Independent AI security assessment · Healthcare

AI security evidence a hospital can trust — signed by the assessor who did the work.

When a hospital, health system, or payer asks how your AI handles their data, Ayliea produces independent, evidence-backed answers you can hand to their security and vendor-risk reviewers.

A named assessor examines your AI systems, data flows, and safeguards, maps findings to the HIPAA Security Rule and NIST AI RMF, and signs the report. No platform, no proxy — the person who reaches the conclusion stands behind it.

Daviyon Daniels, CISSPNamed assessor

01 / THE REVIEW TRIGGER

Hospital security asking about your AI?

A SOC 2 report, policy set, or completed questionnaire may not answer the AI-specific questions now appearing in healthcare diligence.

01

AI systems

You may not have one defensible inventory of every AI product, model, provider, integration, and workflow.

02

Sensitive-data flows

Reviewers need to understand what information reaches which AI providers—and under what controls.

03

Security evidence

Existing artifacts may not explain the AI-specific controls, decisions, and residual risks the reviewer is asking about.

02 / THE DELIVERABLE

Reviewer-ready evidence

Give the reviewer something they can actually review.

The assessment turns a dispersed set of systems, data flows, controls, and evidence into a coherent, signed record. Deliverables are tailored to engagement scope—not represented as universal hospital requirements.

See a sample assessment
AYLIEA / SAMPLE-001ILLUSTRATIVE CONTENTS

AI security evidence package

01Executive summary

02AI system inventory

03Data-flow documentation

04Security findings

05Risk prioritization

06HIPAA safeguard mapping

07NIST AI RMF mapping

08Remediation recommendations

09Evidence references

10Assessor sign-off

ASSESSOR NOTE

Findings, limitations, and evidence references are documented within the agreed scope.

Assessment basis

The report shows how each conclusion was formed.

Evidence is labeled by source and review method so a receiving reviewer can distinguish direct observation from supplied documents, stakeholder representations, and work that was not tested.

01

Observed

Directly inspected artifacts, settings, demonstrations, or workflows.

02

Supplied

Documentation provided by the client or another in-scope source.

03

Represented

A stakeholder statement that was not independently established.

04

Not tested

A procedure or condition the written scope did not independently validate.

03 / Engagement

A clear path from scope to signed assessment.

The process is led by the named assessor from the first evidence request through final sign-off.

  1. 1

    Scope

    20-minute call to determine systems, entities, data flows, evidence, and review requirements.

  2. 2

    Assess

    The named assessor reviews the environment and the evidence provided.

  3. 3

    Document

    Findings, mappings, limitations, and remediation recommendations are documented.

  4. 4

    Sign

    The named assessor reviews and signs the final assessment.

  5. 5

    Use

    You may provide the assessment during relevant healthcare diligence.

The receiving organization determines what evidence it requires and whether the assessment is sufficient for its review.

04 / WHO IT IS FOR

Primary engagement

Healthcare vendors & business associates

Selling technology or services into healthcare and being asked to explain how AI is governed, where sensitive information goes, and how risk is managed.

  • Healthcare SaaS
  • Health-tech
  • Healthcare AI
  • Billing / RCM
  • Healthcare IT
For healthcare vendors
SECONDARY

Healthcare organizations adopting AI

Understand where AI systems interact with sensitive healthcare information and document the associated security risk.

Learn more →
REVIEW & INFLUENCE

Security, vendor-risk, privacy & compliance teams

Clear evidence presentation for professionals evaluating AI use and related safeguards.

05 / Independent review

Organization is useful. Judgment is different.

Compliance software can help organize controls, evidence, and workflows. An independent assessment applies contextual professional review to that material.

COMPLIANCE OPERATIONS

Controls

Evidence collection

Workflow

Questionnaires

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT

Assessor judgment

Contextual evidence evaluation

Documented limitations & findings

Remediation priorities & named sign-off

06 / METHODOLOGY

Transparent methodology.
Human judgment.

The assessment is evidence-led and maps relevant findings to established AI security frameworks—NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and the HIPAA Security Rule among them—rather than a proprietary standard. Evidence-quality decisions and professional judgments remain documented and attributable to the named assessor.

