Sylvia Chou, 51, Maryland

Program director, National Cancer Institute

Sylvia Chou specializes in communication between patients and their health care providers, and social media’s role in public health. She joined the federal government in 2007 as a fellow and became a civil servant in 2010.

She left her National Cancer Institute job in January, she said, because the “work is no longer based on facts or truth.”

After President Donald Trump returned to office, Chou said, health communication scientists like her were falsely accused of “essentially doing propaganda work.” The administration’s “anti-DEI hysteria,” she said, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion, meant research funded by the National Institutes of Health was flagged and scrubbed of references to “equity, vulnerable, underserved, poor, even communities of color, minorities.”

She said the agency’s climate in 2025 brought to mind her childhood in Taiwan, when the island was still ruled by an authoritarian regime.

“I could see the difference between a time when, you know, we have a choral competition and we have to sing the same songs to revere the leader of the country, to suddenly they say you can sing any song you want,” Chou said. “I came to this country in part because there was so much opportunity to think freely.”

“To see us going backwards,” she added, “it just made me feel like I have limited time on this earth and I cannot participate anymore inside the system.”

‘One Hurdle After Another’

Philip Stewart, 60, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Philip Stewart’s work was about understanding the pathogens ticks carry that make people and animals sick.

That often started with walks through tall grass searching for the arachnids. He analyzed them back at Rocky Mountain Laboratories.

When Trump entered office in 2025, Stewart experienced repeated disruptions to his work.

“It’s been one hurdle after another. Just when you’ve gotten over one and you think it’s finally behind you, another hurdle pops up,” Stewart said. “I don’t see that changing.”

NIH workers responsible for buying laboratory supplies were fired. As a result, Stewart said, he faced delays in getting the basics, including materials used to identify tick species.

Travel bans in early 2025 threatened his fieldwork. When those bans lifted, Stewart said, for the first time in his career he needed a presidential appointee’s approval to travel. Amid last year’s government shutdown, Stewart missed his only opportunity in the year to collect ticks from deer at hunting stations — his best chance to see if deer ticks had become established in Montana.

The review process for scientists to share their research became more burdensome.

He said scientists have debated whether they should try to stay and work within the system, adding that, if everyone leaves, “no cures get found.”

“If I saw a way to stay on and be useful and perhaps to protest, then I think I would’ve stayed,” Stewart said. “But I don’t see any of those alternatives.”

‘Losing a Lot of Expertise’

Alexa Romberg, 48, Maryland

Deputy branch chief, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Alexa Romberg is a scientist who specializes in preventing the use of and addiction to tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and cannabis. The harms that stem from substance use or addiction don’t affect all Americans equally, she said.

Romberg left her “dream job” at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in December, she said, because Trump policies had compromised the research she helped oversee. Among other things, Romberg said, grants were terminated under an initiative she led to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities related to substance use. Pending applications were also pulled, she said, adding, “I couldn’t be effective from the inside in actively really preserving the science.”

Romberg said her work was undone even though it was consistent with “what the NIH leadership is saying that they want.” In August, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on priorities that included “solution-oriented approaches in health disparities research.”

Before the upheaval throughout 2025, she thought she would work at NIDA for the rest of her career.

“We’re losing a lot of expertise,” Romberg said. “Both scientific,” she added, and “institutional knowledge.”

Research ‘for the Benefit of Our Society’

Marc Ernstoff, 73, Maryland and Vermont

Branch chief, National Cancer Institute

Marc Ernstoff spent most of his career in academia before joining the National Cancer Institute in 2020. He led a team of scientists who oversaw grants for research into how the immune system responds to cancer, with the goal of developing drugs that extend patients’ lives.

“I felt that it was important for me to help define a national agenda in immuno-oncology and to give back to a country that I love by working as a civil servant,” Ernstoff said.

Under Trump, the NIH became a “hostile work environment.” Projects with “no weaknesses” were denied funding. Ernstoff left because of those challenges and because he was denied permission to work remotely. He now has a part-time position at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire.

Leveraging a person’s immune system to fight off cancer is “just the beginning of the story,” Ernstoff said. Understanding how the immune system works — and the environmental and other factors that affect it — all “goes into developing better therapeutics for patients.”

“In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to support this kind of research for the benefit of our society,” he said.

Eyeing Less Stress, Better Pay

Daniel Dulebohn, 45, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

At Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Daniel Dulebohn studied how molecules come together in infections and diseases. He helped agency researchers across the nation get insight needed for new discoveries and treatments.

Dulebohn said he worked for the government because he knew his research wouldn’t be steered by the pressure to make money. He had planned to stay indefinitely.

“You’re trying to cure a disease or understand something fundamental about biology,” Dulebohn said.

But then his work began to feel insecure, especially as as inept, corrupt, and partisan.

“Reading the news and hearing people discuss the validity of vaccines,” he said, made him think, “Do we need iron lungs again, or people in wheelchairs, to say, ‘Huh, maybe vaccines are a good idea’? I mean, I don’t know; for me, it was just too much.”

He added federal researchers typically have other options for jobs with bigger paychecks.

Dulebohn left his job in September. He’s taking a year off to think about next options with his wife and their three young kids. Dulebohn said he’s considering going into real estate full-time, which until recently was a weekend hobby.

“It’s a lot less stress,” he said. “Pay is better.”

‘Susceptible to Political Decision-Making’

Jennifer Troyer, 57, Maryland

Division director, National Human Genome Research Institute

Jennifer Troyer’s work for the NIH most recently involved reviewing research and overseeing funding awarded to institutions for genomics research. Genomics studies all of a person’s genes to better understand health and disease risk.

She called it quits at the end of December, more than two decades after she arrived. She left for one reason, she said: “The way that the NIH is making the agreement to fund science is now susceptible to political decision-making in a way that it was not before.”

“NIH is looking at not the value of the science but whether the science falls within particular political or socially-acceptable-to-this-administration constructs,” she said. “Not whether it’s valuable for human health but whether it might offend somebody.”

For example, she saw HHS move to to Harvard after alleging that it had shown “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism on campus. Early-career investigators from minority backgrounds lost their research dollars because the money was awarded under programs to make the science workforce more diverse.

The loss of staff means the NIH has “lost so much of that institutional knowledge and leadership, which is not something that is easy or can be learned overnight,” she said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But when Quinn chipped a tooth and it became infected, she could not find a dentist near her home who would accept her government health coverage and was taking new patients.

She went to an emergency room, receiving painkillers and antibiotics, but she remained in agonizing pain weeks later and paid a dentist $200 to extract the tooth.

Years later, it still hurts to chew on that side, she said, but Quinn — a 34-year-old who has four children and, with her husband, earns about $30,000 a year — still can’t find a dentist nearby.

“You should be able to get dental care,” she said, “because at the end of the day dental care is health care.”

The federal government has long required states to offer dental coverage for children enrolled in Medicaid, the joint state-federal health program for people who are low-income or disabled. Paying for adults’ dental care, though, is optional for states.

In recent years, several states have opted to expand the coverage offered by their Medicaid programs, seeking to boost access in recognition of its importance to overall health. So far, increasing adult dental care is a work in progress: In a sampling of six of those states by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, fewer than 1 in 4 adults on Medicaid see a dentist at least once a year.

But under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last year, the federal government is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over the next decade. The range from about $184 million for Wyoming to about $150 billion for California.

State Medicaid programs typically expand or reduce benefits depending on their finances, and such massive federal cuts could force some to shrink or eliminate what they offer, including dental benefits.

“We will lose all the gains we have made,” said Shillpa Naavaal, a dental policy researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

Tennessee’s Medicaid program, for instance, spent nearly $64 million on its dental coverage in 2024 and saw a 20% decrease in dental-related ER visits, said Amy Lawrence, the program’s spokesperson.

But under the new law, Tennessee is projected to lose about $7 billion in federal funding over the next decade.

As of last year, 38 states and the District of Columbia offered enhanced dental benefits for adult Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the American Dental Association. Most of the others offer limited or emergency-only care. Alabama is the only state that offers no dental coverage for adult beneficiaries.

Since 2021, 18 states have enhanced their coverage to include checkups, X-rays, fillings, crowns, and dentures, while loosening annual dollar caps for benefits.

Use of dental benefits in states with the enhanced benefits is greater than in states with only limited or emergency coverage, though still low overall, according to with the latest data as of December. No more than a third of adult Medicaid recipients saw a dentist in 2022 in any state.

