As AI nurses reshape hospital care, human nurses are pushing back

Perrone, M. (2025, March 16).

AP News.

The article is here.

The next time you’re due for a medical exam you may get a call from someone like Ana: a friendly voice that can help you prepare for your appointment and answer any pressing questions you might have.

With her calm, warm demeanor, Ana has been trained to put patients at ease — like many nurses across the U.S. But unlike them, she is also available to chat 24-7, in multiple languages, from Hindi to Haitian Creole.

That’s because Ana isn’t human, but an artificial intelligence program created by Hippocratic AI, one of a number of new companies offering ways to automate time-consuming tasks usually performed by nurses and medical assistants.

It’s the most visible sign of AI’s inroads into health care, where hundreds of hospitals are using increasingly sophisticated computer programs to monitor patients’ vital signs, flag emergency situations and trigger step-by-step action plans for care — jobs that were all previously handled by nurses and other health professionals.

Hospitals say AI is helping their nurses work more efficiently while addressing burnout and understaffing. But nursing unions argue that this poorly understood technology is overriding nurses’ expertise and degrading the quality of care patients receive.

The info is linked above.

Here are some thoughts:

The article details the increasing use of AI in healthcare to automate nursing tasks, sparking union concerns about patient safety and the risk of AI overriding human expertise. Licensing boards cannot license AI products because licensing is fundamentally designed for individuals, not tools. It establishes accountability based on demonstrated competence, which is difficult to apply to AI due to complex liability issues and the challenge of tracing AI outputs to specific actions. AI lacks the inherent personhood and professional responsibility that licensing demands, making it unaccountable for harm.

Generative AI Has a 'Shoplifting' Problem

Kate Knibbs

Wired.com

Originally posted 8 AUG 24

Bill Gross made his name in the tech world in the 1990s, when he came up with a novel way for search engines to make money on advertising. Under his pricing scheme, advertisers would pay when people clicked on their ads. Now, the “pay-per-click” guy has founded a startup called ProRata, which has an audacious, possibly pie-in-the-sky business model: “AI pay-per-use.”

Gross, who is CEO of the Pasadena, California, company, doesn’t mince words about the generative AI industry. “It’s stealing,” he says. “They’re shoplifting and laundering the world’s knowledge to their benefit.”

AI companies often argue that they need vast troves of data to create cutting-edge generative tools and that scraping data from the internet, whether it’s text from websites, video or captions from YouTube, or books pilfered from pirate libraries, is legally allowed. Gross doesn’t buy that argument. “I think it’s bullshit,” he says.

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Bill Gross, founder of ProRata, is revolutionizing the generative AI industry with a novel "AI pay-per-use" business model. Gross criticizes the industry for stealing and laundering knowledge without fair compensation. ProRata aims to address this issue by arranging revenue-sharing deals between AI companies and content creators, ensuring fair payment for used work.

ProRata's approach involves using algorithms to break down AI output into components, identifying sources, and attributing percentages to copyright holders for payment. The company has already secured partnerships with prominent companies like Universal Music Group, Financial Times, and The Atlantic. Additionally, ProRata is launching a subscription chatbot-style search engine in October, which will use exclusively licensed data, setting a new standard for the industry.

The company's model offers a solution to the ongoing copyright lawsuits against AI companies, providing a fair and transparent way to compensate content creators. ProRata's emergence is part of a larger trend, with other startups and nonprofits, like TollBit and Dataset Providers Alliance, also entering the training-data licensing space. Gross plans to license ProRata's attribution and payment technologies to other companies, including major AI players, with the goal of making the system affordable and widely adopted, similar to a Visa or Mastercard fee.

Overall, ProRata's innovative approach addresses the pressing issue of fair compensation in the generative AI industry. With its impressive partnerships and promising technology, ProRata is poised to make a significant impact and potentially transform the industry's practices.

When Therapists Lose Their Licenses, Some Turn to the Unregulated Life Coaching Industry Instead

Jessica Miller

Salt Lake Tribune

Originally published 17 June 24

A frustrated woman recently called the Utah official in charge of professional licensing, upset that his office couldn’t take action against a life coach she had seen. Mark Steinagel recalls the woman telling him: “I really think that we should be regulating life coaching. Because this person did a lot of damage to me.”

