re neither objective nor consistent, so the insurance companies are just going to increase their headcounts and hire more people to contest submitted claims. Deterministic output would change the picture in a big way, but I’m not seeing much appetite for that in the market for some reason.

There’s a lot more potential for disruption in the form of advanced monitoring that can automatically flag and document complications in an objective way (which is my professional wheelhouse, for the sake of disclosure), but even then I expect payors to mostly pass the increased reimbursement rates on to their enrollees.

A single-payor model is the biggest real cure for what ails our system, and I think I speak for a lot of us in the industry when I say that we’d happily lose our jobs to see that happen for the greater good.

The one thing it seems to be okay at is parsing text that’s devoid of emotion. If you just need it to find and point out loopholes and lapses in judgement, it can do that. Just don’t expect it to be able to produce something coherent on its own in the same context.

It’s a good thing until insurance raises costs for consumers because they’re butthurt (though they’re making record profits anyways).