New program draws bipartisan criticism and concern from patients and doctors.
Shrewd labs will keep an eye on the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) prior authorization pilot that leans on artificial intelligence (AI) to determine treatment options for Medicare patients. While the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model pilot (WISeR) doesn’t directly mention lab tests, staying on the pulse of this growing trend will keep labs thinking ahead on how to minimize impact on bottom line, paperwork, and workflows when these pilots infiltrate lab testing.
An article from POLITICO reported that CMS will start a pilot version of the program as early as January 2026 in six states including Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Ariz., N.J., and Wash. Private AI companies will assist and focus on “services that have been vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse in the past,” the article noted. The voluntary model is slated to span six years through December 31, 2031, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Among the types of procedures encumbered by the pilot program are knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, skin and tissue substitutions, and electrical nerve stimulator implants, CMS noted. All outpatient and emergency services would currently be excluded, they added, as well as “services that would pose a substantial risk to patients if substantially delayed.”
“All recommendations for non-payment will be determined by appropriately licensed clinicians who will apply standardized, transparent, and evidence-based procedures to their review,” CMS added.
The premise of the pilot is to eliminate wasteful spending, with CMS citing 25% of US healthcare spending falling in this category. “According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Medicare spent up to $5.8 billion in 2022 on unnecessary or inappropriate services with little to no clinical benefit,” their website noted.
A Sour Reception
The pilot program is receiving a less-than-warm welcome from both parties—doctors, and patients alike, Politico noted. “It’s been referred to as the AI death panel. You get more money if you’re that AI tech company if you deny more claims. That is going to lead to people getting hurt,” Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said during the committee hearing.
Landsman noted in the article from POLITICO that a bipartisan desire to put a halt to the program exists among growing concerns about patient harm coming from the program. Landsman “called for the program to be shut down until an independent review board could be erected to review the liability questions and ensure the AI prior authorization pilot doesn’t harm patients.”
“I’m concerned that this AI model will result in denials of lifesaving care and incentivize companies to restrict care,” Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member said at the subcommittee meeting on the use of AI in health care held on Sept. 3.
“We have pretty good evidence that prior authorization as a process itself is fraught, adding that AI’s ability to improve the process for patients remains unproven,” Michelle Mello, Stanford University health law professor and witness at the hearing, said.
Looking Ahead
The involvement of AI in healthcare will only continue, and learning what aspects positively impact healthcare versus cause damage will continue to evolve.
Worth noting, there are already two unrelated lawsuits, against UnitedHealthcare and Cigna, that challenge the safety of AI use to deny patient care, POLITICO noted in the article.
Laboratory leaders should keep their eyes open and their ears to the ground on not only the pilot but all AI healthcare trends.
Clinical laboratory genetic testing labs and telemedicine groups among those charged
In the largest healthcare fraud bust in US history, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had levied criminal charges against 324 defendants for allegedly participating in various fraudulent healthcare schemes—including clinical laboratory genetic testing and telemedicine fraud—totaling over $14.6 billion in losses.
A DOJ press release states the agency’s 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown represents an unprecedented effort to alleviate fraud in healthcare that exploits patients and taxpayers.
The defendants include 96 doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other licensed medical professionals. The cases are being prosecuted by Health Care Fraud Strike Force teams from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, 50 US Attorneys’ Offices, and 12 State Attorneys’ General Offices.
“This record-setting Health Care Fraud Takedown delivers justice to criminal actors who prey upon our most vulnerable citizens and steal from hardworking American taxpayers,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in the press release. (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
49 Clinical Lab Defendants Charged
The takedown relied on coordinated investigations from several agencies, including the:
Health Care Fraud Unit of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section,
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Drug Enforcement Administration, and,
Multiple US Attorneys’ Offices.
Clinical laboratory testing fraud was addressed in the takedown. Forty-nine defendants were charged with telemedicine and genetic testing fraud schemes where deceptive telemarketing campaigns targeted Medicare beneficiaries, resulting in $46 million in fraudulent claims being submitted to Medicare for durable medical equipment (DME), genetic tests, and COVID-19 tests.
“Make no mistake—this administration will not tolerate criminals who line their pockets with taxpayer dollars while endangering the health and safety of our communities,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in the press release.
