Anterior's Approach to Fairness Evaluation of Automated Prior Authorization System
Increasing staffing constraints and turnaround-time pressures in Prior authorization (PA) have led to increasing automation of decision systems to support PA review. Evaluating fairness in such systems poses unique challenges because legitimate clinical guidelines and medical necessity criteria often differ across demographic groups, making parity in approval rates an inappropriate fairness metric. We propose a fairness evaluation framework for prior authorization models based on model error rat
Record details
Published: 15 March 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Jobs & economy · Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Fairness of Explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Unifying Framework, Axioms, and Future Direction toward Responsible AI
arXiv · 11 May 2026
Causal Fairness for Survival Analysis
arXiv · 12 May 2026
What Medicine Taught Us About Fairness and What It Missed: Lessons from Reconsidering Race-Specific Lung Function Reference Algorithms
arXiv · 22 May 2026
Beyond the Algorithm: Professional Experiences and Perceptions of AI Bias
arXiv · 13 June 2026
AI interventions in cancer screening: balancing equity and cost-effectiveness
Journal of Medical Ethics (BMJ) · 22 July 2026
Exploring automation bias in human–AI collaboration: a review and implications for explainable AI
OpenAlex · 3 July 2025
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (15 March 2026), “Anterior's Approach to Fairness Evaluation of Automated Prior Authorization System,” evidence record 7203, https://ethics.ai/record/7203 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.