In outpatient care, decisions are made quickly.
The prescription will be sent to the pharmacy. A referral to a specialist will be made. An inspection is ordered. From the patient’s perspective, this process feels instant. Care begins immediately after your visit.
But often that’s just the beginning of the story.
Days or weeks later, the system starts asking questions about the same decision. I got a call from the pharmacy because the drug requires prior authorization. The insurance company will review the documentation that supports your claim. The referral will trigger a request for additional notes explaining why the service is needed.
The patient’s condition has not changed. This decision has already entered into force. The patient may already be improving.
But the system is starting to look back.
If you spend enough time practicing medicine, patterns will become apparent. Healthcare is more than just processing clinical decisions on the fly. Instead, revisit them over and over again.
In healthcare administration, it is surprisingly common to determine whether decisions were justified long after they have been made.
This pattern can be seen in almost every part of the system.
“Rating based on inconvenience”: Health insurance companies expect customers not to appeal denials
A few weeks after the service is provided, the insurance claim is denied. Hospitals review medical records several months after patients return home. Insurance companies conduct payment audits long after treatment is performed. Regulators examine records years after care was provided.
Each of these activities is designed to answer the same basic question: “Was the initial decision justified?”
From the outside looking in, this often looks like bureaucratic inefficiency. From within the system, it begins to resemble something more structural.
Medical institutions are very good at recording what happens. Electronic medical records contain highly detailed information about clinical encounters. However, once the system is put into operation, it is rarely certain whether the decision is justified or not.
Instead, legitimacy is often determined in hindsight through a complex network of audits, document reviews, repudiations, appeals, and compliance checks.
This may be thought of as a layer of medical restructuring. Long after a clinical decision initiates an event, a second system is activated to verify whether the decision satisfies the rules.
Entire sectors of the health economy are built around this process. The utilization management team reviews treatment decisions. A coding specialist analyzes the document. Claims auditors examine billing records. The compliance department reviews the chart.
Each group performs different tasks, but all participate in the same broad activity: reconstructing the circumstances surrounding decisions that have already taken effect.
The results are familiar to clinicians and patients.
The patient left the clinic intending to pick up the medication on the way home, only to learn that authorization was still required. The referral of an expert triggers a request for additional documentation explaining the decisions already made in the laboratory. Applications submitted weeks in advance are later rejected because the examiner interpreted the document differently.
None of this changes the clinical moment in which the decision was made. But it creates a system that spends a tremendous amount of energy revisiting that moment.
This helps explain why administrative costs in U.S. health care remain high despite decades of investment in digital technology.
Healthcare is more than just processing transactions. They say they are conducting repeated inspections.
This issue becomes even more interesting as artificial intelligence begins to enter clinical workflows. Many expect AI tools to significantly reduce administrative burden by automating tasks such as documentation, coding, and chart review.
You may find these improvements useful. However, automation alone cannot eliminate structural patterns in which systems wait to determine legitimacy long after an action has occurred.
If health care continues to rely on reconstruction after the fact, new technologies will simply accelerate decisions being made quickly, without addressing the fundamental question of when those decisions can be trusted.
Insurance companies pose a new threat to American health care
Other industries solved versions of this problem long ago. For example, financial markets rely on systems designed to settle transactions the moment they occur. Once a transaction is executed, downstream institutions can rely on that event without having to revisit the question of whether the transaction itself is legal.
Medicine has evolved differently. Systems record vast details about decisions, but the moment those decisions are finally verified is often postponed. This choice shapes much of the administrative complexity that clinicians and patients experience today.
There are ways this could evolve. Healthcare could begin to move much of its validation work closer to the point where decisions are made. Rather than relying heavily on retrospective reviews, the system can document, approve, and adjust clinical status in real time while decisions are still active and fully understood.
This would require significant changes to the way the system defines when a decision is finalized.
Without this change, the path forward would be much the same. This means faster decision-making followed by expanded layers of consideration. And a system that keeps looking back even as everything else speeds up.
Dr. Holland Haney is a family physician and chief medical officer at Central Ozarks Medical Center in Missouri.