Other High-Profile Cases
The most prominent cases include a $10 billion urinary catheter scheme where foreign straw owners secretly purchased medical supply companies and then used stolen identities and personal health data of more than one million Americans to file erroneous Medicare claims. Known as Operation Gold Rush, the hoax resulted in the arrests of nineteen defendants, including four in Estonia and seven individuals attempting to avoid capture at US airports and at the Mexican border.
In another case involving foreign influence, owners and executives in Pakistan were charged in connection with a $703 million scheme where artificial intelligence (AI) was allegedly used to create fake recordings of Medicare recipients consenting to receive various products. The data was then sold to clinical laboratories and DME companies to fraudulently submit false claims to Medicare. In addition, some of these defendants allegedly conspired to conceal and launder proceeds from US bank accounts to overseas bank accounts.
Also, a defendant who owned a billing company allegedly planned a sham in which Arizona Medicaid was fraudulently billed $650 million for addiction treatment programs where services were never rendered or patients received substandard care. The defendant, who is based in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, supposedly received at least $25 million from the scheme and is also charged with a money laundering offense.
“It’s not done by small time operators,” said Mehmet Oz, MD, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). “These are organized syndicates who are designing to hurt America.”
Other notable cases include a scam involving $1.1 billion in fraudulent claims for unnecessary amniotic wound allografts for elderly patients resulting in defendants receiving millions in illegal kickbacks. In another scheme, 74 defendants were charged with the illegal distribution of prescription opioids and other controlled substances.
DOJ Property Seizures
As a result of the fraud bust, the US government seized over $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles, cryptocurrency, and other assets and prevented an additional $4 billion from being paid out by CMS due to false and fraudulent claims.
“These criminals didn’t just steal someone else’s money. They stole from you,” Matthew Galeotti, JD, who leads the DOJ Criminal Division, told the Associated Press. “Every fraudulent claim, every fake billing, every kickback scheme represents money taken directly from the pockets of American taxpayers who fund these essential programs through their hard work and sacrifice.”
This latest bust demonstrates the DOJ’s increased resolve to pursue healthcare fraud, including cases involving clinical laboratory testing. Look for further coverage of this aspect in the 7-14-2025 issue of The Dark Report.
Insurers continued receiving payments even after beneficiaries moved to other states, the paper reported
As Congress considers cuts in Medicaid funding, The Wall Street Journal reported that Medicaid managed care plans received at least $4.3 billion in duplicate payments over a three-year period, due to recipients who moved from one state to another.
Centene, the largest private Medicaid insurer, collected $620 million in duplicate payments between 2019 and 2021, while Elevance Health received $346 million and UnitedHealth Group took in $298 million, The Journal reported on March 26.
All told, more than 270 insurers received duplicate payments. The paper noted that private insurers handle coverage for 70% of the 72 million Medicaid recipients.
“We may be paying premiums on behalf of an individual who might have moved, and we don’t know that they have moved,” healthcare consultant Caprice Knapp, PhD, told the newspaper. “It definitely is wasteful.”
The reporting was based on an analysis of the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), a database of beneficiary information maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
In response to a Wall Street Journal article about managed care plans receiving billions in duplicate Medicaid payments, Craig Kennedy, chief executive of Medicaid Health Plans of America, noted how heavily regulated the health insurance industry is. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Multiple States Paid Double Payments to Medicaid Insurers
“Government guidelines stipulate that if Medicaid recipients move to another state, they are supposed to cancel their coverage in their former state when signing up in the new one, which often gives them a different insurer,” The Journal reported. “But the recipients don’t always cancel, leaving states to play catch-up.”
States paying the highest rates of duplicate payments include Georgia, Florida, and Indiana, according to The Wall Street Journal’s report.
To illustrate how this works, the story used the hypothetical example of a Medicaid recipient in Florida. There, the state pays $291 per month to the private Medicaid insurer. The individual moves to Georgia and enrolls in that state’s Medicaid program. Georgia begins paying an insurer $339 per month. But Florida continues to pay the monthly fee even though the recipient is now receiving medical care in Georgia. (The payment amounts are estimates based on averages in each state, the paper said.)
The state might not know that a beneficiary has moved until it conducts an annual eligibility check, the story noted. In the meantime, insurers “can collect months of payments before a patient is dropped from the rolls.”
