Jhang H, Park SJ, Sul AR, Jang HY, Park SH. Survey on Value Elements Provided by Artificial Intelligence and Their Eligibility for Insurance Coverage With an Emphasis on Patient-Centered Outcomes.
Korean J Radiol 2024;
25:414-425. [PMID:
38627874 PMCID:
PMC11058425 DOI:
10.3348/kjr.2023.1281]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2023] [Revised: 01/27/2024] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to explore the opinions on the insurance coverage of artificial intelligence (AI), as categorized based on the distinct value elements offered by AI, with a specific focus on patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). PCOs are distinguished from traditional clinical outcomes and focus on patient-reported experiences and values such as quality of life, functionality, well-being, physical or emotional status, and convenience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We classified the value elements provided by AI into four dimensions: clinical outcomes, economic aspects, organizational aspects, and non-clinical PCOs. The survey comprised three sections: 1) experiences with PCOs in evaluating AI, 2) opinions on the coverage of AI by the National Health Insurance of the Republic of Korea when AI demonstrated benefits across the four value elements, and 3) respondent characteristics. The opinions regarding AI insurance coverage were assessed dichotomously and semi-quantitatively: non-approval (0) vs. approval (on a 1-10 weight scale, with 10 indicating the strongest approval). The survey was conducted from July 4 to 26, 2023, using a web-based method. Responses to PCOs and other value elements were compared.
RESULTS
Among 200 respondents, 44 (22%) were patients/patient representatives, 64 (32%) were industry/developers, 60 (30%) were medical practitioners/doctors, and 32 (16%) were government health personnel. The level of experience with PCOs regarding AI was low, with only 7% (14/200) having direct experience and 10% (20/200) having any experience (either direct or indirect). The approval rate for insurance coverage for PCOs was 74% (148/200), significantly lower than the corresponding rates for other value elements (82.5%-93.5%; P ≤ 0.034). The approval strength was significantly lower for PCOs, with a mean weight ± standard deviation of 5.1 ± 3.5, compared to other value elements (P ≤ 0.036).
CONCLUSION
There is currently limited demand for insurance coverage for AI that demonstrates benefits in terms of non-clinical PCOs.
Collapse