Reports about life coaches — who sell the promise of helping people achieve their personal or professional goals — come into Utah’s Division of Professional Licensing about once a month. But much of the time, Steinagel or his staff have to explain that there’s nothing they can do.

If the woman had been complaining about any of the therapist professions overseen by DOPL, Steinagel’s office might have been able to investigate and potentially order discipline, including fines.

But life coaches aren’t therapists and are mostly unregulated across the United States. They aren’t required to be trained in ethical boundaries the way therapists are, and there’s no universally accepted certification for those who work in the industry.

The information is here.

Here are some thoughts on the ethics of this trend:

The trend of therapists who have lost their licenses transitioning to the unregulated life coaching industry raises significant ethical concerns and risks. This shift allows individuals who have been deemed unfit to practice therapy to continue working with vulnerable clients without oversight or accountability. The lack of regulation in life coaching means that these practitioners can potentially continue harmful behaviors, misrepresent their qualifications, and exploit clients without facing the same consequences they would in the regulated therapy field.

This situation poses substantial risks to clients (and the integrity of coaching as profession). Clients seeking help may not understand the difference between regulated therapy and unregulated life coaching, potentially exposing themselves to practitioners who have previously violated ethical standards. The presence of discredited therapists in the life coaching industry can erode public trust in mental health services and coaching alike, potentially deterring individuals from seeking necessary help. Moreover, clients have limited legal recourse if they are harmed by an unregulated life coach, leaving them vulnerable to financial and emotional distress.

To address these concerns, there is a pressing need for regulatory measures in the life coaching industry, particularly concerning practitioners with a history of ethical violations in related fields. Such regulations could help maintain the integrity of coaching, protect vulnerable clients, and ensure that those seeking help receive services from qualified and ethical practitioners. Without such measures, the potential for harm remains significant, undermining the valuable work done by ethical professionals in both therapy and life coaching.

Ernst & Young to Pay $100 Million Penalty for Employees Cheating on CPA Ethics Exams and Misleading Investigation

Largest Penalty Ever Imposed by SEC Against an Audit Firm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2022-114

Washington D.C., June 28, 2022 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ernst & Young LLP (EY) for cheating by its audit professionals on exams required to obtain and maintain Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licenses, and for withholding evidence of this misconduct from the SEC’s Enforcement Division during the Division’s investigation of the matter. EY admits the facts underlying the SEC’s charges and agrees to pay a $100 million penalty and undertake extensive remedial measures to fix the firm’s ethical issues.

“This action involves breaches of trust by gatekeepers within the gatekeeper entrusted to audit many of our Nation’s public companies. It’s simply outrageous that the very professionals responsible for catching cheating by clients cheated on ethics exams of all things,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “And it’s equally shocking that Ernst & Young hindered our investigation of this misconduct. This action should serve as a clear message that the SEC will not tolerate integrity failures by independent auditors who choose the easier wrong over the harder right.”

EY admits that, over multiple years, a significant number of EY audit professionals cheated on the ethics component of CPA exams and various continuing professional education courses required to maintain CPA licenses, including ones designed to ensure that accountants can properly evaluate whether clients’ financial statements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

EY further admits that during the Enforcement Division’s investigation of potential cheating at the firm, EY made a submission conveying to the Division that EY did not have current issues with cheating when, in fact, the firm had been informed of potential cheating on a CPA ethics exam. EY also admits that it did not correct its submission even after it launched an internal investigation into cheating on CPA ethics and other exams and confirmed there had been cheating, and even after its senior lawyers discussed the matter with members of the firm’s senior management. And as the Order finds, EY did not cooperate in the SEC’s investigation regarding its materially misleading submission.

The entire press release is here.

South Carolina bill permits health care providers refuse non-emergency care based on beliefs

Brooke Migdon

The Hill

Originally posted 1 APR 22

Story at a glance

• Legislators in South Carolina on Friday passed a bill which would allow healthcare providers to deny care based on their personal beliefs. It would also apply to insurance companies, which may be entitled to refuse to pay for care.

• The bill would also protect those who decline to provide medical services from civil, criminal or administrative liability.

