| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Cyber | |
| Blue Cross Blue Shield: AI-Assisted Medical Coding Added $1 Billion in Hospital Costs | |
| 2026-10-04 | |
| [BB] CNBC reports that the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) says AI-assisted coding helped drive $942 million in additional costs over that span, much of it from secondary diagnoses that pushed patients into higher-paying reimbursement categories. Medical coders translate procedures and diagnoses into standardized codes used for insurance claims and billing, and the rise in what BCBSA calls “complex coding” lines up with a period when roughly 60 percent of hospital systems adopted AI coding tools. About 70 percent, or $653 million, of the billing BCBSA flagged involved additional diagnoses that came with no change in a patient’s actual care, according to Luke Chalker, the association’s senior vice president of product and data science. Many of these secondary diagnoses, the BCBSA report said, “may be derived from single laboratory values, making it particularly well suited for detection by AI tools.” Its conclusion: “There is a clear disconnect between coding and treatment.” Christopher Whaley, a health economist at Brown University who studies hospital coding, sees it differently: AI isn’t creating new billing incentives, he said, it’s exploiting ones that already exist. The technology is “accelerating, and in some sense making it easier to capture, the existing and underlying billing incentives that are in the system.” He cautioned against assuming the added diagnoses are improper. “In many cases, the diagnoses are legitimate and weren’t captured,” he said. Still, some flagged conditions “clinically just don’t really matter and don’t influence the patient’s care,” even though they can still support higher billing. The American Hospital Association pushed back hard. A spokesperson told CNBC that “patients today are older and more clinically complex” and that AI tools help providers “appropriately capture their patients’ conditions to aid in care planning.” The group argued that “the BCBSA’s analysis lacks the context needed to meaningfully assess how these tools impact healthcare quality, patient access, or spending.” Then it turned the criticism back on insurers, calling it “particularly troubling to see insurers raising concerns about provider coding while continuing to rely on automated downcoding and denial practices that can impede coverage of medically necessary care, add burden on the workforce, and increase costs through administrative waste.”
| |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2026-10-04 00:16 |