Editing Openai/692cb885-da9c-8002-9696-e985fae204bd (section)

==== Administrative Complexity: Streamlining the System and Reducing Waste ====

A second major driver of U.S. healthcare inefficiency is administrative complexity and overhead. The U.S. spends exorbitant amounts on billing, paperwork, and insurance administration – resources that do not directly improve patient care. Multiple studies show that administrative costs account for 25–30% of U.S. healthcare spending, far higher than in other countriescommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=,5%20percent%20of%20total%20hospital|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/oct/high-us-health-care-spending-where-is-it-all-going#:~:text=,and%20peer%20nation%20health%20spending|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. This includes the costs of processing bills and insurance claims, coding and documentation, insurer overhead and profits, provider administrative staff, credentialing, utilization management (like prior authorizations), and compliance with myriad differing rules. By comparison, other wealthy nations spend much less on administration: for example, the U.S. spends around 7.6% of total health spending on insurers’ administrative costs alone, versus about 3.8% in peer countrieshealthsystemtracker.org<ref>{{cite web|title=healthsystemtracker.org|url=https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/#:~:text=health%20spending%20in%20the%20U,on%20average%20in%20comparable%20countries|publisher=healthsystemtracker.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. All told, the U.S. spends over $1,000 per person on health administration – roughly five times the per-capita administrative spending of other high-income countriespgpf.org<ref>{{cite web|title=pgpf.org|url=https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries/#:~:text=hospitals%20%E2%80%94%20leading%20to%20a,the%20same%20amount%20on%20both|publisher=pgpf.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. In fact, the U.S. likely spends as much on healthcare administration as it does on long-term care services, an imbalance not seen elsewherepgpf.org<ref>{{cite web|title=pgpf.org|url=https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries/#:~:text=hospitals%20%E2%80%94%20leading%20to%20a,the%20same%20amount%20on%20both|publisher=pgpf.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>.

What drives this complexity? The U.S. has a multi-payer financing system (hundreds of private insurers, plus Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), each with their own billing requirements, provider networks, and payment rules. Providers must interact with numerous insurance plans, often employing large billing departments to file claims, chase reimbursements, and handle denials. There is also extensive complexity in coding (with thousands of billing codes and ever-changing rules for documentation), as well as fragmented health IT systems that often fail to seamlessly share data. For example, a single physician practice in the U.S. might deal with a dozen different insurer portals for eligibility checks and claims – versus, say, a practice in Canada that bills one provincial insurer with one set of codes and rules. A 2019 analysis estimated that billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs alone were about $496 billion annually in the U.S., roughly twice what should be necessary for a system our sizeamericanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=addressing%20waste,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. The excess administrative waste – on the order of $250 billion per year – stems from duplication, inefficiencies, and the high overhead of our complex payment systemamericanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=addressing%20waste,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>.

Importantly, higher administrative spending doesn’t translate to better care. Studies comparing hospitals internationally found no link between higher admin costs and quality of carecommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=product%20%28GDP%29%20rose%20from%200,quality%20care|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Hospital%20administration%20costs%20ranged%20from,in%20Canada|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. It’s pure waste in many cases – time and money that could be redirected to patient care. As one commentator put it, “Healthcare should be about patients, not paperwork.”caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHealthcare%20should%20be%20about%20patients%2C,%E2%80%9D|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=Executive%20Officer%20at%20CAQH,%E2%80%9D|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. The administrative burden also frustrates clinicians and patients: doctors spend hours clicking through electronic records and billing codes, and patients face confusing bills and insurance denials. Simplifying these processes could not only save money but also improve the care experience.

Reforming Administrative Complexity – Policy Options: Tackling administrative waste requires standardizing and simplifying the business of healthcare. Key strategies include billing simplification, unified data standards, automating manual processes, and setting limits on administrative spending. We will discuss approaches at the federal and state levels, as well as within the private sector, to streamline administration. We also highlight lessons from international models that achieve far lower administrative costs through unified systems.