To review more recent progress, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News asked one-third of the states that have expanded their benefits in the past five years for their most recent data on the percentage of adults on Medicaid who visit a dentist at least once a year:

• Maryland — 22% (in 2024)
• Oklahoma — 16% (in 2025)
• Maine — 13% (in 2025)
• New Hampshire — 19% (in 2025)
• Tennessee — 16% (in 2024)
• Virginia — 21% (in 2025)

In comparison, about 50% to 60% of adults with private dental coverage see a dentist at least once a year, according to the ADA.

Nationwide, 41% of dentists reported participating in Medicaid in 2024, a share that has remained stable over the past decade despite the dental benefit expansions in many states, the ADA says. Many participating dentists, though, limit the number of Medicaid enrollees they treat, and some will not accept new patients on Medicaid.

Reimbursement rates have not kept up with costs, deterring dentists from accepting Medicaid, said Marko Vujicic, chief economist and vice president at the ADA Health Policy Institute.

Because of a lack of dentists who take Medicaid in southwestern Virginia, the Appalachian Highlands Community Dental Center in Abingdon sees patients who travel more than two hours for care — and must turn many away, said Elaine Smith, its executive director.

The center’s seven residents treated about 5,000 patients last year, most of them on Medicaid. About 3,000 people are on its waitlist, waiting up to a year to be seen.

“It’s sad because they have the means now to see a dentist, but they still don’t have a dental home,” Smith said.

Low-income adults face other barriers to dental care, including a lack of transportation, child care, or time off work, she said.

The inability to see a dentist has consequences broader than tooth pain. Poor dental health can contribute to a host of other significant health problems, such as heart disease . It can also make it harder to do things like apply for jobs and generally lead a healthy life.

Robin Mullins, 49, who has been off and on Medicaid since 2013, said a lack of regular dental visits contributed to her losing her bottom teeth. Unable to find a dentist near her home in rural Clintwood, Virginia, she drives almost 90 minutes to Smith’s clinic — that is, when she can afford to get time away from driving for DoorDash or find help watching her daughter, who has special needs.

She gets by with partial dentures but misses her natural teeth, she said. “It’s absolutely horrible, as you can’t chew your food properly.”

In New Hampshire, though, the challenges have more to do with low demand than a low supply of dentists, said Tom Raffio, chief executive of Northeast Delta Dental, which manages the state’s Medicaid dental program. The company has added new dentists to its list of participating providers, along with two mobile dental units that traverse the state, he said.

Raffio said Northeast Delta Dental also has publicized the state benefits using radio advertising and social media, among other efforts.

Until 2023, New Hampshire Medicaid covered only dental emergencies.

“Culturally, it’s going to take a while,” he said, “as people just are used to not going to the dentist, or going to the ER when have dental pain.”

Brooks Woodward, dental director at Baltimore-based Chase Brexton Health Care, called Maryland’s rate of roughly 1 in 5 adults on Medicaid seeing a dentist in 2024 “pretty good” considering the benefits had been enhanced only since 2023.

Woodward said many adults on Medicaid believe that you go to a dentist only when you’re in pain. “They’ve always just not gone to the dentist, and that’s just the way they had it in their life,” he said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La regulación de la inteligencia artificial, en especial su uso por parte de las aseguradoras de salud, se está convirtiendo en un tema que divide políticamente y altera las líneas partidarias tradicionales.

Quienes la impulsan, con Trump a la cabeza, no solo quieren insertar la IA de lleno en el gobierno, como en el experimento de Medicare que la utiliza en las autorizaciones previas (el proceso para autorizar ciertos tratamientos y medicamentos), sino que además buscan frenar a los estados que pretenden poner reglas y límites. Una firmada en diciembre busca invalidar la mayoría de los esfuerzos de los estados para regularla, al plantear que existe “una carrera con adversarios por la supremacía” en una nueva “revolución tecnológica”.

“Para ganar, las empresas estadounidenses de IA deben tener la libertad de innovar sin regulaciones engorrosas”, dice la orden de Trump. “Pero la regulación estatal excesiva frustra este imperativo”.

En todo el país, los estados se están rebelando. Al menos cuatro —Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska y Texas— aprobaron el año pasado leyes que limitan el uso de la IA en los seguros de salud. Otros dos, Illinois y California, habían aprobado leyes similares el año anterior.

Los legisladores de Rhode Island se proponen intentarlo de nuevo este año, después de que durante 2025 no lograran sancionar un proyecto que exigía a los organismos reguladores que recopilaran datos sobre el uso de las tecnologías. El año pasado, en Carolina del Norte, una iniciativa que exige que las aseguradoras no utilicen la IA como única base para decidir la cobertura generó interés entre legisladores republicanos.

