IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v11y2023i9p160-d1233014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fraud Detection in Healthcare Insurance Claims Using Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Eman Nabrawi

    (Health Informatics Department, King Saud Ibn Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 3660, Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia
    King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh 14611, Saudi Arabia)

  • Abdullah Alanazi

    (Health Informatics Department, King Saud Ibn Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 3660, Riyadh 11481, Saudi Arabia
    King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh 14611, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

Healthcare fraud is intentionally submitting false claims or producing misinterpretation of facts to obtain entitlement payments. Thus, it wastes healthcare financial resources and increases healthcare costs. Subsequently, fraud poses a substantial financial challenge. Therefore, supervised machine and deep learning analytics such as random forest, logistic regression, and artificial neural networks are successfully used to detect healthcare insurance fraud. This study aims to develop a health model that automatically detects fraud from health insurance claims in Saudi Arabia. The model indicates the greatest contributing factor to fraud with optimal accuracy. The labeled imbalanced dataset used three supervised deep and machine learning methods. The dataset was obtained from three healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia. The applied models were random forest, logistic regression, and artificial neural networks. The SMOT technique was used to balance the dataset. Boruta object feature selection was applied to exclude insignificant features. Validation metrics were accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, F1 score, and area under the curve (AUC). Random forest classifiers indicated policy type, education, and age as the most significant features with an accuracy of 98.21%, 98.08% precision, 100% recall, an F1 score of 99.03%, specificity of 80%, and an AUC of 90.00%. Logistic regression resulted in an accuracy of 80.36%, 97.62% precision, 80.39% recall, an F1 score of 88.17%, specificity of 80%, and an AUC of 80.20%. ANN revealed an accuracy of 94.64%, 98.00% precision, 96.08% recall, an F1 score of 97.03%, a specificity of 80%, and an AUC of 88.04%. This predictive analytics study applied three successful models, each of which yielded acceptable accuracy and validation metrics; however, further research on a larger dataset is advised.

Suggested Citation

  • Eman Nabrawi & Abdullah Alanazi, 2023. "Fraud Detection in Healthcare Insurance Claims Using Machine Learning," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:9:p:160-:d:1233014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/9/160/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/9/160/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen I. Doerpinghaus & Joan T. Schmit & Jason Jia‐Hsing Yeh, 2008. "Age and Gender Effects on Auto Liability Insurance Payouts," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 75(3), pages 527-550, September.
    2. William Lesch & Brent R. Baker, 2013. "Balancing the Insurance Equation: Understanding the Climate for Managing Consumer Insurance Fraud and Abuse," Journal of Insurance Issues, Western Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 36(1), pages 82-120.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ayuso, Mercedes & Bermúdez, Lluís & Santolino, Miguel, 2015. "The dynamics of one-sided incomplete information in motor disputes," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 77-85.
    2. Ha van Dung, 2014. "Short-term precaution, insurance and saving mechanisms in rural Vietnam," Working Papers CIE 82, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    3. Miguel Santolino & Jean-Philippe Boucher, 2009. "Modelling the disability severity score in motor insurance claims: an application to the Spanish case," IREA Working Papers 200902, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jan 2009.
    4. Haithem Zourrig & Jeongsoo Park, 2019. "The effects of cultural tightness and perceived unfairness on Japanese consumers’ attitude towards insurance fraud: the mediating effect of rationalization," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 21-30, June.
    5. Xiao Lin & Mark J. Browne & Annette Hofmann, 2022. "Race discrimination in the adjudication of claims: Evidence from earthquake insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(3), pages 553-580, September.
    6. Mercedes Ayuso & Lluís Bermúdez & Miguel Santolino, 2011. "“Influence of the claimant’s behavioural features on motor compensation outcomes”," IREA Working Papers 201108, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2011.
    7. Mary Kelly & Anne Kleffner & Maureen Tomlinson, 2010. "First‐Party Versus Third‐Party Compensation for Automobile Accidents: Evidence From Canada," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 13(1), pages 21-44, March.
    8. Renee Flasher & Melvin A. Lamboy-Ruiz, 2019. "Impact of Enforcement on Healthcare Billing Fraud: Evidence from the USA," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 217-229, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:9:p:160-:d:1233014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.