aiqbench analysis
This research investigates how liability rules reshape incentives for AI firms and physicians in clinical settings, revealing non-monotone effects where increased accountability can paradoxically reduce AI adoption for disadvantaged patient groups. The study warns that mandating uniform algorithmic accuracy may distort investment incentives to the detriment of overall healthcare outcomes.
Algorithm Design and Physician Liability
arXiv:2608.13618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making. In response, a liability rule introduced in the United States holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on disparate algorithms contributes to erroneous clinical decisions. We examine how such liability considerations reshape (i) an AI firm's algorithm design decisions that drive group-specific accuracy and (ii) a physician's decisions to use AI in healthcare delivery. The AI firm designs an algorithm for two patient groups, and improving accuracy for the disadvantaged group is more costly. The physician (who remains the accountable decision-maker) then decides whether to consult AI, weighing the reduction in clinical uncertainty against expected liability exposure when AI errors disproportionately affect the disadvantaged group. We find the liability rule can induce disparate use of AI: the physician may reduce AI use overall and, over an intermediate range of liability, rely on AI less for disadvantaged patients. The effect is non-monotone. As liability increases, the physician's use of AI for disadvantaged patients first declines, then rises as the firm reallocates investment toward reducing disparity or switches to an equal-accuracy design. Mandating equal algorithmic accuracy across patient groups can then inadvertently harm both groups, because a uniform accuracy requirement distorts the firm's investment incentives and the physician's equilibrium AI-use decisions.
Abstract:A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making. In response, a liability rule introduced in the United States holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on disparate algorithms contributes to erroneous clinical decisions. We examine how such liability considerations reshape (i) an AI firm's algorithm design decisions that drive group-specific accuracy and (ii) a physician's decisions to use AI in healthcare delivery. The AI firm designs an algorithm for two patient groups, and improving accuracy for the disadvantaged group is more costly. The physician (who remains the accountable decision-maker) then decides whether to consult AI, weighing the reduction in clinical uncertainty against expected liability exposure when AI errors disproportionately affect the disadvantaged group. We find the liability rule can induce disparate use of AI: the physician may reduce AI use overall and, over an intermediate range of liability, rely on AI less for disadvantaged patients. The effect is non-monotone. As liability increases, the physician's use of AI for disadvantaged patients first declines, then rises as the firm reallocates investment toward reducing disparity or switches to an equal-accuracy design. Mandating equal algorithmic accuracy across patient groups can then inadvertently harm both groups, because a uniform accuracy requirement distorts the firm's investment incentives and the physician's equilibrium AI-use decisions.
65 pages, 8 figures, 5 tables; includes online appendix (pp. 51-65)
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Theoretical Economics (econ.TH)
J.4; K.4.1; I.2.1; J.3
arXiv:2608.13618 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.13618v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.13618 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 337 words
Related coverage

How IITs and IISc are redefining medical education in India
thehindu.com · Sep 1, 2026

Your AI vendor could land you in legal hot water – what business experts say you must do
ZDNet · Sep 8, 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · Jul 24, 2026

Corporate and Government Early Adopters in Quantum Chemicals & Quantum Life Science
Inside Quantum Technology · Sep 2, 2026