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.
Bill has bipartisan support and, if passed, would require physician involvement in any decision of medical necessity
Harmful effects caused by delays in care due to payer preauthorization requirements are receiving renewed attention with the refiling of the Reducing Medically Unnecessary Delays in Care Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The bill intends to “ensure that prior authorization medical decisions under Medicare are determined by physicians” and not by non-medical personnel.
Originally introduced by Representative Mark Green, MD, (R-TN) in 2022 and reintroduced in March 2025, the bill notes that “board-certified physicians in the same specialty are the ones making these important decisions. It would also direct Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D plans to comply with requirements that restrictions must be based on medical necessity and written clinical criteria, as well as additional transparency obligations,” according to a press release from Green’s office.
Thus, to ensure physician involvement in determinations of medical necessity, the bill includes the following requirement:
“Prior to establishing, or substantially or materially altering, written clinical criteria for purpose of preauthorization review, the Medicare administrative contractor, Medicare Advantage plan, or prescription drug plan, respectively, shall obtain input from actively practicing physicians within the service area where the written clinical criteria are to be employed.”
The bill has bipartisan support. Green partnered with Doctor Caucus co-chair Greg Murphy, MD, (R-NC) and Congressional Democratic Doctors Caucus co-chair Kim Schrier, MD, (D-WA) to draft the bill.
“Americans don’t want bureaucrats sitting in on their doctor’s appointments, and they don’t want them to determine their treatment plans,” said House Representative Mark Green, MD, in a press release. (Photo copyright: Department of Homeland Security.)
‘Life Threatening Barriers’
Many major medical associations also support the bill. They include the:
American Medical Association (AMA),
American Osteopathic Association,
American College of Emergency Physicians, and many more.
“According to the AMA, 23% of physicians report that prior authorization has led to a patient’s hospitalization, while 18% report that it has led to a life-threatening event. In the same 2024 survey, 94% of physicians believed that prior authorization requirements negatively impacted patient care,” Green’s press release states.
“As a physician myself, I’ve seen firsthand how prior authorization has created life threatening barriers to essential and standard care,” said Schrier in the press release. “This commonsense legislation is something everyone should get behind to ensure patients can access the treatment they need when they need it by putting medical decisions back in their physician’s hands.”
Burdensome Regulations
The matter is also personal to Green. In the press release, he described his own experience in the healthcare system. “As a survivor of both colon and thyroid cancer, I know how critical it is to start treatment as soon as possible. Burdensome regulations keeping patients from accessing life-saving treatment, like colonoscopies, is not only inconvenient but life-threatening.”
Back in 2022 when he first introduced the bill, he said, “At their core, these determinations are medical decisions, and they should be made by those with the appropriate medical training and expertise. The doctor-patient relationship is vital to the practice of medicine, but the current practice of prior authorization amounts to placing a bureaucrat in the middle of the doctor’s office. Physicians are forced to jump through hours of unnecessary and arbitrary paperwork simply to prove to third-party administrators that a procedure is medically necessary. We need to remove the red tape and let doctors do what they do best—treating patients and saving lives.”
The resurrection of this bill is timely. At the end of March, Dark Daily reported KFF’s findings that in 2023 health insurers denied 19% of all in-network claims, including many in anatomic pathology and clinical laboratories.
This follows class action lawsuits in multiple states against insurance companies that deny millions of healthcare claims each year
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become ubiquitous in many aspects of healthcare. But perhaps its most controversial use is in the payer denial-of-claims process. Multiple states are pursuing legislation that would limit or outright ban AI’s use without physician involvement.
Clinical laboratories experience payment denials at both the prior authorization stage when a doctor orders a lab test as well as when the claim is submitted for reimbursement. And many labs perform tests for which they know they will not be paid just to maintain the client account relationships with doctors.
Now, several states are taking measures to protect patients from what some say is a dangerous trend to use AI algorithms only to review and deny medical claims for critical healthcare and clinical laboratory testing. This will be of interest to lab managers and those in charge of their lab’s revenue.
“Physicians and patients already face daunting challenges in navigating medical insurers’ bureaucratic administrative processes,” said Arizona Medical Association (ArMA) President Nadeem Kazi, MD, in a news release. “Taking physicians’ clinical experience out of these processes entirely is a misguided step,” he added.
However, on March 13, the Arizona Senate’s Finance Committee altered the language in its version of the bill. In it, AI is not specifically mentioned.
Instead, the bill’s language now “requires a medical director or healthcare provider, before a healthcare insurer may deny a claim or issue a direct denial of a prior authorization, to individually review any denial that involves medical necessity or experimental status or that requires the use of medical judgment and prohibits the director or provider from relying solely on recommendations derived from any other source during the prior authorization denial or claim denial review.”
