OOF-AII-559322
Optum Algorithmic Health Risk Scores Reportedly Underestimated Black Patients' Needs
Researchers analyzing an Optum algorithm used by a large academic hospital reportedly found evidence that it tended to under-predict the health care needs of Black patients, which in turn appeared to result in lower prioritization for extra care programs compared with white patients exhibiting similar health profiles.
- Event date
- 2019-10-24
- Country
- United States of America
- Severity
- Moderate
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- High
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Moderate
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2019-10-24.
- The incident record identifies the location as United States of America.
Reported claims
- Researchers analyzing an Optum algorithm used by a large academic hospital reportedly found evidence that it tended to under-predict the health care needs of Black patients, which in turn appeared to result in lower prioritization for extra care programs compared with white patients exhibiting similar health profiles.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving support, evidence, compared. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported support, evidence, compared concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should support, evidence, compared be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported decision, evidence concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported decision, evidence concern falls within the governed questions represented by AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported decision, evidence concern falls within the governed questions represented by ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture.
Governance focus: How should decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- How should support, evidence, compared be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should decision, evidence be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to Unnamed Large Academic Hospital at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how Optum, Enterprise Ai Systems, Ai Enabled Decision Support Systems produced or enabled the reported outcome?
- What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.