EDITOR’S NOTE: The author of this article used AI-assisted tools in its composition, but all content, analysis, and conclusions were based on the author’s professional judgment and expertise. The article was then edited by a human being.
Over the past year, California has continued to take a more direct approach than most states when it comes to how AI is used in healthcare, particularly in areas that affect access to care and patient communication.
That approach became very concrete with Senate Bill 1120: the Physicians Make Decisions Act. Signed in September 2024 and effective as of Jan. 1, 2025, the law leaves little room for interpretation: AI tools may support utilization workflows, but they cannot be the final decision-maker when care is denied, delayed, or modified. Medical necessity determinations must come from a licensed clinician. Although the statute is aimed at payers, providers have felt its impact throughout 2025. As utilization processes rely more heavily on automated intake and routing, documentation has become the primary means by which clinicians communicate the reasoning supporting those determinations. In practice, this means the record must do more work, often under tighter timelines.
Assembly Bill 3030 added another layer of responsibility. Also effective Jan. 1, 2025, it required disclosure when generative AI is used in communications sent to patients. For many organizations, this prompted a closer look at how after-visit summaries, discharge instructions, and portal messages are generated. Over the course of the year, it became clear that misalignment between what is documented clinically and what is communicated to patients is no longer just a messaging issue. It carries compliance risk, and in some cases, patient safety implications, particularly when automated language smooths over clinically relevant nuance.
Looking ahead, Assembly Bill 489 extends this theme. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, it will prohibit AI systems from giving patients the impression that they are interacting with a licensed clinician when they are not. As chat-based tools and automated documentation interfaces continue to expand, organizations will need to be explicit about where automation stops and human judgment begins. From a documentation perspective, this places renewed emphasis on clarity around authorship and review – questions that were once implicit, but now increasingly visible.
Taken together, California’s recent legislation sends a consistent signal. AI can help move work along, but it cannot replace clinical judgment or blur who is responsible for decisions that affect patients.
Federal policy has reinforced similar expectations, though often through operational pressure, rather than explicit AI language. The Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule (CMS-0057-F) has reshaped how documentation flows between providers and payers serving Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Marketplace populations. Over the past year, many organizations have seen how electronic prior authorization and shortened decision timelines change the stakes for documentation. Beginning in 2026, public reporting of prior authorization metrics will make those stakes even more visible.
For providers, the practical reality is straightforward. Documentation is reaching payers quickly, sometimes almost immediately. There is far less opportunity to clarify intent after the fact. What is written at the time of submission is what gets reviewed. As denial explanations become more specific and transparent, gaps that might once have led to generic denials are now cited directly.
Other federal actions reinforce this direction. MA utilization management rules emphasize individualized, clinically grounded determinations. Information blocking requirements have expanded access to the medical record for patients and other stakeholders. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) enforcement has made clear that AI-generated documentation is not treated differently from clinician-authored content. At the same time, oversight by the Federal Trade Commission and continued enforcement under the False Claims Act underscore that automation does not dilute responsibility when documentation does not accurately reflect the care provided.
As healthcare enters 2026, with additional AI transparency requirements taking effect, the direction is clear. AI can support clinicians and reduce administrative burden, but it does not replace clinical judgment, clear communication, or well-supported documentation. In a more automated and interconnected system, documentation integrity is no longer a back-end function.
It is one of the structures on which quality, compliance, financial performance, and patient trust now rest.
Healthcare has been transitioning toward a more digital, interconnected ecosystem for many years, but the pace and magnitude of current changes represent a fundamental shift.
One of my favorite resources is Insights, distributed by Kodiak. Let me begin by noting that I do not have any affiliation with Kodiak. I
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