Presumably, “any other source” includes AI-driven software platforms used by payers for prior authorization denials and claims processing.
“While AI promises innovation for several areas of healthcare, the review and denial of medical insurance claims—some of which represent life-changing treatments and procedures—should be left to physicians who can make nuanced clinical judgments,” said Shelby Job, ArMA communications director, in a statement following that state’s passage of the House bill in February.
The bill is now being debated in the Arizona Senate. If the Senate passes its version, the two sides will need to reconcile their bills.
“Patients deserve healthcare delivered by humans with compassionate medical expertise, not pattern-based computer algorithms designed by insurance companies,” said ArMA President Nadeem Kazi, MD (above), in a news release. (Photo copyright: Arizona Medical Association.)
Multiple States Move to Limit Use of AI in Claims Denials
In an Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Commerce meeting, state Republican representative Julie Willoughby, who is also an ER nurse, said that “she hopes the bill will protect Arizonians from losing healthcare access due to AI interference,” NBC News reported following passage of the House bill.
“What we’re asking for in this is that any claims that are denied have a provider look them over for completeness to ensure that there isn’t anything that the AI algorithm may not have accounted for,” she said.
If signed into law, the bill will require a medical director at the insurance carrier in question to “individually review each claim or prior authorization before a healthcare insurer is able to deny a claim for that patient,” NBC News noted.
California passed similar legislation in September that would “ensure that a licensed physician supervises the use of AI decision-making tools when they are used to inform decisions to approve, modify, or deny requests by providers,” NBC News reported.
The author of the California bill, Democratic senator Josh Becker, JD, argued upon the bill’s passing that AI “should never replace the expertise and judgment of physicians,” adding, “An algorithm cannot fully understand a patient’s unique medical history or needs, and its misuse can lead to devastating consequences.”
And in Texas, a bill introduced by Republican senator Charles Schwertner, MD, states that AI “should not be used as the ‘sole basis of a decision to wholly or partly deny, delay, or modify healthcare services,’” NBC News reported.
In a statement, the Texas Coalition of Patients said the bill is “crucial in ensuring that life-altering healthcare decisions remain in the hands of medical professionals rather than Big Insurance’s automated systems.”
In all, 11 states have introduced legislation to “to push back on artificial intelligence use in reviewing medical claims,” according to NBC News.
In May 2023, The Dark Report explored payer claims denials, and it was acknowledged back then that automated systems were already reviewing claims.
And then there are the lawsuits. According to The Guardian, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealth all face class-action lawsuits concerning the use of AI to “deny lifesaving care.”
Can AI Coexist with Human-based Care?
Although at this time AI may not understand the nuanced complexities of healthcare claims, there seem to be plenty of uses for it in healthcare decision-making. It can analyze large sets of data for diagnosis, transcribe medical documents using automatic speech recognition, and streamline administrative tasks––all of which can help a workforce plagued by staff burnout and shortages, Los Angeles Pacific University noted.
And though its use in payer claims reviews and denials is being resisted, AI will likely continue to help doctors diagnose disease and make better treatment decisions. Nevertheless, clinical laboratory and pathology workers should be aware of how the tool is being used and keep an eye out for suspicious claims denials.
Another report finds nearly half of all healthcare systems planning to opt out of Medicare Advantage plans because of issues caused by prior authorization requirements
Prior-authorization is common and neither healthcare providers (including clinical laboratories) nor Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans are happy with the basic process. Thus, labs—which often must get prior-authorization for molecular diagnostics and genetic tests—may learn from a recent KFF study of denial rates and successful appeals.
“While prior authorization has long been used to contain spending and prevent people from receiving unnecessary or low-value services, it also has been [the] subject of criticism that it may create barriers to receiving necessary care,” KFF, a health policy research organization, stated in a news release.
Nearly all MA plan enrollees have to get prior authorization for high cost services such as inpatient stays, skilled nursing care, and chemotherapy. However, “some lawmakers and others have raised concerns that prior authorization requirements and processes, including the use of artificial intelligence to review requests, impose barriers and delays to receiving necessary care,” KFF reported.
“Insurers argue the process helps to manage unnecessary utilization and lower healthcare costs. But providers say prior authorization is time-consuming and delays care for patients,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“There are a ton of barriers with prior authorizations and referrals. And there’s been a really big delay in care—then we spend a lot of hours and dollars to get paid what our contracts say,” said Katie Kucera (above),Vice President and CFO, Carson Tahoe Health, Carson City, Nev., in a Becker’s Hospital CFO Report which shared the health system’s plan to end participation in UnitedHealthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage plans effective May 2025. Clinical laboratories may want to review how test denials by Medicare Advantage plans, and the time cost of the appeals process, affect the services they provide to their provider clients. (Photo copyright: Carson Tahoe Health.)
