I RFTA and the majority of the complaints are about call center metrics and the pressure to ration care. These are real concerns about misuse of metrics, but not AI. The AI empathy thing was a 2024 pilot that was discontinued.
FWIW my wife works for Kaiser and finds a lot of value in the the medical LLM tools available to her. She tells me being able to do live translation, summarize notes, and quickly get comprehensive answers save her time and help her give better care. Her older patients also frequently come in bringing AI-powered alerts from their apple watches that detected cardiac events.
It's annoying that we use broad terms to describe a set of technologies that in some ways can be problematic and in another ways are very beneficial. We gotta evaluate each of these as they come rather than talk about blanket bans.
a bit upside down - wealth extraction is a measure of power.
development of power can be based on all sorts of things, it depends on the framework.
a nurse who is utterly incompetent will be fired quickly.
after a certain threshold though, obviously, competition won't be about 'ability' so much - but there are baseline ability and professionalism thresholds.
It’s somewhat the point of democracy to maintain a limit on rent seekers’ and wealth extractors’ power on the political process. It should come as no surprise that the individuals who have grifted and extorted their way into power are also fiercely antidemocratic. The xenophobes and bigots that have hitched their wagons are equally deplorable.
I'ma keep it creamy with you, both parties have had the kind of political majority required to clamp down on the corporatization of our society, and neither have so much as paid lip service to doing so. You want to be mad at the current administration by all means there's fertile ground, but don't waste anyone's time blaming them for a situation that's been decades in the making with both major political parties pushing in tandem to realize it.
If you're going to play the "both sides are the same" game you need to be more precise in what that means. DNC is absolutely subservient to their patrons and party leadership in general owned by the donor class.
But the similarities stop there. The party platforms are in stark difference, and the GOP is now literally a cult of personality run by a mob boss. The naked corruption is off the charts.
In fact right now Trump is working to cancel or refusing to acknowledge mid-term elections and acts as if he were king.
I say this as someone who used to be a Democrat but left in disgust when Clinton remade the DNC into pro corporate puppetry. Partisan politics is a cancer on the citizenry and may very well be the end of what we call democracy in the United States.
I've tracked presidential politics since watching the Watergate hearings and what is happening today is beyond the political pale.
sure, US political parties have been largely pro big-biz
but if you can't see the stark difference in pro-mega-corp policies and blatant pay-to-play corruption in the last 1.5 yrs with the previous 4 years, you're clearly not paying attention
the fact that BigCorp couldn't wait to get rid of Lina Khan, and found a willing ally in Trump, is just one tiny example
sadly, this is happening more as medicine and healthcare become more and more corporate. Seeing this as hospitals all get acquired into these mega health systems (ostensibly to fight the now merged mega health insurance companies), that then like to throw their weight around.
If you employ a few hundred nurses, how exactly would you evaluate how well they show empathy?
You can't rely on asking the customer. When they're upset (they often are in these calls), they'll lean towards the negative regardless.
I don't know how well these AIs evaluate, but if they're even a little bit good, it makes sense to use it to screen for outliers, then have a human listen to those outliers and judge.
By a knowledgeable/skilled person who listens to the call. (Which the AI solution provides).
Can you point me to the information you evidently have about which models Kaiser is using? All I can find is that they're using innovaccer, which can use any of anthropic, openai, and meta models on AWS or azure. Even their published papers don't seem to specify a particular model or capability level, just "AI". For all we know it's a gpt mini or similarly cost-effective model that has the context awareness of a Labrador hearing the word "walk".
"You can't ask people because the experience is so universally terrible they'll just tell you it's terrible" isn't really an argument against surveys, it just means you need more specific questions they'll be fired up to answer
Let me suggest the following: Ask the nurses if they want the customer to rate them.
A significant fraction of the calls they answer are patients shouting at them because of:
- Long wait times
- They don't like their doctor
- They don't like the advice they're given (sorry, but we're not going to book you as a high priority appointment if all you can tell me is you have a headache. Sorry, we're not going to prescribe a narcotic for a scraped knee.)
- Several reasons that have nothing to do with the nurse, but the customer will still blame the nurse.
Classic "1 star review because UPS lost my delivery" metric.
I'd guess most people have had a situation where there's a corporate problem, the support person you talk to literally doesn't have the tools or the agency to fix it, but then you're asked to rate their performance on whether or not they solved the issue, with no option to say "Actually they did their best but this isn't their fault."
Yeah, this whole discussion cracks me up. I have a number of direct experiences with Kaiser nurses. They repeatedly got into arguments with doctors in front of me, tried to countermand doctors' instructions, ignored their patients, and complained to each other about their patients while they were right there.
Repeated unprofessional behavior with no discernible change after trying to address it. My take is that the Kaiser nursing org has a serious discipline and customer (patient) focus problem.
Most of the folks here on HN are dealing with customer feedback in systems automation in one form or another - it's pretty unavoidable in this age of LLM trendiness. The customers of healthcare (in both private and publicly funded systems) are the patients. So while the term might not be super natural it's an understandable one to use.
Patients are not customers, or at least I don’t want to live in a world where patients are considered customers. Customers and vendors are usually more of a symmetric relationship: price transparency, alternatives, lack of urgency. These are all characteristics of transactions that healthcare often lacks.
But they don't want to, because figuring that out is your job as a supervisor.
If you outsource that work to customers/patients, you'll end up with the car dealership model, where the sales rep begs you to give a 10 on every single question including on the interior design so they don't get fired.
That's the part most of this discussion misses. Supervisors exist for a reason. Congrats on your flat org structure, you fucked up an important feedback channel.
> where the sales rep begs you to give a 10 on every single question including on the interior design so they don't get fired.
Oh yes, and the nurses did employ strategies like that pre-LLM (don't know if they still do). They had to be very strategic about it (you can't just say "Rate me a 10.")
I am quite heavily in AI, and I would say I am pro AI. However this use-case for AI is putting AI in the wrong position. AI should be in service to all humans. An administrator building out a middle management KPI based on AI is a misapplication of AI.
Hospital systems are incentivized to avoid the real problems with healthcare. People want timeliness and they want quality care which hospital systems are not incentivized towards in the US. The incentives are profit, which given budgets means corners cut.
