New CDT Report: Challenging Algorithm-Driven Benefits Determinations for People with Disabilities
Governments are increasingly turning to algorithm-driven decision-making tools to determine what crucial benefits people should receive for programs like Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment, and Social Security Disability. Billed as a way to increase efficiency and root out fraud, these tools are often implemented without much public debate, and are incredibly difficult to understand once in use. Not only do these algorithm-driven tools frequently reduce and deny benefits, they often do so in unfair and inhumane ways, particularly for people with disabilities.
Benefits recipients are challenging such tools in court, arguing among other things that flaws in the tools’ design or execution violate their due process rights. A new report from CDT analyzes lawsuits of this nature, which cover a range of benefits issues and have netted mixed results. Our report centers on disabled people’s stories and cases, and highlights the major legal theories for such challenges in the U.S. The cases discussed within the report are producing important precedent about people’s right to notice, explanation, and other procedural due process safeguards when algorithm-driven decisions are made about them.
While litigation does not always provide relief, it reveals information that is much harder for advocates to obtain on their own about how these algorithm-driven tools operate. Litigation, along with other advocacy strategies, provides important insights into the risks of adopting these tools without effective oversight and accountability. We hope that our report informs not only the development of effective litigation, but a broader public conversation about the thoughtful design, use, and oversight of algorithm-driven decision-making systems.
A webinar CDT hosted featuring two litigators and a disabled advocate who was a plaintiff in a major case is available to view. You can also find more from CDT’s Privacy & Data Project here.