Key Findings of KFF Study
To complete its study, KFF analyzed “data submitted by Medicare Advantage insurers to CMS to examine the number of prior authorization requests, denials, and appeals for 2019 through 2022, as well as differences across Medicare Advantage insurers in 2022,” according to a KFF issue brief.
Here are key findings:
Requests for prior authorization jumped 24.3% to 46 million in 2022 from 37 million in 2019.
More than 90%, or 42.7 million requests, were approved in full.
About 7.4%, or 3.4 million, prior authorization requests were fully or partially denied by insurers in 2022, up from 5.8% in 2021, 5.6% in 2020, and 5.7% in 2019.
About 9.9% of denials were appealed in 2022, up from 7.5% in 2019, but less than 10.2% in 2020 and 10.6% in 2021.
More than 80% of appeals resulted in partial or full overturning of denials in the years studied. Still, “negative effects on a person’s health may have resulted from delay,” KFF pointed out.
KFF also found that requests for prior authorization differed among insurers. For example:
Humana experienced the most requests for prior authorization.
Among all MA plans, the share of patients who appealed denied requests was small. The low rate of appeals may reflect Medicare Advantage plan members’ uncertainty that they can question insurers’ decisions, KFF noted.
It’s a big market. Nevertheless, “between onerous authorization requirements and high denial rates, healthcare systems are frustrated with Medicare Advantage,” according to a Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) survey of 135 health system Chief Financial Officers.
According to the CFOs surveyed, 19% of healthcare systems stopped accepting one or more Medicare Advantage plans in 2023, and 61% are planning or considering ending participation in one or more plans within two years.
“Nearly half of health systems are considering dropping Medicare Advantage plans,” Becker’s reported.
Federal lawmakers acted, introducing three bills to help improve timeliness, transparency, and criteria used in prior authorization decision making. Starting in 2023, KFF reported, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published final rules on the bills:
Rule One (effective June 5, 2023), “clarifies the criteria that may be used by Medicare Advantage plans in establishing prior authorization policies and the duration for which a prior authorization is valid. Specifically, the rule states that prior authorization may only be used to confirm a diagnosis and/or ensure that the requested service is medically necessary and that private insurers must follow the same criteria used by traditional Medicare. That is, Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements cannot result in coverage that is more restrictive than traditional Medicare.”
Rule Two (effective April 8, 2024), is “intended to improve the use of electronic prior authorization processes, as well as the timeliness and transparency of decisions, and applies to Medicare Advantage and certain other insurers. Specifically, it shortens the standard time frame for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests from 14 to seven calendar days starting in January 2026 and standardizes the electronic exchange of information by specifying the prior authorization information that must be included in application programming interfaces starting in January 2027.”
Rule Three (effective June 3, 2024), requires “Medicare Advantage plans to evaluate the effect of prior authorization policies on people with certain social risk factors starting with plan year 2025.”
KFF’s report details how prior authorization affects patient care and how healthcare providers struggle to get paid for services rendered by Medicare Advantage plans amid the rise of value-based reimbursements.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to analyze their test denials and appeals rates as well and, in partnership with finance colleagues, consider whether to continue contracts with Medicare Advantage health plans.
In a handful of cases, health insurers reversed denials after physicians or patients posted complaints on social media
Prior authorization requirements by health insurers have long been a thorn in the side of medical laboratories, as well as physicians. But now, doctors and patients are employing a new tactic against the practice—turning to social media to shame payers into reversing denials, according to KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News).
Genetic testing lab companies are quite familiar with prior authorization problems. They see a significant number of their genetic test requests fail to obtain a prior authorization. Thus, if the lab performs the test, the payer will likely not reimburse, leaving the lab to bill the patient for 100% of the test price, commonly $1,000 to $5,000. Then, an irate patient typically calls the doctor to complain about the huge out-of-pocket cost.
“There are times when you simply must call out wrongdoings,” she wrote in an Instagram post, according to the outlet. “This is one of those times.”
In response, an “escalation specialist” from BCBSIL contacted her but was unable to help. Then, after KFF Health News reached out, Nix discovered on her own that $36,000 in outstanding claims were marked “paid.”
“No one from the company had contacted her to explain why or what had changed,” KFF reported. “[Nix] also said she was informed by her hospital that the insurer will no longer require her to obtain prior authorization before her infusions, which she restarted in July.”