Triaging is an opaque system to the patient. It's an important process to doll out finite resources but it also very frustrating to be told, "soon" when you've been waiting 15 hours to see someone. Frankly, if I were King for a day, the first thing I would do is break up the monolithic hospital systems and build out more urgent care.
I would also try to find a way to facilitate transferring less critical patients from ERs to urgent care centers. Right now a hospital won't take the risk, especially if you are sitting in waiting room because beds are full. You can't easily punt a patient because them leaving would be against medical advice.
Isn’t it a running joke at this point that if you do what customers ask instead of focusing on the highest quality of service you get worse outcomes and the customer is still unhappy?
There's a great academic book called "Stupid Rules". Excessive rules (or KPIs - often rules in disguise) exist because we don't like authority.
Get the doctor to assess the nurse. Or the head nurses if you don't trust doctors. The nurses have managers, and if none of the doctors or head nurses can be trusted with a simple matter like assessing whether nurses are doing their jobs then you got bigger issues.
Oh no, the boss might play favourites if it's not an objective measure! Oh the injustice /s
But stupid rules or KPI also allow favourites. You can use an officious 30 point checklist and play favourites while ticking boxes. You can even rig "objective" data by controlling other factors (e.g. giving someone difficult customers do deal with).
Yeah, data driven would be nice, if you have good data. But data driven is a power tool. You don't measure SLOC or reward token use in software because of perverse incentives.
When reading the headline I was thinking we were talking about evaluating things like whether a nurse asked the right questions of the patient from a best practices point of view (say you have <insert condition> and the best practices for that are to ask the patient about pain level and which side it's coming from and check in with them every X hours).
But evaluating tone and empathy? Great, now every nurse is gonna be wasting their time and energy making sure to recite the best canned, optimized text-adventure incantations for the KPI every time they enter the room instead of using their brains to see what the patient actually needs.
"Hello Mr. Smith our patients are our top priority at Kaiser and your nursing staff here at Kaiser Raccoon City are here to make sure you are cared for, comfortable, and safe. If you have any concerns or are feeling anxiety be sure to press the nurse button and we will be happy to assist you, we appreciate the trust you place in us and are eager to celebrate your recovery with you." < nurse now realizes Mr. Smith has been choking and losing consciousness while she was reciting that spiel >
That is surprising. My primary care provider had a different response. Basically he said something in line of
"You wouldn't believe how much of a relief it has been. In your last visit, you saw me typing everything you were saying, right? I don't have to. I can listen to you and take very specific notes as necessary as opposed to focusing on both typing and listening to you at the same time. It has bought my stress levels down to here." (Indicated by his hand lowering)
Nursing and PCP are very different jobs. Ones a lot more cognitive than the other whereas the other involves actually doing/executing on a plan. I can see how AI would help reduce the cognitive burden while actually increase stress on the execution side.
Similarly, I think anything we can do to help take the burden off the mundane parts of the job has helped clinicians focus on the actual hard parts. Where we get... bristling, is when there's any suggestion of "legislating" (operationally, not like, governmentally) care patterns and telling clinicians how to care for their patients.
Which is great, because anyone suggesting AI should replace clinical judgment and work is an idiot.
This problem with workplace AI interfering with nurses ability to manage healthcare obligations for their clients is not confined to Kaiser. UHC has also introduced the AI surveillance tools and are using it to do similar things.
> that might appear to be incentive to improve quality
Their goal isn't to provide high quality care. Their goal is to increase profits. It's not hard to imagine how improved quality would lead them to spend more money. (faster diagnoses of serious illnesses and recommending expensive care)
Indeed, increasing quality tends to increase costs and decrease profits so keeping costs aligned with their profit goals automatically degrades quality.
Psychopaths don't care about other peoples pain. Some MBA only care about their own ego, power, and money. They do well in corporate cultures that reward parasitic relationships with customers. =3
The article mentions uses of AI but doesn't really give any examples of harm from AI. It does give specific examples where it sounds like Kaiser is optimizing calls to minimize cost rather than improve quality of care. It's also pretty easy to expect that the examples given (treating longer calls as a problem and penalizing nurses for giving more than 3 pieces of advice) reduce the quality of care.
There is an unfortunate cycle that has been playing out this year in USA. Insurance companies are arming up with AI to deny billing codes charged by providers. Providers are arming up with AI to listen in on provider-patient sessions to prove the billing codes are legit (And teach providers to use keywords in session).
The loser, as always, is the patient's quality of care.
> Providers are arming up with AI to listen in on provider-patient sessions to prove the billing codes are legit
This is not a decrease in quality of care - this is your provider having actual evidence of the care needs they discussed with you when they close their note, hours or days after seeing you.
It sucks because AI reduces call center costs in many toil tasks very effectively, regardless of whether you want to help or dissuade customers - it's just well-suited to the task and it's going to accelerate. It's a win for capital and the technology implementers, even if it's a loser for the call center employees and callers.
Some of the tech is pretty scary. One big vendor's solution [0] can provide not just AI agents but also use AI to snoop on calls in progress, evaluating sentiment from both sides [1], verifying phrases are said - pretty dystopian in theory. From experience, these things tend to go downhill based on the attitude at the top - is the mission to slash costs or take care of customers? A 1000 decisions follow from this one, and like Jira, it can be a useful tool or a prison-like hell.
90% of the time when I call a call center I need a human to fix an organisational bug - e.g. faulty billing or some other kind of mixup. AI cannot help with this.
If it's to do something normal you could do through the website there was no need for AI - a website or app suffices - provided it isnt terrible.
Capital definitely thinks it can save costs here but capital is getting increasingly delusional these days.
> "Nurses fear that having long calls can lead to bad performance reviews"
> A company spokesperson said, "Kaiser Permanente does not use Average Handle Time to assess agent performance"
So uh, average time wasn't raised as a concern, calls beyond a certain threshold was. I wish this semantic discrepancy was better highlighted in the article.
They claim they do not use average handle time, but it is very common to get called into meetings to discuss why they spent a lot of time on some calls. The nurses get defensive (by definition - they have to justify the time used - it is a defense).
They also do get called into meetings if their average handle time is large.
It may still be true they don't use it for evaluating performance, but they absolutely do utilize it to "coach" the nurses.
