Medicare AI Pilot WISeR Hit Early Snags, New Documents Show, CMS Warned Vendors

A federal programme testing whether artificial intelligence and other technologies can help Medicare decide what care to cover ran into problems after a rushed start, according to Freedom of Information Act documents newly reported on Monday, November 2, 2026. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, raised concerns with four of the programme's six vendors earlier this year, citing slow coverage decisions, questionable denials and flawed letters to patients and providers.

The programme is called the WISeR model, and it has used technology companies in six states since the beginning of 2026 to help human clinicians determine whether Medicare will cover selected services, including skin substitutes and electrical nerve stimulator implants. The documents, released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and reported by Nextgov/FCW on November 2, show a pilot that launched in less than six months from announcement, struggled with basic processes such as issuing timely letters and maintaining a working provider portal, and drew a frank admission from a senior CMS official that many things about it are not working.

Key Points

• Freedom of Information Act documents reported November 2, 2026 show CMS warned four of the six WISeR vendors about early problems with Medicare's AI-assisted coverage review pilot.
• Genzeon, Virtix Health and Zyter received requests for information over slow determinations, questionable denials, blank or late letters and case backlogs; Innovaccer received two corrective action plans.
• Vendors say the problems were addressed, with Virtix reporting average turnaround times of about 1.18 days and Zyter saying its portal now processes determinations in minutes or near real time.
• One Ohio provider wrote in March feedback that three patients cried at the bedside while waiting to hear back about prior authorisation for a painful spinal procedure.
• The Trump administration has not signalled it will end WISeR, but a House Appropriations Committee amendment would suspend funding for the pilot, and a senior CMS official acknowledged last month that a lot about it is not working.

What Happened

Nextgov/FCW reported on November 2, 2026, at 1:19 p.m. Eastern Time, that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had released a new set of CMS documents about WISeR, adding to an earlier set released in September. The new documents are mostly letters exchanged between CMS and its vendors in January, February and March 2026, in the first months of the pilot. They do not describe a single failure. They describe a pattern, across four different companies in four different states, of the same kinds of early trouble: determinations that took too long, letters that arrived late, were blank or were not issued at all, and systems that were not ready when the pilot began.

CMS sent Genzeon Corporation, the WISeR vendor for New Jersey, a request for information on February 6, citing a backlog of coverage determination cases as of January 27 and the mistaken creation of duplicate unique tracking numbers for cases. Genzeon replied on February 13, saying it had implemented corrective actions and had more fixes in progress. The company did not respond to a request for comment by publication, Nextgov/FCW reported.

Medical providers complained that Virtix Health, the vendor for Washington, issued slow Medicare coverage determinations, questionable denials and blank determination letters, according to a March 17 letter from CMS. Virtix replied on March 24, acknowledging the concerns but saying that the majority of requests requiring clarification involved provider misunderstanding of the WISeR model, and that understanding had improved meaningfully over time thanks in part to provider education efforts. The company told Nextgov/FCW that 63.7% of requests are affirmed during individual reviews, rising to 84.3% after providers have the opportunity to resubmit with improved documentation.

Virtix was also required to submit a corrective action plan because it did not respond within the 72-hour turnaround time for approvals, NPR affiliate KUOW reported in June. That corrective action plan closed on August 14, and since the first quarter Virtix has reduced the average turnaround time for prior authorisation to 1.18 days and for prepayment review to 1.17 days, the company told Nextgov/FCW.

Background: What WISeR Is, and Why It Drew Scrutiny

WISeR stands for Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction. CMS launched the model at the beginning of 2026 in six states — Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington — covering about 6.4 million traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Technology companies use AI and other tools to help human clinicians review whether selected services should be covered, in an effort to reduce wasteful spending. The services under review have included skin substitutes and electrical nerve stimulator implants, and earlier reporting found that the model cut epidural steroid injections by about 15% and other targeted services by about 20% in its first six months.