===== Simplifying Billing and Claims Processing =====

A core issue is the complexity of billing transactions between providers and payers. Standardizing and automating these processes can yield huge efficiencies:
* National Standard Claims Clearinghouse: One proposal is to establish a single electronic clearinghouse for all medical billinghamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=The%20Proposal%20Establish%20a%20clearinghouse,automating%20prior%20authorization%20could%20help|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=transmission%20of%20billing%20and%20claims,associated%20with%20implementing%20prior%20authorization|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. Currently, providers send claims to each insurer (or their designated clearinghouses), each potentially requiring slightly different information. A centralized or interoperable network could route all claims through a uniform format, reducing errors and admin effort. The U.S. already has HIPAA standard transaction codes (X12) for claims, but compliance and consistency are lacking. By mandating one set of data fields and protocols for all payers, providers could submit bills once in one format. This echoes systems in countries like France or Japan, where a standardized billing system processes claims for all insurers. If implemented, a central clearinghouse could cut down on the staff time and software needed to handle multiple billing systems, and reduce claim denials due to format issues. Estimates suggest that standardizing electronic billing and claims submission could save billions annually in administrative costshamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=patients,150%20per%20person%20per%20year|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>.
* Uniform Coding and Documentation Rules: Simplification also means aligning payers on common definitions for services and payment rules. The proliferation of different payment policies (for what’s covered, what documentation is needed, how prior authorization is done) adds burden. Federal regulators, working with industry, can push towards uniform billing codes and documentation standards. For example, requiring all insurers to honor a single set of procedure and diagnostic codes (we have CPT/ICD, but payers often add proprietary edits) and a single claim form structure would make life easier for providers. Additionally, moving toward streamlined clinical documentation – e.g., one universal form for a given service – would prevent the need to tailor notes to each insurer. Efforts like “administrative simplification” rules in the Affordable Care Act set some groundwork (like standardized insurance ID cards and rules for electronic funds transfers), but many provisions were not fully enforced. Revitalizing these efforts at the federal level could force payers to simplify and coordinate their requirements.
* Claims Payment Standardization and Prompt Pay: Another avenue is requiring faster, more automated claims payment. Some countries ensure hospitals are paid a fixed amount per case or per day directly from a government payer, eliminating drawn-out claims adjudication. Short of single-payer, U.S. payers could be required to adopt real-time claims adjudication for most routine claims – meaning a provider gets an instant response on payment when a claim is submitted (analogous to how credit card transactions are approved in seconds). This would necessitate clear-cut payment rules and high-quality data interchange, but would dramatically reduce back-and-forth appeals and resubmissions. Additionally, “prompt pay” laws (already existing in many states) mandate insurers pay clean claims within a certain time or face interest penalties. Strict enforcement of these can discourage insurers from delaying payments and burdening providers with cash-flow issues.
* Financial Impact: The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare (CAQH) tracks potential savings from automating transactions. The 2024 CAQH Index found that routine administrative tasks (like eligibility checks, prior auth, claim status inquiries) cost $90 billion annually, and about $20 billion of that could be saved by fully automating and standardizing these workflowscaqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. For example, moving from fax/phone-based processes to standardized electronic transactions can save providers an average of 70 minutes per patient visit in admin timecaqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=patient%20care.%20,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. On a system level, that translates to clinicians having more time for care (or seeing more patients) instead of chasing paperwork. Another analysis (2019) suggested more ambitiously that comprehensive administrative simplification (including rate regulation and fewer payers) could cut administrative costs by '''$50–$100 billion+ per year'''hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=patients,150%20per%20person%20per%20year|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. Even incremental steps – say, reducing billing-related costs by 10% – would save around $50 billion (given the roughly $496B in billing/insurance overheadamericanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>). These resources could be redirected to patient care or used to reduce premiums.