It might not be a written metric, but do you actually believe that someone isn't being evaluated partially based on how many times they've had to talk to them about issues?
I highly doubt it. If this is the reason your manager knows who you are, you are absolutely going to be judged on it. It doesn't really matter what the policy says.
And the nurses absolutely feel like they are being punished for it. Just like having to consistently remind HR that your "absence problem" is due to covered FMLA leave - they know who you are because they've had to talk to you about absenteeism. In a call center of 500 people, it isn't likely they remember that you had issues because of their faulty systems.
> but do you actually believe that someone isn't being evaluated partially based on how many times they've had to talk to them about issues?
This is true for any job. I was unfairly fired from a job because somehow the manager got a perception of me being incompetent, because he often talked to me about problems in my work - most of those conversations ended with him saying "Oh, now I see why you did it that way."
Yeah, I didn't even want to lean out that far but I'm sure average handle time is incorporated in some manner.
But, just purely semantically, the statement Kaiser gave in response was worded in a precise smug corporate America style to dodge the main concern raised. I think it's important to call out weasel words.
> the statement Kaiser gave in response was worded in a precise smug corporate America style to dodge the main concern raised
I know nurses. And I know their unions. Kaiser can be extremely clear and tell the truth, and they'll still say "We don't believe you!" without any evidence other than being called in to talk about it.
I'm not anti-unions - I've benefited from them. But it's well known that distrust goes up when you have (or need) unions. It typically degenerates from "We" to "Us vs them".
Let me ask you this: Are you saying they shouldn't monitor the time at all?
Again: A tidbit of inside information: A number of Kaiser patients get such long wait times that they're issue isn't addressed when they try to call (i.e. they are told they'll be called back, and they're called back some other day). I don't know the percentage - likely small - but from a healthcare standpoint, it's unacceptable.
Another bit of information (likely not inside): Kaiser has a serious budget problem. They already pay amongst the top salaries for nurses, and they can't simply solve the problem by hiring more.
There's definitely a lot of room for weasel-wording there, where the metric really being used isn't the mathematical mean, but punishes people just the same.
the more I read about how AI is being used, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that despite me personally find it quite useful in my work, and even my personal life to some extent, it is a net negative to society as a whole, and if the choice is between zero AI or the AI that is being deployed, we'd be better out without it
what significant improvements to society or humanity have come about as direct result of AI, that wouldn't have been achieved without it? faster protein folding is the only one I can think of and that more a matter of "faster" than "impossible without AI"
I think at some point there's going to be some version of the Butlerian Jihad
I'd like to think it's not meant to make life better for a regular nurse, but rather to weed out the abusive ones? At least that's how I see it from my flawed, post-communist country perspective.
I'm not sure the for-profit approach is exactly what's to blame. HMOs like Kaiser are legally forced to spend a certain fraction (80% percent for the worst case, more for large group plans) of their premium revenue on medical services. They can't save and pocket the money like a traditional for-profit enterprise.
This doesn't seem like a money-saving measure exactly. The main AIs the article talks about is making sure nurses on their nurses' lines aren't being assholes. I guess this used to be spot checked before so you save on that? Maybe? It seems like they are trying to solve the problem of some of their nurses staffing their nurses' line not treating their patients the way they're supposed to.
Increasingly health insurance companies and healthcare providers are intertwined. So they may spend 80% on healthcare, but then a big chunk of that could go to the urgent care clinics that they own.
And even if they don’t own the provider, they don’t have much incentive to lower total cost because 20% of a larger number means more total profit.
> Increasingly health insurance companies and healthcare providers are intertwined.
Kaiser is an HMO. They are the insurer and try to have their employees, such as these nursing lines, perform almost all of their care. Shifting from one line of business to another is purely internal and can't game Medical Loss Ratio like your scenario.
> they don’t have much incentive to lower total cost because 20% of a larger number means more total profit
There is some bad incentive here for sure. That being said, insurers do compete on price so they lose customers if they charge more than other insurers. Also, regulatory rate review can decide whether they can raise premiums a given amount.
And here is why: I guarantee you that the nurses are working in the "for-profit" units, and also, that still betrays ignorance of what "non-profit" actually means, which is the load-bearing topic of this thread.
Yes brother. This is the way. We pray to the line, only it can shelter us in these dark times of labor revitalization. HODL. May your returns be colossal.
With all of that in mind I have to wonder whether there is overlap between these response groups and if so, how much. Could be zero to 100% without more information.
Well then their protocols suck. I have many anecdotal data points about them fumbling in major ways when it matters (missed major pathologies, messed up surgeries, etc.).
If you have a choice of hospital networks, research carefully. Kaiser might be fine for many people's needs, it's not fine when it comes to intensive care.
The care quality of all major healthcare providers in the US is some pretty available data, and I've never heard anyone of being suspicious of Kaiser, of all companies. They're specifically known for having really good outcomes. It's like asking for a source that McDonald's sells the most burgers in America. It might not be true - maybe technically it's someone selling sliders or whatever, but it's so close it's probably not worth arguing over anyways.
I would love to learn the cost of the AI versus how many new workers they could afford to hire and get more calls done. But I assume the end goal will be full replacement of human workers once the AI has had enough time to learn the job.
The article doesn't seem to be about replacing nurses staffing their phones with AI. It seems to be about making sure the care they're providing is what the company wants.
People enjoy saying "AI can replace middle management" as a comeuppance but it's not what people think. In many ways, AI is primarily serving as middle management, yes. But what happens is that instead of one manager engaging in petty surveillance, harassment and browbeating to increase work intensity, you have ten clones of the manager doing the same thing. That's not the "woo hoo, automated middle management!" you were looking for.
> Nurses are instructed to stick to a script on phone calls and give no more than two to three pieces of advice, Capulong and other nurses said, which means they may sometimes need to decide whether to withhold advice or face a performance evaluation hearing.
> Another nurse speaking on condition of anonymity said “AI did not understand our job and would grade us wrong all the time.”
In theory AI could usher in the first time in history where one can escape from this trap - because qualitative judgments can be made at scale, from an unbiased and universal baseline. In this situation, for instance, rather than collapsing call transcripts and reports into metrics, it could evaluate whether red flags are encountered in the context of a call, and allow for qualitative guidance on improvement, across a comparative corpus of situations that are themselves chosen qualitatively.
