Utah to let AI examine patients and prescribe medication without human oversight

blinkbat

what could go wrong

jmorenoamor

Is it already a cliché to cite Idiocracy?

assimpleaspossi

If it works out anything like AI helping with the settings on my new phone, they're in a world of trouble.

hamdingers

Specifically for acne treatments, seems fine. If a 20 minute telehealth visit with a PA is a sufficient level of screening for a medication, it's hard to imagine a compelling reason why an AI system would not be.

rglover

> The good news is that the program is currently very limited in its scope. It's just one year long and only for patients with mild-to-moderate acne. Just in case anyone else has the gut "oh ffs" reaction to this.

augment_me

This is great. It removes a big time waste of appointments and procedures for things that you know you need. I have for example had tonsilitis 5+ times, and a lot of common colds/flus/etc. I know how my body reacts and how it feels when I have one or the other. Yet, I have to be screened by nurses, sent around, given weak antibiotics, and in general wasting a lot of time when I could just convince a model to give me the prescription. I have a friend with acne who has the same issues with tretinoin prescriptions. Endless appointments and time waste. Step in the right direction

1Kajsh

They are going to data-mine this so hard. First acne, then other exemptions will be made. Utah is of course on the side of the industry.

AnimalMuppet

For acne treatments. (Currently.) Not general medicine.

compiler-guy

This is a good way to evaluate the technology. Acne is a real problem for some people, but comparatively low stakes, mostly visual evaluation, and with pretty well-known solutions. (Of course everything has corner cases, but in general this is a well understood area.) I have no idea how well this will go, but starting here rather than, say, robotic cancer treatments, can help AI medicine develop into more. If it does go badly, then after a year we can re-evaluate and either give up or refine the system.

slg

What is the actual benefit here? If we believe the doctor's oversight is required, the AI introduces a dangerous potential for error. If we don't think a doctor's oversight is required, the medication shouldn't require a prescription in the first place. What positive value does the AI actually add that isn't circumventing a legal requirement that we decided to put in place?

HarHarVeryFunny

> Being a doctor is one of the jobs expected to be least at risk from AI replacement I wouldn't say that, but it's certainly one where the consequences are high and doctor-in-the-loop seems highly desirable for the foreseeable future, especially since most patients are not going to be knowledgeable enough to realize the shortcomings of an LLM and make an informed decision about whether they're OK taking an LLM-prescribed medication.

qubex

#whatcouldpossiblygowrong

xp84

This is the type of reform that has been difficult to achieve in the US (And I presume other high-regulation, Western countries). We usually regulate a one-size-fits-all approach to everything in medicine. An M.D. (or whatever NPs have?) is required to prescribe medicines, even medicines which are just the same or slightly stronger formulations of OTC medications like a 400mg Ibuprofen or a 1% hydrocortisone cream. Compare this to Mexico, where you can buy many of our "prescription-only" meds OTC. A lot of healthcare issues are just not high-stakes. Requiring a doctor in these cases doesn't help the average patient, because the average patient would rather ignore the problem, or now, ask ChatGPT how to treat it with OTC options, than deal with the mess of scheduling doctor appointments, dealing with insurance (or in Canada, long wait times to see the doctor for free), only to get just 5 minutes with the actual doctor who may not even listen to you. I know it's a tough pill to swallow for doctors, and I recognize that it's not doctors who chose the terrible healthcare system we have or decided that they should have 5-10 minutes with a patient. But I do think we need to change the rules for things that have little risk of causing harm but a great chance of improving the aggregate outcomes by increasing access to healthcare.

dyauspitr

I’m all for this, but I think this is wild. I hope they have some hard programmed limits and guidelines baked in because otherwise people are going to turn these into the new pill mills.

tibbydudeza

I have severe backpain - some opioid will do nicely.

bena

Who is accountable when this thing does something harmful?

redox99

> Being a doctor is one of the jobs expected to be least at risk from AI replacement Is it? At least as a customer I'd love to replace a doctor with AI. Humans suck, you have to wait so long for an appointment, they spend like 10 minutes on your case, and often have very outdated knowledge. The main issue is that vision still sucks and lack of embodiment is a problem. It could invoke "human subagents" for that.

RobRivera

I hope this headline is inaccurate

skeledrew

> While the program will eventually become fully automated, the first 100 prescriptions will have to be reviewed by actual doctors before they are submitted to the pharmacy. > In the second phase, the next 400 patients will have their prescriptions submitted to pharmacies by the AI and reviewed retrospectively by a physician weekly. > The final phase will involve a doctor reviewing at least 10% of the total prescriptions issued once a month. This is a really good way to go. That's how you get to a proper system. It's the route that should've been taken from the very beginning with all human-facing AI-brokered services, and would've meant far fewer nightmare stories.

OutOfHere

This is great for patients. Healthcare is a captured racket. With any luck, in time, AI will help bring its costs down by 95%.