Orchestrating Claims Risk with Generative AI in the Cloud
Keywords:
Automated claims handling; cloud-native architecture; cloud-native operational approaches; generative AI models in insurance; AI ethics; risk orchestration in insurance claims systems. Such LLMs constitute a substantial breakthrough in risk management and claims-handling systems. They help support and enact risk orchestration in all three dimensions of claims risk management (identifying risk, assessing risk, and improving resilience) at scale and low cost in cloud-native platform environments. Tech-enabled claims handling thus allows the tracking of AI model performance, refinement of opacity-controlling techniques for sensitive models in collaborative crime-detection settings and combined voice-image assistant systems, as well as fulfilment of other objectives associated with high stakes.Abstract
Claims processing is a major focus for generative AI deployment in insurers and reinsurers because of the highly structured nature of claims data and the operational efficiency yet regulatory compliance challenges. Such deployment remains narrowly focused on automating workflow steps, conversely, generative AI can be leveraged far more deeply to orchestrate risk across the entire lifecycle of claims processing, spanning fraudulent, anomalous, severe, and over-claim scenarios. Cloud-native insurance platforms built on microservices and service meshes provide the underlying architecture to support scale, service resiliency, and observability. Specialized data provenance and governance capability are paramount in maintaining data privacy.
The operationalization of generative AI in claims processing is supported by services that pre-process training data, monitor model performance, and fine-tune model responses prior to risk orchestration engagement. A responsible AI stance with respect to external stakeholders is essential, along with adherence to compliance frameworks such as INSO 22758-1, 2:2022 and IBR 57 (Bahamas), CIRC (China), Data Checklist (UK), and Draft AI Act (EU), among others. Auditability and explainability dimensions must also be addressed, including assurance that model outputs are explainable to the officers of the law.
Downloads
References
1. Aslam, F., Hunjra, A. I., Ftiti, Z., Louhichi, W., & Shams, T. (2022). Insurance fraud detection: Evidence from artificial intelligence and machine learning. Research in International Business and Finance, 62, 101744.
2. Debener, J., Heinke, V., & Kriebel, J. (2023). Detecting insurance fraud using supervised and unsupervised machine learning. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 90(3), 743–768.
3. Bahnsen, A. C., Aouada, D., Stojanovic, A., & Ottersten, B. (2021). Feature engineering strategies for credit card fraud detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 164, 113936.
4. Jurgovsky, J., Granitzer, M., Ziegler, K., Calabretto, S., Portier, P.-E., He-Guelton, L., & Caelen, O. (2020). Sequence classification for credit-card fraud detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 100, 234–245.
5. Carcillo, F., Dal Pozzolo, A., Le Borgne, Y.-A., Caelen, O., Mazzer, Y., & Bontempi, G. (2021). Combining unsupervised and supervised learning in credit card fraud detection. Information Sciences, 557, 317–331.
6. Pourhabibi, T., Ong, K.-L., Kam, B. H., & Boo, Y. L. (2020). Fraud detection: A systematic literature review of graph-based anomaly detection approaches. Decision Support Systems, 133, 113303.
7. Inala, R. Designing Scalable Technology Architectures for Customer Data in Group Insurance and Investment Platforms.
8. Abdallah, A., Maarof, M. A., & Zainal, A. (2021). Fraud detection system: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 68, 90–113.
9. Yang, W., Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020). A survey of fraud detection methods based on machine learning. Applied Sciences, 10(21), 7448.
10. Liu, X., Lu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2022). Machine learning approaches for insurance fraud detection: A systematic review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(10), 1–20.
11. Kose, I., Vural, C., & Ozdemir, S. (2021). Machine learning-based insurance claim fraud detection using predictive analytics. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100037.
12. Davuluri, P. S. L. (2023). AI-Augmented Sanctions Screening: Enhancing Accuracy and Latency in Real Time Compliance Systems. AI-Augmented Sanctions Screening: Enhancing Accuracy and Latency in Real Time Compliance Systems (December 15, 2023).
13. Dheepak, K., & Kannan, S. (2022). A novel fraud detection and prevention method for healthcare claim processing using machine learning and blockchain technology. Decision Analytics Journal, 4, 100122.
14. Kose, I., Vural, C., & Ozdemir, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence applications in insurance: Fraud detection and automated claims processing. International Journal of Financial Studies, 8(4), 1–18.
15. Roman, D., & Zalic, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence in insurance: Applications, opportunities, and challenges. Insurance Markets and Companies, 12(1), 1–13.
16. Amistapuram, K. (2023). Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning Models for Sensitive Customer Data in Insurance Systems. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 5950-5958.
17. Richman, R. (2021). Insurance risk management and artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 24(3), 345–365.
18. Eling, M., Nuessle, D., & Staubli, J. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence along the insurance value chain and on the insurability of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice, 46(1), 205–241.
19. Kolla, S. H. (2022). Strategic Information Integration Models for Cross-Functional Service Optimization in Large-Scale Enterprises. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Management Research, 7(3), 11811.
20. López, O., & Sebag, M. (2020). Risk management and artificial intelligence in insurance: From predictive analytics to automated decision-making. ASTIN Bulletin, 50(3), 897–923.
21. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., ... Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.
22. Mangalampalli, B. M. Generative AI Applications In Healthcare Data Mart Design And Optimization.
23. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.
24. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744.
25. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824–24837.
26. Yandamuri, U. S. (2023). An Intelligent Analytics Framework Combining Big Data and Machine Learning for Business Forecasting. Zenodo.
27. Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022). Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 22199–22213.
28. Thirunavukarasu, A. J., Ting, D. S. J., Elangovan, K., Gutierrez, L., Tan, T. F., & Ting, D. S. W. (2023). Large language models in medicine. Nature Medicine, 29, 1930–1940.
29. Meskó, B., & Topol, E. J. (2023). The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. npj Digital Medicine, 6, 120.
30. Moor, M., Banerjee, O., Abad, Z. S. H., Krumholz, H. M., Leskovec, J., Topol, E. J., & Rajpurkar, P. (2023). Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature, 616, 259–265.
31. KollIntegration. South Eastern European Journal of Public Health, 248–260.
32. Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A. K., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., Payne, P., Seneviratne, M., Gamble, P., Kelly, C., Chowdhery, A., Mansfield, P., Macdonald, C., V. C. R. J., ... Natarajan, V. (2023). Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620, 172–180.
33. Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., & Petzold, L. (2023). Are large language models ready for healthcare? A comparative study on clinical language understanding. Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, 219, 804–823.
34. Nori, H., King, N., McKinney, S. M., Carignan, D., & Horvitz, E. (2023). Capabilities of GPT-4 on medical challenge problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375.
35. He, K., Mao, R., Lin, Q., Ruan, Y., Lan, X., Feng, M., & Cambria, E. (2023). A survey of large language models for healthcare: From data, technology, and applications to accountability and ethics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05694.
36. Veldhuizen, G. P., Wagner, S. J., & Kather, J. N. (2023). The future landscape of large language models in medicine. Communications Medicine, 3, 141.
37. a, S. K., & Reddy, V. A. R. (2023). Deep Learning Architectures For Multimodal Medical Data
38. Dash, D., Thapa, R., Banda, J. M., Swaminathan, A., Cheatham, M., Kashyap, M., Kotecha, N., Chen, J. H., Gombar, S., Downing, L., Pedreira, R., Goh, E., Arnaout, A., Morris, G. K., Magon, M. M., & Shah, N. H. (2023). Evaluation of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for supporting real-world information needs in healthcare delivery. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e48968.
Additional Files
Published
Data Availability Statement
None