===== Streamlining Insurance and Administrative Overhead =====

Beyond billing transactions, there are broader reforms to reduce the administrative bloat in insurance and provider organizations:
* Administrative Cost Caps (Medical Loss Ratio Expansion): The Affordable Care Act already imposed a medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement on insurers, requiring at least 80–85% of premium dollars be spent on medical care (thus capping admin costs and profit to 15–20%). This has provided some discipline, leading insurers to issue rebates if they over-charge relative to healthcare spending. Policymakers could tighten this further – for instance, require an MLR of 90% for fully insured plans, or extend similar caps to third-party administrators of self-insured plans. Furthermore, one could explore caps on hospital administrative spending: for example, setting a target that no more than, say, 15% of a hospital’s expenditures go to administration (versus the current ~25% averagecommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=,as%20did%20rural%20facilities|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>). While enforcement is tricky, it could be tied to Medicare participation or state hospital regulation – hospitals exceeding the threshold might face penalties or need to submit a reduction plan. At a minimum, public reporting of each hospital’s administrative overhead percentage could create pressure (e.g., why is Hospital A spending 30 cents of every dollar on admin while Hospital B spends 15 cents?). Scotland and Canada spend only ~12% on hospital administrationcommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=,as%20did%20rural%20facilities|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>; if U.S. hospitals moved even partway to that benchmark, savings would be enormous (one 2014 study found '''$150 billion could have been saved in 2011''' if U.S. hospital admin were at Canadian levelscommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Administrative%20costs%20account%20for%2025,than%20%24150%20billion%20in%202011|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=United%20States%20had%20the%20highest,than%20%24150%20billion%20in%202011|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>).
* Billing Simplification for Patients (One Bill System): A related idea is simplifying the patient billing experience. Patients often receive multiple bills (hospital facility, physician, lab, etc.) and EOBs that are hard to decipher. Some health systems have moved to a “single billing” model for patients – consolidating charges so patients see one clear bill. Insurers and providers could collaborate on a system where patients have a single point of contact for any billing questions or disputes, reducing the time patients spend navigating bureaucracy. While this is more about patient experience, it can indirectly reduce administrative work too (fewer phone calls and confusion if billing is clearer).
* Standardized Insurance Product Design: Another contributor to complexity is the proliferation of insurance benefit designs – different copays, formularies, referral rules, etc., which providers must know. Regulators could push for standardized insurance plans (as some ACA marketplaces do) so that key features (like drug tiers or out-of-pocket structures) are uniform. If every insurer’s plan followed a few common designs, providers could manage administrative tasks (like prior auth or referrals) more predictably. This reduces complexity for providers who currently juggle dozens of plan policies.
* Reduce or Reform Prior Authorization: Prior authorization (PA) – requiring insurer approval for certain tests or treatments – is a notorious pain point. While intended to control unnecessary care, it imposes large admin costs. Reform proposals include automating PA processes, making PAs “real-time” for most requests, and selectively applying PA only to outlier providers or services with high misusehamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=Simplify%20prior%20authorization,developed%20using%20information%20gathered%20in|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. In fact, attaching a cost to prior authorization for insurers (e.g., if an insurer requires PA and the service is later approved, the insurer might have to pay the provider a small fee for the extra work) has been suggestedhamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=Simplify%20prior%20authorization,developed%20using%20information%20gathered%20in|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref> to discourage excessive use of PA. In late 2022, CMS proposed a rule to streamline PA for Medicare Advantage and marketplace plans by requiring faster turnaround and electronic submission – such initiatives need to be implemented and enforced. Simplifying or standardizing PA forms and criteria across payers would also cut waste; providers could then check a universal electronic portal to get approvals rather than navigating each insurer’s website and rules.
* Health IT Interoperability: A significant portion of administrative hassle comes from incompatible electronic health record (EHR) systems and lack of data sharing. Doctors often manually transfer information or duplicate tests because records aren’t shared. Federal efforts via the 21st Century Cures Act are pushing for interoperability (through APIs and data standards like FHIR). Achieving true interoperable data systems would streamline many admin tasks – for example, automating insurance eligibility and benefit verification at the point of care, instantly fetching a patient’s coverage details, or automatically pulling prior test results from another provider rather than refaxing records. When data flows easily between providers and payers, administrative staff spend far less time tracking down information. Improved data exchange can reduce care delays and the need for redundant administrative coordinationhamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=Enhance%20data%20interoperability,reduce%20prices%2C%20enable%20physicians%20to|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=Enhance%20data%20interoperability,reduces%20administrative%20costs%20associated%20with|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>, thus lowering costs associated with things like manual record requests or reconciliation of information.
* Fraud and Abuse Prevention vs. Administrative Burden: The U.S. expends a lot on administrative processes to combat fraud (audits, claims review, etc.). While important, some reforms look to balance fraud prevention with simplicity. For instance, targeting fraud enforcement on truly high-risk areas and easing up on low-risk claims can reduce paperwork for honest providers. Some international systems accept a small degree of fraud as a trade-off for simpler processing, whereas the U.S. layers on complex rules that burden everyone. Finding the right balance (via data analytics to catch fraud outliers, rather than blanket requirements on all claims) could cut administrative load without a major cost trade-off.
* Financial Impact: By various estimates, administrative simplification could yield anywhere from $50 billion to over $200 billion in annual savings, depending on the scope of reformsamericanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Administrative%20costs%20account%20for%2025,than%20%24150%20billion%20in%202011|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. A single-payer Medicare for All model is often cited as the extreme case, which might save $200–$300 billion per year in administrative costs by eliminating multi-payer complexity (though such a system has other cost implications)americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=for%20American%20Progress%20estimates%20presented,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. Short of that, achieving even a one-third reduction in billing and insurance overhead (which some incremental reforms might manage over time) would save around $160 billion a year (one-third of ~$496B)americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. The Hamilton Project calculated that a suite of specific administrative reforms (standardized billing, streamlined PA, harmonized quality reporting, and better data sharing) could save about $50 billion per year (roughly $150 per American)hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=patients,150%20per%20person%20per%20year|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=discouragement%20from%20accessing%20health%20care,150%20per%20person%20per%20year|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. These savings manifest as lower operational costs for providers (potentially allowing lower fees) and lower administrative loads for insurers (which could translate to slightly lower premiums if competition forces savings to pass through). Furthermore, less tangibly, physicians would reclaim hours of time – potentially spending more time seeing patients rather than doing clerical work, which could improve productivity and partially address clinician burnout.