To determine if a patient had moved, the analysis looked at where they received medical care. “The data don’t indicate where recipients are actually living or reflect all adjustments later made to payments,” the story noted.
Some insurers criticized the analysis. Most of the three-year period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, when emergency rules made it difficult to disenroll beneficiaries, insurers told The Wall Street Journal. A Centene spokesman said the analysis “ignores the financial safeguards in place to address potential overpayments.” The insurer told the paper that it had repaid $2 billion to the states between 2019 and 2021.
The duplicate payments amounted to $800 million in 2019, then jumped to $1.3 billion in 2020 and $2.1 billion in 2021, the paper reported. KFF, citing CMS data, reported that states spent an estimated $880 billion on Medicaid programs in fiscal year 2023.
Craig Kennedy, chief executive at Medicaid Health Plans of American—an industry group that represents managed care organizations—told The Journal that insurers are closely watched by regulators.
“[Health insurance is] a heavily regulated industry,” Kennedy said. “Following rules and regulations is the No. 1 priority here.”
Office of Inspector General Weighs In
The Wall Street Journal analysis followed an earlier report from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG report, issued in September 2022, was based on an audit covering Medicaid managed care capitation payments in August 2019 and August 2020. It was also based on data from T-MSIS.
“All 47 States reviewed made capitation payments on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries who were concurrently enrolled in two States,” the OIG reported. “Specifically, capitation payments were made on behalf of 208,254 concurrently enrolled beneficiaries in August 2019 and 327,497 concurrently enrolled beneficiaries in August 2020. The Medicaid program incurred costs of approximately $72.9 million in August 2019 and $117.1 million in August 2020 for capitation payments associated with beneficiaries in one of the two concurrently enrolled States.”
OIG advised CMS to provide state agencies with T-MSIS enrollment data. CMS dismissed the recommendation, claiming that the Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS), designed to deter improper public assistance payments, was sufficient, and that T-MSIS would add inefficiency and confusion. However, current and former state Medicaid officials told The Wall Street Journal that PARIS “doesn’t always include up-to-date or complete information.”
However, effective communication can bring more harmony to medical lab managers and scientists when it comes to compliance
Depending on how lab professionals view it, clinical laboratory regulations can be characterized as a series of checklists to fill out or an opportunity to grow an organization.
Leaning into the latter option will preserve regulatory compliance while also ensuring the operational health of the clinical laboratory.
At the Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Kelly VanBemmel, MS, MB(ASCP)CM (above) pressed attendees to open the lines of communication between bench scientists and lab managers when it comes to clinical laboratory regulations. (Photo copyright: Scott Wallask.)
‘There’s a Gap’ in How Both Sides View Regulatory Compliance
VanBemmel spent her presentation aiming to bridge the rift between how bench scientists look at clinical laboratory regulations compared to the views of medical lab managers.
“There’s a gap between how staff experience regulations and how management does,” she noted. “Staff typically think of compliance as a checklist to do their jobs.” Managers, however, need to understand a wider compliance picture. She illustrated her point by comparing views on the following regulatory bodies.
Staff understand that the FDA clears tests and devices for use in non-research environments, though not all consumables or equipment are in that setting.
Managers understand that the FDA develops rules and guidance for CLIA complexity categorization.
Communication Leads to Common Ground with Clinical Laboratory Regulations
Given the above differences among managers and staff, VanBemmel explained that both sides must frequently talk to each other to fill in the missing details.
“When you’re in the thick of regulations, communication becomes critical,” she said.
For example, bench staff may feel it is solely their manager’s responsibility to comply with clinical laboratory regulations. Savvy lab leaders will point out non-compliant conditions—such as diagnostic analyzer malfunctions and sample cross contamination—over which bench staff have direct control, helping workers better understand their responsibility when it comes to compliance.
On the other hand, lazy communication from managers to their bench scientists can stunt compliance efforts. She recalled a prior supervisor who often answered questions about regulations by asking: What does the standard operation procedure state?
“That answer wasn’t particularly helpful,” VanBemmel recalled. “That made me think that my supervisor didn’t understand nuance.”
Thorough communication builds greater trust, and seasoned clinical laboratory professionals of all ranks will quickly recognize the compliance benefits when the worker-manager relationship gels.
Disclosures, mandated by the Affordable Care Act, provide a limited snapshot of claim denials
Claim denials have created financial headaches for virtually all healthcare providers, including clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. Reliable data about denials is hard to come by, but a recent analysis by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) revealed that insurers selling plans on HealthCare.gov denied 19% of claims for in-network services in 2023, the latest year for which data is available.
This is the highest rate since 2015, when KFF began tracking the data, according to the analysis. Claim denials for out-of-network services were even higher, amounting to 37%.
Patients and doctors “are saying that it’s become an even bigger hassle in recent years than it has been in the past,” said Kaye Pestaina, JD, co-author of the report, in a video report from CNBC. Pestaina is a KFF vice president and director of the organization’s program on patient and consumer protection.
The analysis, released Jan. 27, noted that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires insurers to provide data about health plans to state and federal regulators as well as the public. “However, federal implementation of this requirement has so far been limited to qualified health plans (QHP) offered on the federally facilitated Marketplace (HealthCare.gov) and does not include QHPs offered on state-based Marketplaces or group health plans.”
“One thing that we’ve seen [when] surveying consumers across different insurance types is that they simply don’t know that they have an appeal right,” said Kaye Pestaina, JD (above), VP and director of KFF’s program on patient and consumer protection, in a video report from CNBC. “If appeals were used more often, it might operate as a check on carriers. From what we can see now, so few are appealed, so it’s not operating as a check.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups don’t often see data about the rate of claims denials by payers made public. (Photo copyright: KFF.)
Scarce Information
The federal marketplace covers 32 states, which means that the data does not include the 18 other states or the District of Columbia, all of which have their own exchanges. Nor does it include employer-sponsored plans, Medicare Advantage plans, or Medicaid Managed Care plans.
“In the big picture, we’re still operating from a scarce amount of information about how carriers review claims,” Pestaina told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Within this limited dataset, KFF found wide variation in denial rates among the parent companies of health plans. The companies with the highest rates were as follows:
Rates also varied by state, from a high of 34% in Alabama to a low of 6% in South Dakota. However, the report noted that these averages sometimes obscured wide variations within each state. For example, in Florida, the statewide average was 16%, but denial rates for individual insurers ranged from 8% to 54%.
In most cases, in-network denial rates did not vary much based on plan levels. Rates were 15% for Platinum plans, compared with 18% for Silver and Gold plans, and 19% for Bronze plans. The rate for catastrophic plans was 27%.
The data offered only limited insights about the reasons for claim denials. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the rules, requires plans to report denial reasons, but it allows for an “Other” category that accounts for the largest number of denials:
Other reason not listed – 34%
Administrative reason – 18%
Service excluded – 16%
Enrollee benefit limit reached – 12%
Lack of referral or prior authorization – 9%
Not medically necessary (excluding behavioral health) – 5%
Member not covered – 5%
Not medically necessary (behavioral health only) – 1%
“We hear anecdotal stories about certain treatments that are denied, that arguably should not have been denied,” Pestaina told the Star-Tribune. “How often is that happening? It’s difficult to come to a conclusion with the kind of ‘reason’ information we have here.”
Health Insurers Pushback
In addition to claim denials, CMS requires insurers to report the number of appeals once a claim has been denied.
“As in KFF’s previous analysis of federal claims denial data, we find that consumers rarely appeal denied claims and when they do, insurers usually uphold their original decision,” the report states.
In total, insurers on the federal exchange denied 73 million in-network claims. Among these, less than 1% (376,527) were appealed internally to the insurers, which upheld 56% of the denials.
The report notes that, in some cases, consumers have a right to an external appeal in which a third party reviews the claim. However, in a separate survey, KFF found that only 40% of all consumers, and 34% of Marketplace enrollees, were aware of that right.
Health insurers pushed back on KFF’s analysis. In a statement reported by the Star-Tribune, UnitedHealth Group described the numbers as “grossly misleading” because the dataset represents only 2% of total claims.
“Across UnitedHealthcare, we ultimately pay 98% of all claims received that are for eligible members, when submitted in a timely manner with complete, non-duplicate information,” the company stated. “For the 2% of claims that are not approved, the majority are instances where the services did not meet the benefit criteria established by the plan sponsor, such as the employer, state or Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.”