But very few managers are empowered to take this kind of approach; they're evaluated by their ability to report quantitative metrics, and thus they must implement regimes of quantitative metrics. And leadership instructs them to use AI to build that regime more quickly.
If you want to see an "AI native" organization, it's one where leadership actively fights this tendency, and sees managers as product designers who make the end-user experience a beloved and empathy-driven one, as opposed to a gear that turns accountability into a single number on a screen.
What these complaints always boil down to is autonomy and control.
The more centralized an organization, the more it relies on metrics to understand and exert control over its employees and customers.
People started hating tech right around the time metrics became popular. I don't think it's a coincidence. AI just accelerates the trend.
The problem is the misidentification of AI as the issue. As long as we don't understand the real issue, we won't solve it. AI is just a tool. It's being used in a way that denies human agency.
Our cultural values need to shift away from safetism that demands centralization. And shift toward valuing human agency. That starts with talking about the core issue.
Everyone pushing tools/AI during initial development/investment and building its demand in the cultural discourse always highlights its ability for good.
Now, like many tools, the majority of those selling AI to make money off of large enterprise sell its ability to increase productivity, efficiency, compliance. Either to make money or to minimise risk. And so like you say, they just become tools to make these metrics move or report them at higher granularity. And often there is either a lack of imagination or a willful ignorance of the perverse outcomes with relationship to humans because they are in service of the organisation not it's employees.
Certainly, I agree that using AI to dehumanize - generally what companies seem to be doing with it - is super bad. And it's also what is being sold to existing companies right now.
But that same AI could cause those companies to no longer exist.
The AI I'm happy about allows people without much tech knowledge create small apps to do exactly what they want. And, for those that know just a little more, use it to help them extend open source software for their niche use case.
This makes computing more personal and gives back agency to the computer operator.
Mix that with the rise of much more competition in much more custom software, and you'll see that a future can exist, if we want it, where software becomes more personal and humane.
The software vendor will capture less value, though - the margins will be thinner. Instead that value will be captured (in non-money terms) by the end users.
That also means that software companies, unable to capture so much value, must shrink and become more boutique. The software that contributes to our centralized world would lose a lot of power.
That's the future I can see. The only way it doesn't happen is if a cynical narrative wins out and manages to lock it out through regulatory capture so that only licensed operators can use or provide AI. The anti-AI narrative helps the cynics.
While I'm sympathetic to the frictions of newly introduced AI and the fact that AI in healthcare, especially calls, can seem very uncaring, between the lines the article reads a bit like the typical union complaining about modern tech that reshapes their work, given the multiple mentions of protests, nurses union, etc.
Given how healthcare is one of these sectors that seems to relentlessly resist efficiency increases and is the prime example of Baumol's cost disease, I think any developed country with a costly healthcare system needs to do these AI experiments. The current versions will be shit, but the only way out is through if you still want to provide affordable care.
I honestly have no doubt that AI going forward will be able to do a good job at triaging via calls and also being empathetic about it. But of course it needs careful experimentation.
I RFTA and the majority of the complaints are about call center metrics and the pressure to ration care. These are real concerns about misuse of metrics, but not AI. The AI empathy thing was a 2024 pilot that was discontinued.
FWIW my wife works for Kaiser and finds a lot of value in the the medical LLM tools available to her. She tells me being able to do live translation, summarize notes, and quickly get comprehensive answers save her time and help her give better care. Her older patients also frequently come in bringing AI-powered alerts from their apple watches that detected cardiac events.
It's annoying that we use broad terms to describe a set of technologies that in some ways can be problematic and in another ways are very beneficial. We gotta evaluate each of these as they come rather than talk about blanket bans.
“AI” in title gets clicks. So “AI” must be in title.
If you think using a machine to evaluate how well a human is showing empathy is a good idea, you probably shouldn't have any position of power.
Maybe we should replace those people in power with machines that show empathy.
Power is based on wealth extraction, not merit.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
a bit upside down - wealth extraction is a measure of power.
development of power can be based on all sorts of things, it depends on the framework.
a nurse who is utterly incompetent will be fired quickly.
after a certain threshold though, obviously, competition won't be about 'ability' so much - but there are baseline ability and professionalism thresholds.
Increasingly true in Trump’s America.
It’s somewhat the point of democracy to maintain a limit on rent seekers’ and wealth extractors’ power on the political process. It should come as no surprise that the individuals who have grifted and extorted their way into power are also fiercely antidemocratic. The xenophobes and bigots that have hitched their wagons are equally deplorable.
I'ma keep it creamy with you, both parties have had the kind of political majority required to clamp down on the corporatization of our society, and neither have so much as paid lip service to doing so. You want to be mad at the current administration by all means there's fertile ground, but don't waste anyone's time blaming them for a situation that's been decades in the making with both major political parties pushing in tandem to realize it.
If you're going to play the "both sides are the same" game you need to be more precise in what that means. DNC is absolutely subservient to their patrons and party leadership in general owned by the donor class.
But the similarities stop there. The party platforms are in stark difference, and the GOP is now literally a cult of personality run by a mob boss. The naked corruption is off the charts.
In fact right now Trump is working to cancel or refusing to acknowledge mid-term elections and acts as if he were king.
I say this as someone who used to be a Democrat but left in disgust when Clinton remade the DNC into pro corporate puppetry. Partisan politics is a cancer on the citizenry and may very well be the end of what we call democracy in the United States.
I've tracked presidential politics since watching the Watergate hearings and what is happening today is beyond the political pale.
On this particular issue both sides are identical. On other issues they are not.
sure, US political parties have been largely pro big-biz
but if you can't see the stark difference in pro-mega-corp policies and blatant pay-to-play corruption in the last 1.5 yrs with the previous 4 years, you're clearly not paying attention
the fact that BigCorp couldn't wait to get rid of Lina Khan, and found a willing ally in Trump, is just one tiny example
isn't that exactly what a class terrified of the guillotine would want underclasses to believe?
In the future that class will control the guillotines in the form of Boston Dynamics guard dogs.
Êtes-vous français?
sadly, this is happening more as medicine and healthcare become more and more corporate. Seeing this as hospitals all get acquired into these mega health systems (ostensibly to fight the now merged mega health insurance companies), that then like to throw their weight around.