===== Learning from International Models =====

Most other high-income countries manage to cover all their residents with far less administrative hassle, offering lessons for U.S. reform:
* Single-Payer or Unified Systems: Countries like Canada or Taiwan use a single public insurance payer, meaning providers bill one entity with one set of rules. Administrative overhead is extremely low – Canada’s single-payer provinces have insurer overhead of around 2% and hospital administrative cost ~12%commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=,as%20did%20rural%20facilities|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. There is no need for armies of billing clerks to navigate multiple payers. Of course, moving the U.S. to a single-payer system would be a massive change, but even steps toward a public option or streamlined public financing could capture some of these efficiencies. For example, expanding traditional Medicare (which has ~2% overhead) to more of the population could lower aggregate admin costs compared to private plans at 15% overhead.
* All-Payer Rate Setting with Simplified Billing: Many multi-payer countries (e.g. Germany, France, Japan) negotiate uniform provider rates and have central billing offices. In France, while there are multiple sickness funds, they all pay hospitals based on the same DRG (diagnosis-related group) rates, and the patient’s insurance card electronically conveys the billing info to the national system. Germany’s doctors have one association per region that handles billing with all sickness funds, so a doctor isn’t sending bills to 100 different insurers – they send to one entity which then manages distribution of funds. This significantly lowers the admin burden on providers. The U.S. could emulate this via all-payer rate setting (so every insurer pays the same amount for a given service), coupled with regional claims clearinghouses.
* Global Budgets for Providers: In nations like Canada or the UK, hospitals are funded via global budgets from the government, much like fire departments. They are not billing per patient at all (for most services), which eliminates the need for complex billing for each band-aid or aspirin. The Commonwealth Fund study noted that U.S. hospitals that engage in per-patient billing require more clerical staff and IT systems, whereas hospitals on lump-sum budgets avoid those costscommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Hospital%20administration%20costs%20ranged%20from,in%20Canada|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=The%20Big%20Picture|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>. Maryland’s global budget experiment similarly showed that if you give a hospital a fixed annual revenue, they can redirect resources away from coding and billing intensity and towards care management. Expanding global budget models (even in forms like capitated payments to health systems for patient populations) could cut admin costs by reducing the micro-accounting of each service.
* IT and Identity Infrastructure: Some countries have national health ID cards and integrated data systems – for example, Estonia’s digital health system allows secure sharing of records and nearly paperless administration for its citizens. Denmark has centralized electronic medical records and a single e-billing portal for all providers. These investments show that with political will, a country can modernize its health IT such that data flows seamlessly, drastically reducing administrative labor like manual data entry or repeated registration forms.
* Culture of Administrative Efficiency: Culturally, many systems prioritize minimizing non-clinical costs. In the U.S., however, a sizeable industry has grown around profiting from complexity (e.g., consultants for coding optimization, revenue cycle management companies, etc.). Learning from abroad might entail policy and cultural shifts to treat excessive admin costs as a failure to be corrected, rather than an inevitable cost of doing business. For instance, Japan keeps admin costs low in part by using uniform fees and not allowing hospitals to up-code for higher reimbursement – thus there’s less incentive to invest in aggressive billing tactics. Adopting some of these philosophies (like paying adequately but simplifying payment categories) could reduce the “arms race” of coding in U.S. healthcare.