“I think we’re on the precipice of really improving the environment for prior authorization,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update. If this was to happen, it would be welcome news for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. (Photo copyright: Nashville Medical News.)
Physicians Also Take to Social Media to Complain about Denials
Some physicians have taken similar actions, KFF Health News reported. One was gastroenterologist Shehzad A. Saeed, MD, of Dayton Children’s Hospital in Ohio. Saeed posted a photo of a patient’s skin rash on Twitter in March after Anthem denied treatment for symptoms of Crohn’s disease. “Unacceptable and shameful!” he tweeted.
Two weeks later, he reported that the treatment was approved soon after the tweet. “When did Twitter become the preferred pathway for drug approval?” he wrote.
Eunice Stallman, MD, a psychiatrist from Boise, Idaho, complained on X (formerly Twitter) about Blue Cross of Idaho’s prior authorization denial of a brain cancer treatment for her nine-month-old daughter. “This is my daughter that you tried to deny care for,” she posted. “When a team of expert [doctors] recommend a treatment, your PharmD reviewers don’t get to deny her life-saving care for your profits.”
However, in this case, she posted her account after Blue Cross Idaho reversed the denial. She said she did this in part to prevent the payer from denying coverage for the drug in the future. “The power of the social media has been huge,” she told KFF Health News. The story noted that she joined X for the first time so she could share her story.
Affordable Care Act Loophole?
“We’re not going to get rid of prior authorization. Nobody is saying we should get rid of it entirely, but it needs to be right sized, it needs to be simplified, it needs to be less friction between the patient and accessing their benefits. And I think we’re on really good track to make some significant improvements in government programs, as well as in the private sector,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update.
However, KFF HealthNews reported that Kaye Pestaina, JD, a Kaiser Family Foundation VP and Co-Director of the group’s Program on Patient and Consumer Protections, noted that some “patient advocates and health policy experts” have questioned whether payers’ use of prior authorization denials may be a way to get around the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition against denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.
“They take in premiums and don’t pay claims,” family physician and healthcare consultant Linda Peeno, MD, told KFF Health News. “That’s how they make money. They just delay and delay and delay until you die. And you’re absolutely helpless as a patient.” Peeno was a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1980s and then became a whistleblower.
The issue became top-of-mind for genetic testing labs in 2017, when Anthem (now Elevance) and UnitedHealthcare established programs in which physicians needed prior authorization before the insurers would agree to pay for genetic tests.
Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report covered this in “Two Largest Payers Start Lab Test Pre-Authorization.” We noted then that it was reasonable to assume that other health insurers would follow suit and institute their own programs to manage how physicians utilize genetic tests.
At least one large payer has made a move to reduce prior authorization in some cases. Effective Sept. 1, UnitedHealthcare began a phased approach to remove prior authorization requirements for hundreds of procedures, including more than 200 genetic tests under some commercial insurance plans.
However, a source close to the payer industry noted to Dark Daily that UnitedHealthcare has balked at paying hundreds of millions’ worth of genetic claims going back 24 months. The source indicated that genetic test labs are engaging attorneys to push their claims forward with the payer.
Is Complaining on Social Media an Effective Tactic?
A story in Harvard Business Review cited research suggesting that companies should avoid responding publicly to customer complaints on social media. Though public engagement may appear to be a good idea, “when companies responded publicly to negative tweets, researchers found that those companies experienced a drop in stock price and a reduction in brand image,” the authors wrote.
However, the 2023 “National Customer Rage Survey,” conducted by Customer Care Measurement and Consulting and Arizona State University, found that nearly two-thirds of people who complained on social media received a response. And “many patients and doctors believe venting online is an effective strategy, though it remains unclear how often this tactic works in reversing prior authorization denials,” KFF Health News reported.
Federal Government and States Step In
KFF Health News reported that the federal government is proposing reforms that would require some health plans “to provide more transparency about denials and to speed up their response times.” The changes, which would take effect in 2026, would apply to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and federal Health Insurance Marketplace plans, “but not employer-sponsored health plans.”
KFF also noted that some insurers are voluntarily revising prior authorization rules. And the American Medical Association reported in March that 30 states, including Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington, are considering their own legislation to reform the practice. Some are modeled on legislation drafted by the AMA.
Though the states and the federal government are proposing regulations to address prior authorization complaints, reform will likely take time. Given Harvard Business Review’s suggestion to resist replying to negative customer complaints in social media, clinical labs—indeed, all healthcare providers—should carefully consider the full consequences of going to social media to describe issues they are having with health insurers.