I can't imagine why people are looking into alternative healthcare
What alternative?
Bloodletting works well, particularly agains the vapours.
But will it help with Flamsy?
Thank you private equity.
That project was cancelled. This is mostly about workplace surveillance.
Most of the replies are large pop subReddit level junk.
If you employ a few hundred nurses, how exactly would you evaluate how well they show empathy?
You can't rely on asking the customer. When they're upset (they often are in these calls), they'll lean towards the negative regardless.
I don't know how well these AIs evaluate, but if they're even a little bit good, it makes sense to use it to screen for outliers, then have a human listen to those outliers and judge.
> how exactly would you evaluate how well they show empathy?
How would you want yours rated? By someone you have communicated with, or some data centre somewhere?
By a knowledgeable/skilled person who listens to the call. (Which the AI solution provides).
I suppose you could do that with the survey as well. It'd be an interesting study to see which is more reliable.
> By a knowledgeable/skilled person who listens to the call. (Which the AI solution provides).
Are you saying that the AI is the same as a knowledgable/skilled person?
"You can't ask people because the experience is so universally terrible they'll just tell you it's terrible" isn't really an argument against surveys, it just means you need more specific questions they'll be fired up to answer
Let me suggest the following: Ask the nurses if they want the customer to rate them.
A significant fraction of the calls they answer are patients shouting at them because of:
- Long wait times
- They don't like their doctor
- They don't like the advice they're given (sorry, but we're not going to book you as a high priority appointment if all you can tell me is you have a headache. Sorry, we're not going to prescribe a narcotic for a scraped knee.)
- Several reasons that have nothing to do with the nurse, but the customer will still blame the nurse.
Classic "1 star review because UPS lost my delivery" metric.
I'd guess most people have had a situation where there's a corporate problem, the support person you talk to literally doesn't have the tools or the agency to fix it, but then you're asked to rate their performance on whether or not they solved the issue, with no option to say "Actually they did their best but this isn't their fault."
Actually, you can rely on the customers. They're the only ones that can tell you.
Yeah, this whole discussion cracks me up. I have a number of direct experiences with Kaiser nurses. They repeatedly got into arguments with doctors in front of me, tried to countermand doctors' instructions, ignored their patients, and complained to each other about their patients while they were right there.
Repeated unprofessional behavior with no discernible change after trying to address it. My take is that the Kaiser nursing org has a serious discipline and customer (patient) focus problem.
> you can rely on the customers.
Patient or customer? I even struggle with that, but I guess that’s what people are in a privatised healthcare system.
Most of the folks here on HN are dealing with customer feedback in systems automation in one form or another - it's pretty unavoidable in this age of LLM trendiness. The customers of healthcare (in both private and publicly funded systems) are the patients. So while the term might not be super natural it's an understandable one to use.
Patients are not customers, or at least I don’t want to live in a world where patients are considered customers. Customers and vendors are usually more of a symmetric relationship: price transparency, alternatives, lack of urgency. These are all characteristics of transactions that healthcare often lacks.
If the hospital is owned by private equity, the owners definitely think of the patients as customers. Doctors and nurses shouldn't, but the owners do.
But they don't want to, because figuring that out is your job as a supervisor.
If you outsource that work to customers/patients, you'll end up with the car dealership model, where the sales rep begs you to give a 10 on every single question including on the interior design so they don't get fired.
That's the part most of this discussion misses. Supervisors exist for a reason. Congrats on your flat org structure, you fucked up an important feedback channel.
> where the sales rep begs you to give a 10 on every single question including on the interior design so they don't get fired.
Oh yes, and the nurses did employ strategies like that pre-LLM (don't know if they still do). They had to be very strategic about it (you can't just say "Rate me a 10.")
I am quite heavily in AI, and I would say I am pro AI. However this use-case for AI is putting AI in the wrong position. AI should be in service to all humans. An administrator building out a middle management KPI based on AI is a misapplication of AI.
Hospital systems are incentivized to avoid the real problems with healthcare. People want timeliness and they want quality care which hospital systems are not incentivized towards in the US. The incentives are profit, which given budgets means corners cut.
Triaging is an opaque system to the patient. It's an important process to doll out finite resources but it also very frustrating to be told, "soon" when you've been waiting 15 hours to see someone. Frankly, if I were King for a day, the first thing I would do is break up the monolithic hospital systems and build out more urgent care.
I would also try to find a way to facilitate transferring less critical patients from ERs to urgent care centers. Right now a hospital won't take the risk, especially if you are sitting in waiting room because beds are full. You can't easily punt a patient because them leaving would be against medical advice.
Not asking the customer because you're afraid they'll tell you they're upset is a good indicator that you should do it more, and fix the issues.
You can ask the customer enough times that unreasonable customers or surveys are averaged out.
A good question might be "why are you upset?"
Isn’t it a running joke at this point that if you do what customers ask instead of focusing on the highest quality of service you get worse outcomes and the customer is still unhappy?
There's a great academic book called "Stupid Rules". Excessive rules (or KPIs - often rules in disguise) exist because we don't like authority.
Get the doctor to assess the nurse. Or the head nurses if you don't trust doctors. The nurses have managers, and if none of the doctors or head nurses can be trusted with a simple matter like assessing whether nurses are doing their jobs then you got bigger issues.
Oh no, the boss might play favourites if it's not an objective measure! Oh the injustice /s
But stupid rules or KPI also allow favourites. You can use an officious 30 point checklist and play favourites while ticking boxes. You can even rig "objective" data by controlling other factors (e.g. giving someone difficult customers do deal with).
Yeah, data driven would be nice, if you have good data. But data driven is a power tool. You don't measure SLOC or reward token use in software because of perverse incentives.
When reading the headline I was thinking we were talking about evaluating things like whether a nurse asked the right questions of the patient from a best practices point of view (say you have <insert condition> and the best practices for that are to ask the patient about pain level and which side it's coming from and check in with them every X hours).
But evaluating tone and empathy? Great, now every nurse is gonna be wasting their time and energy making sure to recite the best canned, optimized text-adventure incantations for the KPI every time they enter the room instead of using their brains to see what the patient actually needs.