===== Private Sector Efforts to Reduce Admin Burden =====

Just as with prices, private stakeholders are taking steps to simplify administration even before any sweeping national reform:
* Provider Practice Consolidation of Admin Tasks: Smaller physician offices often find the administrative load overwhelming. In response, some have joined independent practice associations (IPAs) or accountable care organizations that centralize admin services (e.g., one back-office handles billing for 50 doctors). By sharing admin infrastructure, each provider’s cost goes down due to economies of scale. Similarly, hospitals outsourcing or centralizing certain admin functions (like one central credentialing service for all hospitals in a system) can reduce duplication.
* Technology Solutions (Automation and AI): Tech firms are developing AI tools to automate coding, read documents, and even handle prior auth submissions. For example, optical character recognition and AI can process faxed clinical notes from one provider and auto-fill required fields for an insurance claim or referral, saving staff time. Robotic process automation can take over repetitive tasks like insurance verification. The CAQH Index highlights that transitioning remaining manual transactions (calls, faxes) to electronic could save $20 billioncaqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref> – and as AI improves, it could cut even deeper into the overhead by taking on tasks that currently require human intervention.
* Reducing Administrative Touchpoints: Some insurers are experimenting with approaches like “gold carding” for prior authorization – i.e., if a doctor has a history of appropriate requests, they waive PA requirements for that doctor. This kind of policy, if adopted widely, could eliminate a chunk of the busywork for providers who consistently follow evidence-based practices. Insurers also stand to gain because it improves provider relations and reduces their own admin costs from processing PAs. A few major insurers have announced plans to eliminate nearly 20% of current PA requirements due to provider feedback.
* Member-Friendly Administrative Simplification: On the insurance side, companies are trying to simplify things like claims explanations of benefits (EOBs) and customer service interactions. While this is more about consumer-facing admin rather than provider-facing, it still contributes to overall efficiency. If members can easily understand their coverage and claims, they make fewer calls and appeals, which reduces administrative workload for the insurer.
* Competitive Pressure to Lower Overhead: With rising premiums, large employers are demanding that insurance carriers reduce their administrative costs. Some employers are even moving to self-administration or using third-party administrators who promise lower overhead than traditional insurers. There’s a growing market for more efficient, tech-driven claims administrators (e.g., some startups claim they can run health plan admin with single-digit percent overhead). This competitive pressure may force legacy insurers to cut down on layers of bureaucracy to offer better pricing.
* Financial Impact: While private initiatives individually might have modest effects, together they can improve the system’s efficiency. If AI and automation cut just 5% of current hospital administrative staff costs, that could save on the order of $10–15 billion per year (given hospitals spend >$200B on admincommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=rural%20facilities%20,quality%20care|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>). If insurers streamline and cut their overhead by even 1 percentage point (e.g., from 15% of premium to 14%), that could mean tens of billions saved across the insured population in premiums or rebates. These savings often manifest as slower premium growth or the ability to invest in other areas (like care management). For providers, reducing admin burden frees up physician and nurse time – which, while hard to price, could indirectly improve productivity (more patients seen or more time per patient to improve outcomes). In summary, private sector efforts show that not all solutions need to wait for legislation; many efficiencies can be captured with existing technology and better management, though a supportive policy environment (with clear standards and incentives) can accelerate and amplify these gains.