DeSantis, ex candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano, ha presentado una “Carta de Derechos de la IA”, incluyen restricciones a su uso en la tramitación de reclamos de seguros y el requisito de que un organismo regulador estatal inspeccione los algoritmos.

“Tenemos la responsabilidad de garantizar que las nuevas tecnologías se desarrollen de forma moral y ética, de modo que refuercen nuestros valores estadounidenses, no que los erosionen”, dijo DeSantis durante su discurso anual sobre la situación de su estado en enero.

Lista para regular

Las encuestas muestran que los estadounidenses desconfían de la IA. En , un relevamiento  de Fox News encontró que el 63% de los votantes se describen como “muy” o “extremadamente” preocupados por la inteligencia artificial. La preocupación es mayoritaria en todo el espectro político. Casi dos tercios de los demócratas y poco más de 3 de cada 5 republicanos dijeron tener reparos sobre la IA.

Las tácticas de las aseguradoras de salud para reducir costos también preocupan a la población. Una de KFF mostró un descontento generalizado en temas como la autorización previa.

En los últimos años, y han destacado el uso de algoritmos para rechazar rápidamente reclamos de seguros o solicitudes de autorización previa, al parecer con muy poca revisión por parte de un profesional de salud.

En enero, el Comité de Medios y Arbitrios de la Cámara de Representantes convocó a ejecutivos de Cigna, UnitedHealth Group y otras grandes aseguradoras para discutir preocupaciones sobre los altos costos de la atención médica.

Cuando se les preguntó directamente, los ejecutivos negaron o evitaron referirse al uso de la tecnología más avanzada para rechazar solicitudes de autorización o descartar reclamos.

La IA “nunca se utiliza para una denegación”, aseguró a los legisladores David Cordani, director ejecutivo de Cigna. Al igual que otras empresas del sector de seguros de salud, la compañía enfrenta demandas por sus métodos para rechazar reclamos, como destacó ProPublica. Justine Sessions, vocera de Cigna, dijo que el proceso de rechazo de reclamos de la empresa “no está impulsado por la IA”.

De hecho, las compañías insisten en presentar la IA como una herramienta de apoyo que no decide sola. Optum, parte del gigante de la salud UnitedHealth Group, anunció el 4 de febrero que implementaría autorización previa impulsada por tecnología, destacando que permitirá aprobaciones más rápidas.

“Estamos transformando el proceso de autorización previa para abordar los puntos de conflicto que genera”, dijo John Kontor, vicepresidente sénior de Optum, en un .

Aun así, Alex Bores, científico informático y miembro de la Asamblea de Nueva York, una figura clave en el debate legislativo del estado sobre la IA—que terminó en una ley integral para regular esta tecnología—, aseguró que la IA es un campo que, naturalmente, requiere regulación.

“Muchas personas consideran que las respuestas que reciben de sus aseguradoras son difíciles de entender”, dijo Bores, demócrata que compite por un escaño en el Congreso. “Agregar una tecnología que no puede explicar sus propias decisiones no ayudará a hacer las cosas más claras”.

Al menos una parte del ámbito de la salud —por ejemplo, muchos médicos— respalda a los legisladores y a quienes defienden las regulaciones.

La Asociación Médica Americana (AMA, por sus siglas en inglés) “apoya las regulaciones estatales que buscan más responsabilidad y transparencia de las aseguradoras comerciales que usan herramientas de IA y aprendizaje automático para revisar solicitudes de autorización previa”, dijo John Whyte, su director ejecutivo.

Whyte señaló que las aseguradoras ya utilizan IA y que “los médicos siguen enfrentando retrasos en la atención de los pacientes, decisiones poco claras de las aseguradoras, reglas de autorización inconsistentes y una carga administrativa abrumadora”.

Las aseguradoras responden

Con legislación aprobada o pendiente de aprobación en por lo menos nueve estados, aún no está claro el impacto real que tendrán esas leyes estatales, dijo Daniel Schwarcz, profesor de Derecho en la Universidad de Minnesota. Los estados no pueden regular los planes “autoasegurados”, que utilizan muchos empleadores; solo el gobierno federal tiene esa facultad.

Pero hay problemas más profundos, dijo Schwarcz: la mayoría de las leyes estatales que ha visto exigirían que un ser humano apruebe cualquier decisión propuesta por la IA, pero no especifican qué significa eso en la práctica.