"Hello Mr. Smith our patients are our top priority at Kaiser and your nursing staff here at Kaiser Raccoon City are here to make sure you are cared for, comfortable, and safe. If you have any concerns or are feeling anxiety be sure to press the nurse button and we will be happy to assist you, we appreciate the trust you place in us and are eager to celebrate your recovery with you." < nurse now realizes Mr. Smith has been choking and losing consciousness while she was reciting that spiel >
That is surprising. My primary care provider had a different response. Basically he said something in line of
"You wouldn't believe how much of a relief it has been. In your last visit, you saw me typing everything you were saying, right? I don't have to. I can listen to you and take very specific notes as necessary as opposed to focusing on both typing and listening to you at the same time. It has bought my stress levels down to here." (Indicated by his hand lowering)
I’d be more willing to consent to these tools if I had confidence that the underlying software truly was built to honor my privacy.
Too many AI tools are built hastily for me to give my doctor’s (visibly awful) software the trust.
Nursing and PCP are very different jobs. Ones a lot more cognitive than the other whereas the other involves actually doing/executing on a plan. I can see how AI would help reduce the cognitive burden while actually increase stress on the execution side.
Similarly, I think anything we can do to help take the burden off the mundane parts of the job has helped clinicians focus on the actual hard parts. Where we get... bristling, is when there's any suggestion of "legislating" (operationally, not like, governmentally) care patterns and telling clinicians how to care for their patients.
Which is great, because anyone suggesting AI should replace clinical judgment and work is an idiot.
This problem with workplace AI interfering with nurses ability to manage healthcare obligations for their clients is not confined to Kaiser. UHC has also introduced the AI surveillance tools and are using it to do similar things.
Isn't that the insurance company whose CEO was murdered because of the terrible quality of care they delivered?
Yes it is. Somehow that might appear to be incentive to improve quality of care but maybe their corporate culture is a bad fit for quality.
> that might appear to be incentive to improve quality
Their goal isn't to provide high quality care. Their goal is to increase profits. It's not hard to imagine how improved quality would lead them to spend more money. (faster diagnoses of serious illnesses and recommending expensive care)
Indeed, increasing quality tends to increase costs and decrease profits so keeping costs aligned with their profit goals automatically degrades quality.
How many dollars is a dead CEO worth?
Psychopaths don't care about other peoples pain. Some MBA only care about their own ego, power, and money. They do well in corporate cultures that reward parasitic relationships with customers. =3
Slurping their way up to the C-suite.
It is true that Despotism structures major failing was the scaling cost of surveillance necessitated to differentiate fact from fictional narratives.
Truth is most nurses care for people having the worst day of their lives. =3
The nurses in my family would agree with your assessment.
The article mentions uses of AI but doesn't really give any examples of harm from AI. It does give specific examples where it sounds like Kaiser is optimizing calls to minimize cost rather than improve quality of care. It's also pretty easy to expect that the examples given (treating longer calls as a problem and penalizing nurses for giving more than 3 pieces of advice) reduce the quality of care.
Just think -- with the increased efficiency, they will have more time for Tik Tok dances.
Thinks that are not allowed in the EU thanks to the AI Act.
There is an unfortunate cycle that has been playing out this year in USA. Insurance companies are arming up with AI to deny billing codes charged by providers. Providers are arming up with AI to listen in on provider-patient sessions to prove the billing codes are legit (And teach providers to use keywords in session).
The loser, as always, is the patient's quality of care.
> Providers are arming up with AI to listen in on provider-patient sessions to prove the billing codes are legit
This is not a decrease in quality of care - this is your provider having actual evidence of the care needs they discussed with you when they close their note, hours or days after seeing you.
It sucks because AI reduces call center costs in many toil tasks very effectively, regardless of whether you want to help or dissuade customers - it's just well-suited to the task and it's going to accelerate. It's a win for capital and the technology implementers, even if it's a loser for the call center employees and callers.
Some of the tech is pretty scary. One big vendor's solution [0] can provide not just AI agents but also use AI to snoop on calls in progress, evaluating sentiment from both sides [1], verifying phrases are said - pretty dystopian in theory. From experience, these things tend to go downhill based on the attitude at the top - is the mission to slash costs or take care of customers? A 1000 decisions follow from this one, and like Jira, it can be a useful tool or a prison-like hell.
[0] https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/contac...
[1] https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/contact-center/webex-...
so far, almost always when I get an AI responder I find it useless and basically try to get to a human as quickly as possible
if it was easy enough for an AI responder to solve I would have solved it myself
90% of the time when I call a call center I need a human to fix an organisational bug - e.g. faulty billing or some other kind of mixup. AI cannot help with this.
If it's to do something normal you could do through the website there was no need for AI - a website or app suffices - provided it isnt terrible.
Capital definitely thinks it can save costs here but capital is getting increasingly delusional these days.
> "Nurses fear that having long calls can lead to bad performance reviews"
> A company spokesperson said, "Kaiser Permanente does not use Average Handle Time to assess agent performance"
So uh, average time wasn't raised as a concern, calls beyond a certain threshold was. I wish this semantic discrepancy was better highlighted in the article.
I have some inside information (but not much!)
They claim they do not use average handle time, but it is very common to get called into meetings to discuss why they spent a lot of time on some calls. The nurses get defensive (by definition - they have to justify the time used - it is a defense).
They also do get called into meetings if their average handle time is large.
It may still be true they don't use it for evaluating performance, but they absolutely do utilize it to "coach" the nurses.
It might not be a written metric, but do you actually believe that someone isn't being evaluated partially based on how many times they've had to talk to them about issues?
I highly doubt it. If this is the reason your manager knows who you are, you are absolutely going to be judged on it. It doesn't really matter what the policy says.
And the nurses absolutely feel like they are being punished for it. Just like having to consistently remind HR that your "absence problem" is due to covered FMLA leave - they know who you are because they've had to talk to you about absenteeism. In a call center of 500 people, it isn't likely they remember that you had issues because of their faulty systems.
> but do you actually believe that someone isn't being evaluated partially based on how many times they've had to talk to them about issues?
This is true for any job. I was unfairly fired from a job because somehow the manager got a perception of me being incompetent, because he often talked to me about problems in my work - most of those conversations ended with him saying "Oh, now I see why you did it that way."