Conclusion: High medical prices and administrative complexity are deeply intertwined problems making U.S. healthcare financially unsustainable. High prices extract resources from taxpayers, employers, and families, while excessive administrative waste diverts billions that could be used for actual care. The policy and financial analyses above suggest that comprehensive reforms – combining price regulation (or robust market discipline) with administrative simplification – could yield hundreds of billions of dollars in savings annually. Achieving these savings involves trade-offs and careful design: price controls must safeguard quality and access, and admin cuts must not compromise necessary oversight or patient privacy. Nonetheless, the experience of other countries and successful pilot programs domestically demonstrate that it is possible to “bend the cost curve” without harming outcomes, by paying smarter and streamlining how care is delivered and paid for. Policymakers at every level, along with private sector leaders, have an opportunity to implement these solutions. Over time, reining in prices and administrative waste will not only make healthcare more affordable, but also refocus the system’s energies on what truly matters – delivering high-quality, efficient care to patients.

Sources:
# KFF – Health Care Costs and Affordability (2023)kff.org<ref>{{cite web|title=kff.org|url=https://www.kff.org/health-costs/health-policy-101-health-care-costs-and-affordability/#:~:text=The%20U,name%20prescription%20drugs%2C%20hospital|publisher=kff.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>kff.org<ref>{{cite web|title=kff.org|url=https://www.kff.org/health-costs/health-policy-101-health-care-costs-and-affordability/#:~:text=U,large%20and%20wealthy%20countries%20do|publisher=kff.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker – What drives U.S. health spending vs. other countries (2023)healthsystemtracker.org<ref>{{cite web|title=healthsystemtracker.org|url=https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/#:~:text=The%20largest%20category%20of%20health,S|publisher=healthsystemtracker.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>healthsystemtracker.org<ref>{{cite web|title=healthsystemtracker.org|url=https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/#:~:text=Spending%20on%20health%20administration%20is,party%20payers%20and%20programs|publisher=healthsystemtracker.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker – Inpatient/Outpatient costs as main driver of spending gap (2023)healthsystemtracker.org<ref>{{cite web|title=healthsystemtracker.org|url=https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/#:~:text=Image|publisher=healthsystemtracker.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>healthsystemtracker.org<ref>{{cite web|title=healthsystemtracker.org|url=https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/#:~:text=health%20spending%20in%20the%20U,on%20average%20in%20comparable%20countries|publisher=healthsystemtracker.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Milbank Memorial Fund – How States Strengthened Health Care Markets in 2025milbank.org<ref>{{cite web|title=milbank.org|url=https://www.milbank.org/publications/how-states-strengthened-their-health-care-markets-in-the-2025-legislative-session/#:~:text=There%20is%20clear%20evidence%20that,Private%20equity|publisher=milbank.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>milbank.org<ref>{{cite web|title=milbank.org|url=https://www.milbank.org/publications/how-states-strengthened-their-health-care-markets-in-the-2025-legislative-session/#:~:text=In%20June%202025%2C%20Vermont%20became,are%20passed%20along%20to%20ratepayers|publisher=milbank.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Milbank Memorial Fund – State reference-based price caps and savingsmilbank.org<ref>{{cite web|title=milbank.org|url=https://www.milbank.org/publications/how-states-strengthened-their-health-care-markets-in-the-2025-legislative-session/#:~:text=This%20policy%20has%20a%20proven,Advancing%20Health%20Policy%20through%20Research|publisher=milbank.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>milbank.org<ref>{{cite web|title=milbank.org|url=https://www.milbank.org/publications/how-states-strengthened-their-health-care-markets-in-the-2025-legislative-session/#:~:text=Like%20Vermont%2C%20Indiana%20also%20established,nonprofit%20hospital%20fails%20to%20meet|publisher=milbank.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# KFF – Price Regulation, Global Budgets, and Spending Targets (2023)kff.org<ref>{{cite web|title=kff.org|url=https://www.kff.org/health-costs/price-regulation-global-budgets-and-spending-targets-a-road-map-to-reduce-health-care-spending-and-improve-affordability/#:~:text=quality%E2%80%94key%20considerations%20for%20any%20proposal,margin%20services%20or%20care|publisher=kff.