Algorithmic Bias Under the EU AI Act: Compliance Risk, Capital Strain, and Pricing Distortions in Life and Health Insurance Underwriting

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) designates AI systems used in life and health insurance underwriting as high-risk systems, imposing rigorous requirements for bias testing, technical documentation, and post-deployment monitoring. Leveraging 12.4 million quote–bind–claim observations from four pan-European insurers (2019 Q1–2024 Q4), we evaluate how compliance affects premium schedules, loss ratios, and solvency positions. We estimate gradient-boosted decision tree (Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)) models alongside benchmark GLMs for mortality, morbidity, and lapse risk, using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values for explainability. Protected attributes (gender, ethnicity proxy, disability, and postcode deprivation) are excluded from training but retained for audit. We measure bias via statistical parity difference, disparate impact ratio, and equalized odds gap against the 10 percent tolerance in regulatory guidance, and then apply counterfactual mitigation strategies—re-weighing, reject option classification, and adversarial debiasing. We simulate impacts on expected loss ratios, the Solvency II Standard Formula Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), and internal model economic capital. To translate fairness breaches into compliance risk, we compute expected penalties under the Act’s two-tier fine structure and supervisory detection probabilities inferred from GDPR enforcement. Under stress scenarios—full retraining, feature excision, and proxy disclosure—preliminary results show that bottom-income quintile premiums exceed fair benchmarks by 5.8 percent (life) and 7.2 percent (health). Mitigation closes 65–82 percent of these gaps but raises capital requirements by up to 4.1 percent of own funds; expected fines exceed rectification costs once detection probability surpasses 9 percent. We conclude that proactive adversarial debiasing offers insurers a capital-efficient compliance pathway and outline implications for enterprise risk management and future monitoring.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Risks
Published
2025-08-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks13090160
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Algorithmic Bias Under the EU AI Act: Compliance Risk, Capital Strain, and Pricing Distortions in Life and Health Insurance Underwriting

Siddharth Mahajan, Mihir Gupta, Ravi Agarwal
Risks
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Algorithmic Bias Under the EU AI Act: Compliance Risk, Capital Strain, and Pricing Distortions in Life and Health Insurance Underwriting

Siddharth Mahajan, Mihir Gupta, Ravi Agarwal
article en

Abstract

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) designates AI systems used in life and health insurance underwriting as high-risk systems, imposing rigorous requirements for bias testing, technical documentation, and post-deployment monitoring. Leveraging 12.4 million quote–bind–claim observations from four pan-European insurers (2019 Q1–2024 Q4), we evaluate how compliance affects premium schedules, loss ratios, and solvency positions. We estimate gradient-boosted decision tree (Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)) models alongside benchmark GLMs for mortality, morbidity, and lapse risk, using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values for explainability. Protected attributes (gender, ethnicity proxy, disability, and postcode deprivation) are excluded from training but retained for audit. We measure bias via statistical parity difference, disparate impact ratio, and equalized odds gap against the 10 percent tolerance in regulatory guidance, and then apply counterfactual mitigation strategies—re-weighing, reject option classification, and adversarial debiasing. We simulate impacts on expected loss ratios, the Solvency II Standard Formula Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), and internal model economic capital. To translate fairness breaches into compliance risk, we compute expected penalties under the Act’s two-tier fine structure and supervisory detection probabilities inferred from GDPR enforcement. Under stress scenarios—full retraining, feature excision, and proxy disclosure—preliminary results show that bottom-income quintile premiums exceed fair benchmarks by 5.8 percent (life) and 7.2 percent (health). Mitigation closes 65–82 percent of these gaps but raises capital requirements by up to 4.1 percent of own funds; expected fines exceed rectification costs once detection probability surpasses 9 percent. We conclude that proactive adversarial debiasing offers insurers a capital-efficient compliance pathway and outline implications for enterprise risk management and future monitoring.

RisksVol. 13(9)
Dominican College of Blauvelt (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.