Ethos Risk published a UR industry brief in mid-June arguing that California's SB 1120 is becoming a de facto national model. The core requirement is unchanged from URAC's clinical standards, and it is the reason Atlas built the way it did. A licensed human clinician makes the final determination on any adverse decision.
The interesting part of the brief is what carriers are learning about their own AI stack. Models can accelerate case summarization, pull guidelines, flag red flags, and surface the right clinical peer for a review. Models cannot own an adverse determination. The programs treating that line as absolute are the ones passing audits.
Atlas UR was designed as clinician-led with automation supporting the workflow, not the other way around. The audit trail is generated by design, not retrofitted after a complaint.
If your UR vendor's AI story ends at "we get faster," where does the accountability sit when a treatment is denied?
Source: Ethos Risk
UR built for audit, not retrofitted after complaint.
Atlas UR was designed as clinician-led with automation supporting the workflow, not the other way around. The audit trail is generated by design.
See our services