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>kff.org<ref>{{cite web|title=kff.org|url=https://www.kff.org/health-costs/price-regulation-global-budgets-and-spending-targets-a-road-map-to-reduce-health-care-spending-and-improve-affordability/#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20lawmakers%20in%20Oregon,costs%2C%20in%20a%20plan%20year|publisher=kff.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Reuters – Medicare drug price negotiations save 36% on 15 medicines (2025)reuters.com<ref>{{cite web|title=reuters.com|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-negotiated-medicare-prices-15-more-drugs-test-cost-savings-promise-2025-11-25/#:~:text=Nov%2025%20%28Reuters%29%20,in%20net%20covered%20prescription%20costs|publisher=reuters.com|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>reuters.com<ref>{{cite web|title=reuters.com|url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-negotiated-medicare-prices-15-more-drugs-test-cost-savings-promise-2025-11-25/#:~:text=Analysts%20said%20they%20will%20also,nation%20pricing%2C%20or%20MFN|publisher=reuters.com|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# NASHP – State policies addressing health care prices (2025)nashp.org<ref>{{cite web|title=nashp.org|url=https://nashp.org/state-legislatures-pursue-policies-to-address-high-health-care-prices/#:~:text=,hospital%20and%20health%20system%20costs|publisher=nashp.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>nashp.org<ref>{{cite web|title=nashp.org|url=https://nashp.org/state-legislatures-pursue-policies-to-address-high-health-care-prices/#:~:text=,health%20plans%20in%20the%20state|publisher=nashp.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Commonwealth Fund – High U.S. Health Care Spending: Where Is It All Going? (2023)commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/oct/high-us-health-care-spending-where-is-it-all-going#:~:text=,and%20peer%20nation%20health%20spending|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# American Progress – Excess Administrative Costs Burden the U.S. Health Care System (2019)americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20health%20care%20payers,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>americanprogress.org<ref>{{cite web|title=americanprogress.org|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/excess-administrative-costs-burden-u-s-health-care-system/#:~:text=addressing%20waste,annually%2C%20according%20to%20CAP%E2%80%99s%20calculations|publisher=americanprogress.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Commonwealth Fund – Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations (2014)commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=,5%20percent%20of%20total%20hospital|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Administrative%20costs%20account%20for%2025,than%20%24150%20billion%20in%202011|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# CAQH – 2024 CAQH Index Highlights (2025)caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>caqh.org<ref>{{cite web|title=caqh.org|url=https://www.caqh.org/blog/new-caqh-index-reveals-20b-savings-opportunity-to-cut-waste-reduce-costs-and-improve-patient-access#:~:text=,efficiency%20and%20the%20patient%20experience|publisher=caqh.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Hamilton Project – Proposal to Reduce Administrative Costs (2022)hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=patients,150%20per%20person%20per%20year|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>hamiltonproject.org<ref>{{cite web|title=hamiltonproject.org|url=https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cutler_PP_LO.pdf#:~:text=The%20Proposal%20Establish%20a%20clearinghouse,automating%20prior%20authorization%20could%20help|publisher=hamiltonproject.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# PGPF – U.S. vs. other country administrative spending (2025)pgpf.org<ref>{{cite web|title=pgpf.org|url=https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries/#:~:text=hospitals%20%E2%80%94%20leading%20to%20a,the%20same%20amount%20on%20both|publisher=pgpf.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>
# Commonwealth Fund – No link between admin costs and quality; global budgeting lowers admincommonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=product%20%28GDP%29%20rose%20from%200,quality%20care|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>commonwealthfund.org<ref>{{cite web|title=commonwealthfund.org|url=https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2014/sep/comparison-hospital-administrative-costs-eight-nations-us#:~:text=Hospital%20administration%20costs%20ranged%20from,in%20Canada|publisher=commonwealthfund.org|access-date=2025-11-30}}</ref>