• Some say the bill, known as the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” would disproportionately affect the LGBTQ+ community, as well as women and people of color.

South Carolina lawmakers on Friday passed a bill allowing medical professionals and insurance companies to deny care based on personal belief. Some say the legislation, which now heads to the state Senate for consideration, would disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ people, women, and people of color.

Under the bill, titled the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” South Carolina law would be altered to excuse medical practitioners, health care institutions and health care payers from providing care that violates their “conscience.” It would also shield those who decline to provide medical services to patients from civil, criminal or administrative liability.

Dozens of state residents in February testified against the bill, calling it vague and overbroad. They also shared concerns that the legislation would disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

In a statement on Friday, Human Rights Campaign Legal Director Sarah Warbelow said she finds it “disturbing” that politicians in South Carolina are prioritizing individual providers’ beliefs over the wellbeing of patients.

“This legislation is dangerously silent in regards to the needs of patients and fails to consider the impact that expanding refusals can have on their health,” she said. “Religious freedom is a fundamental American value that is entirely compatible with providing quality, non-discriminatory healthcare. It is not a license to deprive others of their rights simply because of personal beliefs.”

Warbelow said the bill sends a message to patients with non-medical views inconsistent with that of their doctors that they are “not equal members of society entitled to dignity and respect.”

The info is here.

Editor's Note: Those politicians who pass laws based on culture wars are clearly violating the principle-based ethics on which all medical ethics rely.  If they pass harmful laws that conflict with health care ethics, then they are not fit to serve.

Can Ethics be Taught? Evidence from Securities Exams and Investment Adviser Misconduct

Kowaleski, Z., Sutherland, A. and Vetter, F.
Available at SSRN
Posted 10 Oct 19

Abstract

We study the consequences of a 2010 change in the investment adviser qualification exam that
reallocated coverage from the rules and ethics section to the technical material section. Comparing advisers with the same employer in the same location and year, we find those passing the exam with more rules and ethics coverage are one-fourth less likely to commit misconduct. The exam change appears to affect advisers’ perception of acceptable conduct, and not just their awareness of specific rules or selection into the qualification. Those passing the rules and ethics-focused exam are more likely to depart employers experiencing scandals. Such departures also predict future scandals. Our paper offers the first archival evidence on how rules and ethics training affects conduct and labor market activity in the financial sector.

From the Conclusion

Overall, our results can be understood through the lens of Becker’s model of crime (1968, 1992). In this model, “many people are constrained by moral and ethical considerations, and did not commit crimes even when they were profitable and there was no danger of detection… The amount of crime is determined not only by the rationality and preferences of would-be criminals, but also by the economic and social environment created by… opportunities for employment, schooling, and training programs.” (Becker 1992, pp. 41-42). In our context, ethics training can affect an individual’s behavior by increasing the value of their reputation, as well as the psychological costs of committing misconduct. But such effects will be moderated by the employer’s culture, which affects the stigma of offenses, as well as the individual’s beliefs about appropriate conduct.

The research is here.

A Fake Psychologist Treated Troubled Children, Prosecutors Say

Fake Credentials on LinkedIn Page

Michal Gold
The New York Times
Originally published September 29, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

But Mr. Payne has no formal counseling training that prosecutors were aware of. He told investigators that he was a doctor with a “home-schooled, unconventional education during the Black Panther era,” according to court papers.

None of Mr. Payne’s patients had been hospitalized or physically harmed, an official said. Some of his patients liked him and his treatment methods.

But others became suspicious during therapy sessions. Mr. Payne would often talk about his own life and not ask patients about theirs, the official said. He would also repeat exercises and worksheets in some of his sessions with little explanation, giving patients the sense that he had run out of ideas to treat them.

According to prosecutors, Mr. Payne and Ms. Tobierre-Desir worked at three locations: his main office in a large building in Brooklyn Heights, a smaller building in Prospect-Lefferts Gardens and the offices of a nonprofit based at Kings County Hospital Center, one of the hospitals with which Mr. Payne claimed to be affiliated.

Mr. Payne’s relationship with the nonprofit, the Kings Against Violence Initiative, was unclear. The group did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

The info is here.