Hospital groups and members of Congress criticised the initiative from the start, saying it delayed medical care for seniors and burdened providers with extra paperwork. Those criticisms are now echoed, in part, by CMS's own letters. The documents show that the agency was not only hearing complaints from outside; it was writing to its own vendors about the same problems, and in one case requiring a formal corrective action plan.

The remaining two vendors illustrate the same rushed timeline. CMS told Zyter, the vendor for Arizona, in a February 27 letter that it had received reports that the company was not issuing timely determination letters and may have lacked adequate processes for escalating provider concerns. Zyter replied on March 5, attributing technical challenges to the accelerated implementation timeframe and compressed onboarding timeline for its participation in WISeR, which CMS launched less than six months after announcing it. Zyter's chief executive, Sundar Subramanian, told Nextgov/FCW that the company promptly addressed early implementation concerns alongside CMS, and that its provider portal has been operating successfully for more than six months, with authorisation determinations routinely processed within minutes or near real time and timely issuance of determination letters.

Innovaccer, the vendor for Ohio, received a January 7 request for a corrective action plan, alleging that its early implementation did not comply with programme requirements, such as responding to providers electronically. The company replied on January 16 that it was compliant with all programme requirements except for the requirement to maintain a secure electronic portal for coverage pre-approval submissions, and added that it had warned CMS in October and December 2025 letters that it would not have that portal ready by launch. Innovaccer received another corrective action plan request on February 20, after CMS concluded it did not comply with the first plan it submitted, because the provider portal it had promised to work on was not yet fully functional by a February 5 deadline. The company maintained it complied with WISeR requirements and requested a meeting, according to a February 27 response letter. Its provider portal is now fully live, the company told STAT in September, although it did not say when it went live. Innovaccer did not respond to a request for comment by publication, Nextgov/FCW reported.

Medicare WISeR: The Human Cost in the Documents

The most vivid passage in the documents is not a CMS letter but a provider's feedback. In a March feedback survey released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one Ohio-based provider wrote: "I HAVE HAD TO WATCH 3 PATIENTS CRY AT BEDSIDE FOR NOT HEARING BACK ON THEIR PRIOR AUTH FOR KYPHOPLASTY/VERTABRAL AUGMENTIATION [sic] PROCEDURE. THESE PATIENTS ARE IN DEEP PAIN." Kyphoplasty is a procedure used to treat painful spinal fractures, and the provider's account, in capital letters, captures what a delayed prior authorisation means in practice: not an administrative inconvenience, but weeks of pain while a decision is pending.

That account sits alongside the vendors' more technical explanations. Virtix attributes much of the early friction to provider misunderstanding, and its improved affirmation rate after resubmission supports the idea that documentation, not just vendor performance, was part of the problem. Zyter attributes its early trouble to an accelerated timetable imposed from above. Innovaccer says it warned CMS in advance that its portal would not be ready. None of those explanations, on their own, answers the provider's bedside account, and the documents do not say what happened to those three patients or whether their procedures were ultimately approved.

Reactions and Quotes

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which obtained the documents through Freedom of Information Act requests, was blunt in its assessment. "These newly released documents show that the WISeR rollout was rushed and rocky from the start, highlighting the dangers that arise when governments treat AI like a silver bullet for complex problems," the organisation wrote in its blog post about the documents. The foundation's point is not that AI has no role in coverage review, but that a pilot launched in under six months, with vendors still building basic systems, was always likely to produce the kinds of errors the letters describe.

A senior CMS official has now acknowledged the problems in public, in unusually frank terms. "There are a lot of things about WISeR that are not working," Kimberly Brandt, CMS deputy administrator, said at a conference last month. "I don't have an answer for you in terms of what's going to fix it," she added, in response to a conference attendee. But, she continued, "there are a lot of things that [the CMS Innovation Center, which oversees the WISeR model, is] trying to fix on this, and especially because of the congressional scrutiny on this, they are committed to trying to get that right and get it better." The administration has shown no signs of ending the programme, Nextgov/FCW reported, despite that acknowledgement.

Congressional scrutiny is now the programme's most immediate threat. The House Appropriations Committee advanced a bipartisan amendment that would suspend funding for the WISeR model and other pilots testing coverage determinations in traditional Medicare. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, wrote in September that documents suggest CMS plans to expand WISeR to additional services, including oncology care and cardiac catheterisation. Chris Klomp, who was then a nominee for Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary, did not confirm expansion plans in response to Warren's question, but said CMS is monitoring the pilot's processing time, provider burden, beneficiary experience, access, clinical quality and savings, and that decisions about changes to the model would be based on such experiences and findings. CMS did not respond to a request for comment by publication.

Why It Matters

WISeR matters because it is a test case for a much larger question: whether AI-assisted review can safely be used to decide what public health insurance will pay for. Medicare covers tens of millions of older Americans, many of whom live with chronic pain, cancer or heart disease, and for whom a delayed or denied authorisation is not an abstract policy outcome. If the pilot's early problems were mainly a matter of rushed implementation, as the vendors argue, then they can be fixed with more time, better portals and clearer provider education. If they reflect a deeper problem — that AI-assisted review systematically creates extra paperwork, delays and denials for vulnerable patients — then the pilot's future, and the future of similar programmes, is in doubt.

The documents also matter because they show CMS policing its own programme, not just defending it. The agency's letters to four of six vendors, its corrective action plans and its senior official's public acknowledgement all suggest an agency that knows the pilot has problems and is trying, under congressional pressure, to fix them. Whether that effort succeeds will be judged not by vendor turnaround times alone, but by whether providers stop reporting patients crying at the bedside while they wait for an answer.

What Happens Next

The next steps are legislative, administrative and clinical at once. Congress will decide whether the House Appropriations Committee's funding suspension survives the appropriations process, and whether WISeR is expanded, narrowed or ended. CMS will continue to monitor processing time, provider burden, beneficiary experience, access, clinical quality and savings, as Klomp told the Senate, and will have to decide whether the vendors' improved turnaround times — Virtix at about 1.18 days, Zyter at minutes or near real time — are sustained across all services and states.

For patients and providers, the practical question is simpler: when a doctor requests prior authorisation for a painful or urgent procedure, how long will the answer take, and will the letter that arrives actually explain the decision? The newly released documents show that, in the first months of 2026, the answer to both questions was too often unsatisfactory. The pilot's defenders say those months are now behind it. Its critics, and the providers who wrote the feedback surveys, will be watching whether the next set of documents tells a different story.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the WISeR model? WISeR is a CMS pilot launched in January 2026 in six states that uses AI and other technologies to help human clinicians review whether Medicare should cover selected services, in an effort to reduce wasteful spending.

Which vendors were warned by CMS? CMS raised concerns with four of six vendors: Genzeon (New Jersey), Virtix Health (Washington) and Zyter (Arizona) received requests for information, and Innovaccer (Ohio) received two corrective action plans.

What problems did the documents show? Slow coverage determinations, questionable denials, blank or late determination letters, case backlogs, duplicate tracking numbers and a provider portal that was not ready at launch.

Have the vendors fixed the problems? The vendors say yes, citing improved turnaround times and fully live portals, but CMS and the Electronic Frontier Foundation documents show the problems were widespread in early 2026, and a senior CMS official said last month that a lot about WISeR is still not working.

Will WISeR be expanded or ended? The administration has not signalled it will end the programme, but a House Appropriations Committee amendment would suspend its funding, and Senator Elizabeth Warren has raised concerns about a possible expansion to oncology and cardiac catheterisation, which CMS has not confirmed.

Related coverage: NAACP asks court to block federal agents as election monitors on eve of vote, FDA accelerates approval of INOVIO's VOCERYQ, and Ohio early voting record: 1.7 million ballots cast before Election Day.