Yeah, I didn't even want to lean out that far but I'm sure average handle time is incorporated in some manner.
But, just purely semantically, the statement Kaiser gave in response was worded in a precise smug corporate America style to dodge the main concern raised. I think it's important to call out weasel words.
> the statement Kaiser gave in response was worded in a precise smug corporate America style to dodge the main concern raised
I know nurses. And I know their unions. Kaiser can be extremely clear and tell the truth, and they'll still say "We don't believe you!" without any evidence other than being called in to talk about it.
I'm not anti-unions - I've benefited from them. But it's well known that distrust goes up when you have (or need) unions. It typically degenerates from "We" to "Us vs them".
Let me ask you this: Are you saying they shouldn't monitor the time at all?
Again: A tidbit of inside information: A number of Kaiser patients get such long wait times that they're issue isn't addressed when they try to call (i.e. they are told they'll be called back, and they're called back some other day). I don't know the percentage - likely small - but from a healthcare standpoint, it's unacceptable.
Another bit of information (likely not inside): Kaiser has a serious budget problem. They already pay amongst the top salaries for nurses, and they can't simply solve the problem by hiring more.
So: How would you solve it?
Are these nurses currently represented by a union?
Yes.
Tremendous.
It helps with their pay ;-)
There's definitely a lot of room for weasel-wording there, where the metric really being used isn't the mathematical mean, but punishes people just the same.
balls, that's the metric line managers use to figure out who's out of whack
the more I read about how AI is being used, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that despite me personally find it quite useful in my work, and even my personal life to some extent, it is a net negative to society as a whole, and if the choice is between zero AI or the AI that is being deployed, we'd be better out without it
what significant improvements to society or humanity have come about as direct result of AI, that wouldn't have been achieved without it? faster protein folding is the only one I can think of and that more a matter of "faster" than "impossible without AI"
I think at some point there's going to be some version of the Butlerian Jihad
I'd like to think it's not meant to make life better for a regular nurse, but rather to weed out the abusive ones? At least that's how I see it from my flawed, post-communist country perspective.
AI is making lots of jobs and workplaces worse.
Every time “relentless push for efficiency destroying X” comes up I should repost this:
https://sohl-dickstein.github.io/2022/11/06/strong-Goodhart....
This is a well understood phenomenon.
Maybe healthcare shouldn’t be primarily for profit?
I'm not sure the for-profit approach is exactly what's to blame. HMOs like Kaiser are legally forced to spend a certain fraction (80% percent for the worst case, more for large group plans) of their premium revenue on medical services. They can't save and pocket the money like a traditional for-profit enterprise.
This doesn't seem like a money-saving measure exactly. The main AIs the article talks about is making sure nurses on their nurses' lines aren't being assholes. I guess this used to be spot checked before so you save on that? Maybe? It seems like they are trying to solve the problem of some of their nurses staffing their nurses' line not treating their patients the way they're supposed to.
> spend a certain fraction (80% percent
Increasingly health insurance companies and healthcare providers are intertwined. So they may spend 80% on healthcare, but then a big chunk of that could go to the urgent care clinics that they own.
And even if they don’t own the provider, they don’t have much incentive to lower total cost because 20% of a larger number means more total profit.
> Increasingly health insurance companies and healthcare providers are intertwined.
Kaiser is an HMO. They are the insurer and try to have their employees, such as these nursing lines, perform almost all of their care. Shifting from one line of business to another is purely internal and can't game Medical Loss Ratio like your scenario.
> they don’t have much incentive to lower total cost because 20% of a larger number means more total profit
There is some bad incentive here for sure. That being said, insurers do compete on price so they lose customers if they charge more than other insurers. Also, regulatory rate review can decide whether they can raise premiums a given amount.
Every healthcare system optimize costs and rations care based on the price. It has nothing to do with profit or non-profit status.
Well, I suppose you can rest easy on that count. Kaiser is principally a non-profit.
> principally a non-profit.
I hate to break it to you, but "non-profit" doesn't mean what you literally think it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente
Also, KPMGs are indeed "for-profit" while Kaiser Permanente as a whole is constituted as a "consortium" of both types.
Do you suppose thats why they wrote "principally"?
You're absolutely wrong!
And here is why: I guarantee you that the nurses are working in the "for-profit" units, and also, that still betrays ignorance of what "non-profit" actually means, which is the load-bearing topic of this thread.
Ok fine, but I bet you can't come up with a good gluten free banana bread recipe.
agree 100%; but kaiser is already a non-profit organization, that's not the main issue in this case
But what about competition!?!?
There's no law saying you can't start a non-profit healthcare provider or insurance company. Why not do it?
Obligatory dystopia reminder. It doesn't have to be this way https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
But we're all in on making it that way!
but but but... the line! it has to go up, doesn't it?
Yes brother. This is the way. We pray to the line, only it can shelter us in these dark times of labor revitalization. HODL. May your returns be colossal.
There's a reason that among Americans, telekinesis and creationism are more mainstream positions than sloptimism.
About 14% of Americans think AI is moving us towards a better world. About 17% are creationists. About 26% believe in Telekinesis.
With all of that in mind I have to wonder whether there is overlap between these response groups and if so, how much. Could be zero to 100% without more information.
Kaiser has some of the best healthcare outcomes in the country/world due to their protocols and how good they are in ensuring adherence to them.
It’s going to be very improbable that these statements are true.
I 100% agree.
Compared to what?
> Kaiser has some of the best healthcare outcomes in the country/world due to their protocols and how good they are in ensuring adherence to them.
Where and how is that determined? I.e., any references to back that up?
And you can't in one breath say they have the best healthcare but then say their employees' reports of their experience are unreliable.
Customer satisfaction in California is not great.
In the Northwest (Oregon + Washington), it's pretty high. Not sure about other locations (Hawaii, etc).
But again: Customer satisfaction doesn't mean best outcomes...
Not sure if you’re serious but just search the name Kaiser in any research search engine.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8032167/
Their secret sauce is their ability to standardize protocols throughout their entire organization.
Well then their protocols suck. I have many anecdotal data points about them fumbling in major ways when it matters (missed major pathologies, messed up surgeries, etc.).
