In the heart of Manhattan, three words engraved on bullet casings (“deny, defend, depose”) reveal an even deeper story than the brutal murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Which one? That of a health algorithm is denied lifesaving care to thousands of elderly people, ignoring doctors' advice in almost all cases.
A story that starts from the news of these days, and raises disturbing questions about the role of technology in decisions that concern life and death.
What happened
Brian Thompson, 50, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, a US health insurance giant, was killed in Manhattan on Wednesday morning. A masked gunman waited for him outside the Hilton Hotel, shooting him in the back.
His company, with a turnover of $280 billion, has been embroiled in a series of controversies, from
antitrust investigations to the accusation of having used an algorithm to
deny rehabilitation assistance to seriously ill patients earlier this year.
The health algorithm that decides who to treat
When artificial intelligence enters into decisions about people's lives, the line between efficiency and inhumanity becomes thin. The health algorithm nH Predict, implemented by UnitedHealthcare, was designed to streamline medical reimbursement decisions. In reality, it has turned into an automated system of denial of care, with a 90% “error” rate.
La lawsuit filed from the families of two deceased patients revealed how this healthcare algorithm systematically ignored doctors' assessments. Even more disturbing is the awareness that UnitedHealthcare was aware of these errors but continued to use the system.
Technology, which should be a support tool, has become a relentless judge of other people’s health, with devastating consequences for thousands of elderly patients.
Revenge against the system
The CEO Murder Brian Thompson has sparked mixed reactions on social media. The killer, still unidentified, left a disturbing message about the bullet casings: a manifesto of anger against a system that puts algorithms before humanity.
If to understand a murder you need a weapon, a motive and a culprit, we already have almost everything (including a photo of the probable murderer). As for the motive, however, as reported The American Prospect, Approximately 50 million customers may have had reasons to resent UnitedHealthcare. 50 million potential killers, and 50 million victims at the same time.
That’s why the surprisingly celebratory public response to the murder reveals a deep crisis of confidence in America’s health care system. The three words on the bullet casings tell a story of systemic frustration, where technology is used as a shield for decisions that cruelly impact people’s lives.
The Future of Automated Healthcare
This story, as mentioned, raises crucial questions about the future of healthcare. Integration of artificial intelligence in the medical sector It is inevitable, but how can we ensure that it remains a tool at the service of humanity and not the other way around?
A healthcare algorithm can process massive amounts of data and potentially improve the efficiency of the system. But the UnitedHealthcare case also demonstrates the enormous dangers of completely delegating medical decisions to automation.
The challenge for the future will be to find a balance between technological innovation and human oversight, ensuring that efficiency never trumps ethics and compassion.
Surveillance and control in modern healthcare
The use of health algorithms also raises questions about privacy and control of medical data. When an automated system has the power to decide on a person's medical fate (or on his driving ability), who controls this system? Who guarantees the transparency of its decisions?
The creation of nH Predict demonstrates how a lack of oversight can lead to systemic abuse. The healthcare technology of the future will need to be accompanied by rigorous checks and balances.
This tragic story should serve as a warning for the future of digital healthcare. The integration of technology into the healthcare system is necessary, but it must be guided by clear ethical principles and constant human oversight.