Las leyes no ofrecen un marco claro para entender cuánta revisión es suficiente y, con el tiempo, los humanos tienden a volverse un poco descuidados y simplemente dan el visto bueno a cualquier sugerencia de una computadora, dijo.

Aun así, las aseguradoras ven esta ola de proyectos de ley como un problema.

“En términos generales, la carga regulatoria es real”, dijo Dan Jones, vicepresidente sénior de asuntos federales de la Alliance of Community Health Plans, un grupo comercial que representa a algunas aseguradoras de salud sin fines de lucro. Si las aseguradoras pasan mucho tiempo lidiando con un mosaico de leyes estatales y federales, agregó, eso significa que se dispondrá de “menos tiempo y recursos para enfocarnos en lo que se supone que debemos hacer: asegurarnos de que los pacientes tengan el acceso adecuado a la atención médica”.

Linda Ujifusa, senadora estatal demócrata en Rhode Island, dijo que las aseguradoras se opusieron el año pasado a un proyecto que presentó para restringir el uso de la IA en las denegaciones de cobertura. Fue aprobado en una cámara, pero en la otra no avanzó.

“Hay una oposición enorme” a cualquier intento de regular prácticas como la autorización previa, dijo, y también “una oposición enorme” a señalar a intermediarios —como las aseguradoras privadas o los administradores de beneficios farmacéuticos— “como parte del problema”.

En , AHIP, el principal grupo que representa a las aseguradoras, pidió “políticas equilibradas que promuevan la innovación y, al mismo tiempo, protejan a los pacientes”.

“Los planes de salud reconocen que la IA tiene el potencial de impulsar mejores resultados en la atención médica mejorando la experiencia del paciente, cerrando brechas en la atención, acelerando la innovación y reduciendo la carga administrativa y los costos para mejorar el enfoque en la atención al paciente”, dijo Chris Bond, portavoz de AHIP, a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Y agregó que el sector necesita “un enfoque nacional coherente basado en un marco federal integral de políticas de IA”.

En busca de equilibrio

En California, Newsom ha promulgado algunas leyes que regulan la IA, incluida una que exige que las aseguradoras de salud garanticen que sus algoritmos se apliquen de manera justa y equitativa. Pero el gobernador demócrata ha vetado otras iniciativas con un enfoque más amplio, como un proyecto que imponía más requisitos sobre cómo debe funcionar la tecnología y que exigía revelar su uso a reguladores, médicos y pacientes cuando lo pidieran.

Según Chris Micheli, lobista de Sacramento, es probable que el gobernador quiera asegurarse de que el presupuesto estatal —que se mantiene fuerte gracias a las grandes ganancias de la Bolsa, especialmente de las empresas tecnológicas— no se resienta. Y para eso, dijo, hace falta equilibrio.

Newsom está tratando de “garantizar que ese flujo de dinero continúe y, al mismo tiempo, que haya algunas protecciones para los consumidores de California”, afirmó. Añadió que las aseguradoras consideran que ya están sujetas a una gran cantidad de regulaciones.

La administración Trump parece estar de acuerdo. La reciente orden ejecutiva del presidente propone demandar ante la Justicia y restringir ciertos fondos federales a cualquier estado que apruebe lo que caracteriza como una regulación estatal “excesiva”, con algunas excepciones, como las políticas destinadas a proteger a los niños.

Esa orden posiblemente sea inconstitucional, dijo Carmel Shachar, experta en políticas de salud de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. La autoridad para invalidar leyes estatales generalmente recae en el Congreso, explicó, y los legisladores federales consideraron en dos ocasiones, pero finalmente rechazaron, una disposición que prohibía a los estados regular la IA.

“Según nuestro conocimiento previo del federalismo y del equilibrio de poderes entre el Congreso y el Poder Ejecutivo, es muy probable que una impugnación tenga éxito”, dijo Shachar.

Algunos legisladores ven la orden de Trump con mucho escepticismo, y señalan que la administración ha eliminado controles y ha impedido que otros los establezcan, en un grado extremo.

“En este momento, no se trata de decidir si la regulación debe ser federal o estatal”, dijo Alex Bores. “La pregunta es si va a haber regulación a nivel estatal o directamente no va a haber ninguna”.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.) Reporting and in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum,

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a , AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

Do you have an experience navigating prior authorization to get medical treatment that you’d like to share with us for our reporting? Share it with us here.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).