If you have a choice of hospital networks, research carefully. Kaiser might be fine for many people's needs, it's not fine when it comes to intensive care.
That’s the measure for one pathology, but in terms of a provider comparison, what’s the measure? It isn’t dollars versus life span or morbidity.
Study is from 2000-2013, their care has deteriorated significantly since then. I know because I've been a patient the whole time.
The care quality of all major healthcare providers in the US is some pretty available data, and I've never heard anyone of being suspicious of Kaiser, of all companies. They're specifically known for having really good outcomes. It's like asking for a source that McDonald's sells the most burgers in America. It might not be true - maybe technically it's someone selling sliders or whatever, but it's so close it's probably not worth arguing over anyways.
I would love to learn the cost of the AI versus how many new workers they could afford to hire and get more calls done. But I assume the end goal will be full replacement of human workers once the AI has had enough time to learn the job.
The article doesn't seem to be about replacing nurses staffing their phones with AI. It seems to be about making sure the care they're providing is what the company wants.
The AI is a lot cheaper. Kaiser nurses are amongst the highest paid in the nation.
Now let's talk about how AI could replace Kaiser middle management and streamline bureaucracy to preserve more budget for doctors and nurses...
People enjoy saying "AI can replace middle management" as a comeuppance but it's not what people think. In many ways, AI is primarily serving as middle management, yes. But what happens is that instead of one manager engaging in petty surveillance, harassment and browbeating to increase work intensity, you have ten clones of the manager doing the same thing. That's not the "woo hoo, automated middle management!" you were looking for.
Subsidized Gen AI maybe.
Also, California has a high cost of living.
How dare the people who take of the sick and dying be paid well. Unacceptable waste that must be optimized!
We're liberating them from work so they can focus on what matters
> Nurses are instructed to stick to a script on phone calls and give no more than two to three pieces of advice, Capulong and other nurses said, which means they may sometimes need to decide whether to withhold advice or face a performance evaluation hearing.
> Another nurse speaking on condition of anonymity said “AI did not understand our job and would grade us wrong all the time.”
It's always worth remembering Goodhart's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
In theory AI could usher in the first time in history where one can escape from this trap - because qualitative judgments can be made at scale, from an unbiased and universal baseline. In this situation, for instance, rather than collapsing call transcripts and reports into metrics, it could evaluate whether red flags are encountered in the context of a call, and allow for qualitative guidance on improvement, across a comparative corpus of situations that are themselves chosen qualitatively.
But very few managers are empowered to take this kind of approach; they're evaluated by their ability to report quantitative metrics, and thus they must implement regimes of quantitative metrics. And leadership instructs them to use AI to build that regime more quickly.
If you want to see an "AI native" organization, it's one where leadership actively fights this tendency, and sees managers as product designers who make the end-user experience a beloved and empathy-driven one, as opposed to a gear that turns accountability into a single number on a screen.
> Nurses are instructed to stick to a script on phone calls and give no more than two to three pieces of advice
So stupid. If you had ever made a phone call to a patient, or their family member, you’d soon realise how bad this is.
You need to talk to the patient and something a family member too. Be too hasty and you cause more harm than good.
Unpopular opinion: People want to be lazy and hate things that force them to work harder.
They will vocally rationalize it.
I did it. "I'm more productive work from home." But then I do dishes, take an hour break, paid.
Foucault says that when people are observing them, power is placed over them.
If you are a worker you should hate this.
If you are a customer or owner, you should like this.
But I certainly won't be automatically believing people under surveillance who make claims it makes their quality worse.
Your anecdote talks about taking breaks and doing dishes, but fails to talk about measures of productivity.
clearly you have never been a floor nurse at a hospital...
What these complaints always boil down to is autonomy and control. The more centralized an organization, the more it relies on metrics to understand and exert control over its employees and customers.
People started hating tech right around the time metrics became popular. I don't think it's a coincidence. AI just accelerates the trend.
The problem is the misidentification of AI as the issue. As long as we don't understand the real issue, we won't solve it. AI is just a tool. It's being used in a way that denies human agency.
Our cultural values need to shift away from safetism that demands centralization. And shift toward valuing human agency. That starts with talking about the core issue.
Everyone pushing tools/AI during initial development/investment and building its demand in the cultural discourse always highlights its ability for good.
Now, like many tools, the majority of those selling AI to make money off of large enterprise sell its ability to increase productivity, efficiency, compliance. Either to make money or to minimise risk. And so like you say, they just become tools to make these metrics move or report them at higher granularity. And often there is either a lack of imagination or a willful ignorance of the perverse outcomes with relationship to humans because they are in service of the organisation not it's employees.
Certainly, I agree that using AI to dehumanize - generally what companies seem to be doing with it - is super bad. And it's also what is being sold to existing companies right now.
But that same AI could cause those companies to no longer exist.
The AI I'm happy about allows people without much tech knowledge create small apps to do exactly what they want. And, for those that know just a little more, use it to help them extend open source software for their niche use case.
This makes computing more personal and gives back agency to the computer operator.
Mix that with the rise of much more competition in much more custom software, and you'll see that a future can exist, if we want it, where software becomes more personal and humane.
The software vendor will capture less value, though - the margins will be thinner. Instead that value will be captured (in non-money terms) by the end users.
That also means that software companies, unable to capture so much value, must shrink and become more boutique. The software that contributes to our centralized world would lose a lot of power.
That's the future I can see. The only way it doesn't happen is if a cynical narrative wins out and manages to lock it out through regulatory capture so that only licensed operators can use or provide AI. The anti-AI narrative helps the cynics.
> AI is just a tool
"To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." [1] There is no such thing as "just" a tool.
----
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
While I'm sympathetic to the frictions of newly introduced AI and the fact that AI in healthcare, especially calls, can seem very uncaring, between the lines the article reads a bit like the typical union complaining about modern tech that reshapes their work, given the multiple mentions of protests, nurses union, etc.
Given how healthcare is one of these sectors that seems to relentlessly resist efficiency increases and is the prime example of Baumol's cost disease, I think any developed country with a costly healthcare system needs to do these AI experiments. The current versions will be shit, but the only way out is through if you still want to provide affordable care.
I honestly have no doubt that AI going forward will be able to do a good job at triaging via calls and also being empathetic about it. But of course it needs careful experimentation.