Many healthcare insurers use AI systems to quickly review patient cases and decide if authorizations for treatments or services are needed. These automated tools can make decisions faster, reduce paperwork, and help control costs. But recent studies show that when there is little oversight, AI used by insurers in utilization review can cause problems.
A 2024 survey by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that 61% of doctors worry that unregulated AI is causing more prior authorization denials. These denials often ignore doctors’ clinical judgment. Some AI systems issue many denials at once without enough human review. A Senate committee said AI tools can cause denial rates up to 16 times higher than normal. These denials delay care or stop patients from getting needed treatment.
The AMA survey also showed that 94% of doctors saw bad clinical results tied to prior authorizations involving AI. These results include hospital stays (23%), life-threatening events (18%), serious harm, or death (8%). When treatment is late or ineffective, healthcare costs can go up and patients’ health can get worse. This raises concern about using AI in healthcare decisions without limits.
Doctors report extra work too. Each doctor spends about 13 hours per week handling prior authorization tasks. Because of this, 89% say they feel more burned out, which lowers their ability to focus on patient care.
Starting January 1, 2025, AB 3030 requires healthcare providers and insurers in California to be clear when AI is used to communicate with patients. Especially if messages include clinical information, a clear notice must say AI helped create it. This rule covers written, audio, video, or online messages.
Patients must also get clear instructions on how to reach a human healthcare provider or staff whenever AI tools are used. The only exception is when a licensed professional reviews and approves the AI message before sending. This law helps prevent patient confusion and stops AI from pretending to be doctors, which can harm trust.
SB 1120, also effective January 1, 2025, deals with utilization reviews. It forbids health plans and disability insurers from denying, delaying, or changing medically needed care just because an AI algorithm says so. Every insurance decision that uses AI must be reviewed by a qualified healthcare professional. This makes sure each patient’s individual situation guides decisions, not just general data.
The bill also demands that AI tools used in these reviews can be audited and work transparently. Regulators must be able to check that the tools treat all patient groups fairly and do not discriminate.
AB 2885 adds more safety by requiring yearly lists of high-risk automated systems, including AI used in healthcare insurance. It requires audits to check for bias and fairness. These audits help prevent unfair treatment based on factors like race, gender, or disability.
By demanding openness about AI data and uses, the law pushes healthcare groups and insurers to reduce risks ahead of time. This helps build patient trust and confidence in AI tools.
California’s privacy laws, like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), and California Medical Information Act (CMIA), set strict rules about how AI systems handle patient data.
The CMIA controls how patient medical information is kept confidential and used properly. AI systems working with this data must follow privacy-by-design rules. This means data should be stored securely, access should be limited, and the data used only for allowed purposes. Breaking these rules can bring civil or criminal penalties.
Doctors keep the main responsibility for clinical decisions when AI is used. The Medical Board of California says AI should not replace doctors’ judgment. Providers must document when they review AI suggestions, whether they follow them or not. This records protection from legal issues and shows human oversight is still essential.
The AMA survey shows many worry that AI misuse in insurance decisions hurts both patients and healthcare providers. For example, 82% of doctors report patients stop treatment because of automated denials. Also, 80% see patients paying out-of-pocket because insurance causes problems.
Too many denials cause more healthcare visits. Doctors said prior authorizations lead to more office visits (73%), emergency room visits (47%), and hospital stays (33%). This raises costs and makes patients suffer more.
The extra work is tough. Doctors and staff spend a lot of time handling prior authorizations. Many doctors do not appeal denials because they lack time or resources. The complicated system and delays make care worse.
Even though AI misuse is a problem, AI can be useful in healthcare workflows if used carefully with human checks.
In front-office and admin work, AI can:
Companies like Simbo AI offer phone automation combined with AI answering to reduce admin work in medical offices, as long as they keep transparency, protect data, and include human oversight. Administrators and IT managers must make sure AI tools are used safely and follow rules.
In utilization reviews, AI should support, not replace, healthcare professionals’ judgments. AI can quickly show case data and suggest options, but a human reviewer must make the final decision. This approach respects doctors’ control and patients’ needs.
Medical administrators and IT managers must follow these laws while keeping clinics running smoothly and patients happy.
Some key steps are:
By following these steps, healthcare groups can help stop misuse of AI by insurers, keep patients safe, and use technology in fair and proper ways.
AI is becoming part of healthcare utilization reviews and insurer decisions. It offers benefits but also risks. New laws in places like California — such as AB 3030, SB 1120, and AB 2885 — require openness, human reviews, and strong protections against bias and misuse.
Medical practice administrators, owners, and IT managers need to know these laws and use AI carefully. They must make sure AI supports doctors and patients without taking over important human decisions. Combining AI tools with human checks can lower paperwork and keep care safe and trustworthy.
AB 3030, effective January 1, 2025, mandates healthcare entities in California to disclose when generative AI is used in patient communications involving clinical information, requiring prominent disclaimers and clear instructions for contacting a human provider. This law enhances transparency and patient awareness about AI’s role in their healthcare interactions.
AB 3030 requires a disclaimer indicating generative AI involvement at the beginning of written messages, throughout continuous online chats, and during both start and end of audio and video communications. It also mandates instructions for patients on contacting human healthcare personnel, except if the AI-generated content is reviewed and approved by a licensed healthcare provider before delivery.
SB 1120 safeguards physician autonomy by prohibiting health insurers from denying, delaying, or modifying care based solely on AI algorithms. It requires human review by licensed providers for medical necessity decisions and mandates AI tools to use individual clinical data, ensuring oversight and transparency in utilization review and management.
California requires physicians to document clinical judgment when using or disregarding AI advice to navigate evolving standards of care. The Medical Board emphasizes AI cannot replace professional judgment. Liability issues remain complex with unclear legal precedents on AI’s role, suggesting careful risk management and documentation are essential for healthcare providers.
The CMIA regulates the confidentiality and use of patient medical data in California, imposing strict restrictions on unauthorized disclosures. AI systems handling patient data must comply with CMIA mandates, including secure data handling and limited access. Violations can incur significant civil and criminal penalties, reinforcing the need for privacy protections in AI applications.
The CCPA/CPRA grants patients rights to know, delete, correct, and limit the use of their sensitive health and neural data. Healthcare AI systems must collect only necessary data, secure consumer consents, and transparently disclose data use, ensuring adherence to stringent privacy rights and minimizing misuse or unauthorized sharing of patient information.
AB 2885 mandates the California Department of Technology to inventory high-risk automated decision systems, including those used in healthcare, requiring bias audits, transparency, and risk mitigation measures. The law forbids discriminatory AI outcomes based on protected classes, pushing healthcare entities to proactively prevent and document bias in AI systems.
Violations of AB 3030 can lead to civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation for licensed health facilities and clinics. Physicians face disciplinary actions from medical boards. Health plans and insurers violating related AI laws face administrative penalties. These measures ensure compliance and promote accountability in AI-generated patient communications.
California’s SB 1120 mandates that utilization review decisions involving AI must be reviewed and decided by licensed healthcare professionals based on individual patient data, not solely on algorithms or population datasets. AI tools and algorithms must be auditable, with strict timeframes for decisions to protect patient access to necessary services.
Healthcare organizations should conduct algorithmic impact assessments, ensure human oversight protocols, document AI decision reviews, implement privacy-by-design measures, conduct bias audits, maintain vendor compliance programs, and develop incident response plans. These steps help navigate complex regulations, manage risks, and promote transparency in AI deployment in healthcare.
Simbo is using AI agents to automate all phone related workflows. Connect now to know more.
Schedule AI Agents Demo Now© Since 2019, Simbo AI.
