An Automated Tug-of-War Over Billing
Artificial intelligence is fueling an administrative arms race across the U.S. healthcare system. Providers are racing to deploy automation to streamline billing and capture revenue, while insurers are countering with their own AI to review, deny, and hold the line. Experts warn that the technology’s impact on total healthcare spending remains unproven, with many digital tools failing to deliver promised cost savings.
The Cycle of Technological Escalation
The integration of AI into the American healthcare back office has created a cycle of technological escalation. Caroline Pearson, executive director of the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI), says providers are increasingly using AI to optimize medical coding and billing processes to maximize revenue. In response, health insurance companies are deploying their own AI systems to conduct reviews and manage prior authorizations.
This dynamic raises a significant concern for policymakers and economists: is AI actually reducing the cost of care, or is it simply accelerating the speed and complexity of financial disputes between providers and payers? The PHTI, which conducts independent evaluations of health technologies, notes that the current focus is often on administrative activity rather than clinical improvement.
Questionable Returns on Digital Investment
The promise of AI often centers on lower costs and better patient outcomes. However, independent research suggests that many digital health solutions do not always meet these expectations.
The PHTI previously conducted a high-profile assessment of digital diabetes management tools, which concluded that these solutions didn’t lower the total cost of care. This finding highlights the importance of rigorous, evidence-based evaluation before widespread adoption. As AI moves into medical billing and prior authorization, the PHTI is continuing its examination of whether these administrative applications can deliver genuine financial efficiency or if they merely redistribute the burden of processing claims.
Fractured Incentives Drive Adoption
The direction of AI development is largely dictated by existing financial incentives. Because the U.S. system is fragmented, the adoption of new tools is often driven by the immediate business needs of individual stakeholders rather than a systemic goal of lowering total healthcare expenditure.
- Provider Incentives: Focus on maximizing reimbursement and reducing the time required to process complex medical codes.
- Payer Incentives: Focus on controlling utilization, auditing claims for potential errors, and holding the line on rising costs through automated denials.
- Policy Implications: The Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, a partnership between the Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF, continues to monitor these trends, providing data on how the healthcare system performs regarding quality and cost.
Whether AI eventually contributes to a higher-performing system depends on policy frameworks that align the interests of providers and insurers with the goal of value-based care.
Assessing the Evidence
Does AI currently lower healthcare costs?
There is little evidence that current AI applications consistently lower total healthcare spending. Evaluations, such as those conducted by the PHTI, suggest that many digital tools increase administrative activity without necessarily reducing the overall cost of care.
Why are insurers using AI in the billing process?
Insurers use AI to automate the review of claims and prior authorization requests. This allows them to manage a higher volume of claims, identify potential billing errors, and enforce coverage policies more efficiently.
What is the role of the Peterson Health Technology Institute?
The PHTI conducts independent, evidence-based evaluations of digital health technologies. Its mission is to determine the clinical and economic impacts of these tools to help move the U.S. toward a system that delivers better care at a lower cost.
Keep reading