AI Battles Between Hospitals and Insurers Raise Costs
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
Class-action lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against UnitedHealth Group, Humana, and Cigna alleging that artificial-intelligence tools were used to deny or cut short payment for care that treating physicians said was medically necessary. The complaints name patients including Gene Lokken of Tomahawk, Wisconsin, whose family says UnitedHealth ended coverage of his skilled-nursing stay on July 20, 2022, after a fall; he remained at the facility at family expense until his death on July 17, 2023. Plaintiffs say UnitedHealth and Humana relied on naviHealth’s nH Predict model and that Cigna used software that allowed batch denials; the companies have responded that federal rules require a human clinician to make the final determination. In June 2025 the Department of Health and Human Services announced WISeR, a six-state traditional Medicare pilot that uses AI and machine learning plus human clinical review for prior authorization on selected services; the model went live in January. Hospitals and health insurers have both expanded AI use in billing and utilization review amid their long-running fight over payment for care.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 9 hours later.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Mika Hamer
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 1 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “hospital executives”, “insurance officials”
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 24, 11:03 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. First named source 9 hours later, from Vox. First document 9 hours later, from Vox (court filing).
- Not counted 1
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
Washington Examiner reported it on 2026-09-17.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets have not covered this story, so the entire record of insurer AI denials and a Medicare prior-authorization pilot exists only on the left. Left-leaning coverage says private insurers and the federal government are already using algorithms to approve or deny care, with Vox detailing lawsuits against three major carriers and a WISeR model that doctors say has delayed pain treatment. The New York Times describes hospital AI and insurer AI as a feud that is pushing medical costs higher, a cost frame Vox barely uses.
Vox opens on present-day denials of medical care, while the Atlantic opens on a risk to banks and never reaches hospitals.
Has a court found that software, not a doctor, made the final call on those denials?
Bottom line
Vox is reporting class actions against UnitedHealth, Humana, and Cigna over AI claim denials. Those suits, and the Times' claim that hospital and insurer AI are pushing medical costs higher, have not appeared in right-leaning coverage.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- HHS announced the WISeR model to use AI for prior authorization in traditional Medicare
- UnitedHealth says federal laws already require a human doctor, not an AI program, to make the final claims decision
- Plaintiffs allege UnitedHealth employees are instructed not to deviate from the nH Predict model's projections
- One WISeR prior-authorization review took 83 days
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treat present-day insurance and payment AI as the live story, not distant extinction risk. Vox reports lawsuits accusing UnitedHealth, Humana, and Cigna of AI-driven claim denials, recounts named cases (Lokken, Glennette Kell, Darlene Buckner, Joanne Barrows, Suzanne Kisting-Leung), and says staff were pressured not to override model outputs; it also describes HHS’s WISeR Medicare prior-authorization pilot, Washington Post accounts of delays and denials after launch, and Electronic Frontier Foundation FOIA records showing high denial rates and reviews lasting far beyond a 72-hour target. The New York Times frames an AI-versus-AI contest between hospitals and insurers as pushing medical costs higher. The Atlantic warns that AI is already a risk to Americans’ banks. These pieces emphasize opacity, weak human review, patient harm, appeals, state transparency rules, and bills such as the Protecting Patients from Automated Denials Act.
Our Take (balanced)
The healthcare file is substantive: named companies and a named vendor product (nH Predict), filed complaints with specific patients and dates, an HHS program announcement, plus newspaper and FOIA reporting on WISeR. Established facts are that the suits exist, that predictive models are used in utilization management, that federal rules still require a human coverage determination, and that a Medicare AI prior-auth pilot is underway. Still alleged, and disputed in court, are claims that AI replaced independent clinical judgment, that employees were disciplined for disagreeing with models, that batch denials skipped individual review, and that particular denials caused the harms described. Insurer-provider payment fights and algorithmic screening predate this generation of tools; both hospitals and payers are adopting them. The finance item, as presented, is thin—a general warning with no incident, dataset, or regulator action. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch docket activity and any rulings or settlements in the three insurer cases; HHS/CMS data or changes to WISeR; company and agency responses; and whether human-review or transparency bills move.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.