EVALUATING HUMAN-AI TASK ALLOCATION FEASIBILITY UNDER BUNDLED PAYMENTS: A RISK-ADJUSTED CORRIDOR SIMULATION FRAMEWORK FOR HEALTHCARE PARTNERSHIPS
Author(s)
Anil Kemisetti, MBA, MS;
UC Berkeley, Cupertino, CA, USA
UC Berkeley, Cupertino, CA, USA
OBJECTIVES: To develop an integrated simulation framework that formalizes a previously unaddressed question: under what conditions does AI-enabled cost reduction create viable healthcare partnership corridors under bundled payments?
METHODS: The framework integrates three components.
First, constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production functions model human-AI labor substitution in non-surgical workflows, with elasticity parameter σ governing substitutability.
Second, Monte Carlo simulation estimates cost distributions for specified AI share levels, incorporating labor savings, AI operating costs, supervision requirements, and potential error-related costs, recognizing that AI may increase rather than decrease total costs in some configurations.
Third, risk-adjusted corridor bounds determine feasibility: Floor = E[C(s)] + λ·CVaRα[C(s)] + πmin must fall below Ceiling = B − πH − χ, where s is AI share, λ is risk aversion, α is CVaR confidence level, and π terms represent profit requirements.
The framework accepts scenario inputs and outputs corridor feasibility across the AI share spectrum.
RESULTS: Framework demonstration revealed three behavioral patterns.
First, AI share affects both expected cost and variance through competing mechanisms; automation reduces labor costs, while supervision and error risk can increase costs, with the net effect determining corridor viability.
Second, corridor feasibility exhibits threshold behavior: below scenario-specific minimum AI share, no feasible corridor exists; above scenario-specific maximum, oversight costs eliminate corridors.
Third, preliminary sensitivity analysis suggests corridor width is most sensitive to cost variance and risk aversion (λ), moderately sensitive to substitution elasticity (σ). Across tested scenarios, feasibility thresholds ranged from 35% to 60% AI share, with some high-oversight scenarios showing no feasible AI configuration.
CONCLUSIONS: The framework provides a diagnostic methodology for assessing whether AI capabilities create or destroy viable partnership conditions. By revealing scenarios where AI narrows or eliminates corridors, it offers hospitals a rigorous approach for evaluating AI tools against organization-specific feasibility requirements.
METHODS: The framework integrates three components.
First, constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production functions model human-AI labor substitution in non-surgical workflows, with elasticity parameter σ governing substitutability.
Second, Monte Carlo simulation estimates cost distributions for specified AI share levels, incorporating labor savings, AI operating costs, supervision requirements, and potential error-related costs, recognizing that AI may increase rather than decrease total costs in some configurations.
Third, risk-adjusted corridor bounds determine feasibility: Floor = E[C(s)] + λ·CVaRα[C(s)] + πmin must fall below Ceiling = B − πH − χ, where s is AI share, λ is risk aversion, α is CVaR confidence level, and π terms represent profit requirements.
The framework accepts scenario inputs and outputs corridor feasibility across the AI share spectrum.
RESULTS: Framework demonstration revealed three behavioral patterns.
First, AI share affects both expected cost and variance through competing mechanisms; automation reduces labor costs, while supervision and error risk can increase costs, with the net effect determining corridor viability.
Second, corridor feasibility exhibits threshold behavior: below scenario-specific minimum AI share, no feasible corridor exists; above scenario-specific maximum, oversight costs eliminate corridors.
Third, preliminary sensitivity analysis suggests corridor width is most sensitive to cost variance and risk aversion (λ), moderately sensitive to substitution elasticity (σ). Across tested scenarios, feasibility thresholds ranged from 35% to 60% AI share, with some high-oversight scenarios showing no feasible AI configuration.
CONCLUSIONS: The framework provides a diagnostic methodology for assessing whether AI capabilities create or destroy viable partnership conditions. By revealing scenarios where AI narrows or eliminates corridors, it offers hospitals a rigorous approach for evaluating AI tools against organization-specific feasibility requirements.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE93
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis, Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas