Show HN: Health billing agent denies claims in 1.2s, offices should know why

1 points by keertahacker ↗ HN

5 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] thread
A doctor friend asked me about billing agents their mixed experience not being able to dispute the agent due to abstractions. Wanted your thoughts. I feel agents should prove they are trustworthy and transparent to the human in the loop as in the end user, not the developer.

I built a tool where every AI agent action gets an Ed25519 signed receipt, hash-chained, and exported as a folder anyone can verify with openssl. No vendor software needed to verify.

The demo runs 20 simulated insurance claims sessions — standard agents and rogue agents. Every action is signed. Rogue actions are blocked and the blocks are signed too.

$ pip install agentmint && python -m agentmint.demo.healthcare

Cross-patient access: 10 attempts → 10 blocked Auto-deny (no review): 10 attempts → 10 blocked Prompt injection: 10 attempts → 10 caught before LLM

To run it: clone then cd agentmint-python/ Verify: cd healthcare_evidence && bash VERIFY.sh GitHub: https://github.com/aniketh-maddipati/agentmint-python/tree/m...

Also Would love to hear: Should verification require zero dependency on the vendor, or is that overkill?

Tear it apart, tell me what I can do to make it better. If you have thoughts on ways to make trust a currency for agents, comment below

I'm not sure I understand the point of this; is the intended user of this an insurance company whose agents approve or deny claims?

If so, is there any actual incentive for them to allow doctors & patients to follow up with this sort of paper trail?

[flagged]
Agent-vs-agent makes the trust problem sharper, not necessarily easier. Each side needs verifiable evidence of what the other committed to. They cant do with just vendor logs. The "one side controls the record" assumption breaks right after the human-on-the-other-end one. Plus, its like waiting for the police after an incident with out a first-aid kit.