Explore the methodology
01Control domain
02Evidence
03Finding
04Severity
05Framework mapping
06Signed conclusion
Daviyon Daniels, CISSP — named assessorNamed assessor

07 / NAMED ASSESSOR

Daviyon Daniels, CISSP

You know who reviewed the evidence—and who signed the report.

Ayliea deliberately uses a named-assessor model. Daviyon Daniels evaluates the evidence, documents the assessment’s scope and limitations, forms the findings, and signs the final assessment.

The methodology supports consistency; the named assessor remains accountable for the scope, evidence decisions, limitations, and professional conclusion.

About the assessor →

08 / BEFORE YOU BOOK

See exactly what an assessment looks like.

Review the structure, evidence presentation, findings, framework mappings, limitations, and assessor sign-off before booking a call.

See a sample report

09 / Engagement levels

Clear starting points. Scope still matters.

Final pricing depends on the number of AI systems, entities, evidence requirements, frameworks, and overall engagement complexity.

Discuss your scope

10 / Buyer questions

Before the assessment begins.

01What do we receive from an assessment?

The engagement can produce a signed assessment with an executive summary, scoped AI inventory, data-flow documentation, evidence-backed findings, risk prioritization, framework references, limitations, and remediation recommendations. Exact contents depend on the agreed scope.

02Can we use the assessment during a hospital or healthcare security review?

You may provide the assessment as evidence during relevant security, vendor-risk, procurement, or partner diligence. Each reviewer decides what evidence it requires, who may rely on the report, and whether the assessment is sufficient.

03What procedures can be included?

A scope may include document review, stakeholder interviews, configuration inspection, observation, demonstrations, and sampling. The written scope states which procedures were performed and which were not.

04Does the assessment include technical testing?

Not automatically. Penetration testing, source-code review, model-performance evaluation, AI red-teaming, and continuous monitoring are excluded unless separately scoped and documented.

05How is missing or conflicting evidence handled?

The report identifies unavailable, stale, conflicting, client-represented, and not-tested evidence. Conclusions are qualified when evidence quality or coverage limits confidence.

06How current is the assessment?

The report is point-in-time. It states its assessment date or period, evidence cutoff, scope, and change-after-assessment boundary. Material changes may require an update or new assessment.

07Can Ayliea receive PHI?

Ayliea's published posture is no PHI by design. Do not send patient records, PHI, credentials, questionnaires, or assessment evidence through the booking page or initial email. Engagement-specific transfer arrangements are established in writing.

08What does independent mean?

Ayliea is an external, paid assessor rather than the organization being assessed or its regulator. Independence does not imply governmental authority. Potential conflicts are addressed during scoping, and commercial outcomes are not guaranteed.

09How are corrections handled?

Factual errors and evidence references can be corrected through a documented review process. A request to change a commercial outcome does not require the assessor to change a supported professional conclusion.

10How long does an engagement take?

Once your evidence is ready, a Focused Assessment typically runs about 3–4 weeks and a Comprehensive Assessment about 5–6 weeks. Timing still depends on scope, system count, entities, procedures, and how quickly evidence and stakeholders are available, so the scoping call sets a realistic plan for your engagement.

11How much does an engagement cost?

Focused Assessments start at $6,500. Comprehensive Assessments start at $15,000. Enterprise Programs use a custom scope.

12Do you certify HIPAA compliance?

No. Ayliea does not provide a government-backed HIPAA certification, certify that an organization is HIPAA compliant, or guarantee compliance. Relevant findings may be mapped to applicable HIPAA Security Rule safeguards.

13What security frameworks do you assess against?

Ayliea maps and aligns relevant findings to established AI security frameworks: NIST AI RMF 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, HIPAA Security Rule, OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS. These references frame the findings so a receiving reviewer can place them in a familiar context. Mapping and alignment are not certification or endorsement—Ayliea is not a certification body—and professional judgments and evidence-quality decisions remain explained and attributable to the assessor.

Next step

Have a healthcare security review coming up?

Use a 20-minute scoping call to clarify what the reviewer is asking for, what belongs in scope, and whether an independent Ayliea assessment is a fit.

  • Clarify the review request
  • Identify systems and evidence
  • Define a defensible scope