The article is simply wrong.

I know this because I worked as an ML engineer at an extremely successful company that automated medical coding using deep learning.

The confusion stems from conflating a "perfect solution" with a "human augmented" one.

90% of coding cases are trivial, have low value and can be done by a model. 10% are really subtle and need human expertise.

That's fine. You can make a billion dollar company on low hanging fruit. I think it's best not to conflate the perfect solution with a very good solution.