Algorithmic Bias from the Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals

Clinical algorithms can perform differently across patient groups, a concern that grows as these algorithms increasingly take the form of artificial intelligence (AI) models. In the United States, a 2024 federal rule bars healthcare providers that receive federal funds from discriminating through their use of clinical algorithms, which exposes them to liability when such use disadvantages a protected patient group. We examine how such liability considerations reshape (i) an AI firm's model design decisions that drive group-specific accuracy and (ii) a physician's decisions to use AI in healthcare delivery. The firm designs an AI model 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 that this liability 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.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare to support diagnostics, decision-making, and administrative processes. However, the successful implementation of AI depends not only on technical performance but also on public perceptions of its helpfulness, riskiness, and fairness. This study examines public perceptions of automated decision-making (ADM) in healthcare. Data were drawn from the first wave of an ongoing longitudinal survey panel. The final sample consisted of 3,915 respondents and was analyzed with structural equation modeling. Perceptions of ADM in healthcare as helpful, risky, and fair were treated as the dependent variables. AI literacy, familiarity with different forms of AI, confidence in clinicians' ability to distinguish AI- from human-generated content, use of conversational agents for health information, and use of traditional digital health information sources were included as exogenous. Greater familiarity with different forms of AI, higher confidence in the clinician's ability to recognize AI-generated content, and use of conversational agents for health information were associated with greater perceived helpfulness. Use of conversational agents was associated with lower perceived risk, whereas greater familiarity with AI and greater reliance on traditional health information sources were associated with higher perceived risk. Perceptions of ADM as fair were most strongly predicted by confidence in the clinician's ability, with additional small positive associations with AI familiarity, AI literacy, and use of conversational agents. Public perceptions of ADM in healthcare are shaped by technological familiarity, use of conversational agents, and confidence in human oversight. Overall, ADM's perceived helpfulness and fairness are driven more by trust in healthcare professionals than by trust in the technology itself.

Objective: Algorithmic fairness is essential for equitable and trustworthy machine learning in healthcare. Most fairness tools emphasize single-axis demographic comparisons and may miss compounded disparities affecting intersectional populations. This study introduces Fairlogue, a toolkit designed to operationalize intersectional fairness assessment in observational and counterfactual contexts within clinical settings. Methods: Fairlogue is a Python-based toolkit composed of three components: 1) an observational framework extending demographic parity, equalized odds, and equal opportunity difference to intersectional populations; 2) a counterfactual framework evaluating fairness under treatment-based contexts; and 3) a generalized counterfactual framework assessing fairness under interventions on intersectional group membership. The toolkit was evaluated using electronic health record data from the All of Us Controlled Tier V8 dataset in a glaucoma surgery prediction task using logistic regression with race and gender as protected attributes. Results: Observational analysis identified substantial intersectional disparities despite moderate model performance (AUROC = 0.709; accuracy = 0.651). Intersectional evaluation revealed larger fairness gaps than single-axis analyses, including demographic parity differences of 0.20 and equalized odds true positive and false positive rate gaps of 0.33 and 0.15, respectively. Counterfactual analysis using permutation-based null distributions produced unfairness ("u-value") estimates near zero, suggesting observed disparities were consistent with chance after conditioning on covariates. Conclusion: Fairlogue provides a modular toolkit integrating observational and counterfactual methods for quantifying and evaluating intersectional bias in clinical machine learning workflows.