IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v13y2025i9p160-d1729920.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Siddharth Mahajan

    (Cantor Research Institute, Blauvelt, NY 10913, USA)

  • Rohan Agarwal

    (Cantor Research Institute, Blauvelt, NY 10913, USA)

  • Mihir Gupta

    (Cantor Research Institute, Blauvelt, NY 10913, USA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Siddharth Mahajan & Rohan Agarwal & Mihir Gupta, 2025. "Algorithmic Bias Under the EU AI Act: Compliance Risk, Capital Strain, and Pricing Distortions in Life and Health Insurance Underwriting," Risks, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:13:y:2025:i:9:p:160-:d:1729920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/13/9/160/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/13/9/160/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:13:y:2025:i:9:p:160-:d:1729920. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.