The Fox Guards the Hen House – Translating AHIP’s Commitments to Streamlining Prior Authorization
Health insurers delayed mandatory reforms, then rebranded them as voluntary pledges
“We urge the Administration to consider the timing of these policies in the context of the broader scope of requirements and challenges facing the industry that require significant system changes.”
AHIP, March 13, 2023 (in a letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure responding to CMS’s proposed rule on Advancing Interoperability and Improving Prior Authorization Processes, proposed Final Rule, CMS-0057-P)
“Health insurance plans today announced a series of commitments to streamline, simplify and reduce prior authorization – a critical safeguard to ensure their members’ care is safe, effective, evidence-based and affordable.”
AHIP, June 23, 2025 (press release announcing voluntary prior authorization reforms)
What a difference two years make.
After lobbying aggressively to delay implementation of the PA reforms proposed by the previous administration (successfully delayed one year and counting), AHIP, the big PR and lobbying group for health insurers, now claims the mantle of reformer, announcing a set of voluntary commitments to streamline prior authorization.
So naturally, the industry’s “commitments” deserve closer scrutiny. Let’s unpack them. As a former health insurance industry executive, I speak their language, so allow me to translate. AHIP, which has no enforcement power, by the way, claims that 48 large insurers will:
Develop and implement standards for electronic prior authorization using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources Application Programming Interfaces (FHIR APIs).
Translation: CMS is already requiring all insurers to do this by 2027. We might as well take credit preemptively.
Reduce the volume of in-network medical authorizations.
Translation: We already demand hundreds of millions of unnecessary prior authorizations for thousands of procedures and services, so cutting a few (who knows how many?) should be a layup and won’t cut into profits.
Enhance continuity of care when patients change health plans by honoring a PA decision for a 90-day transition period starting in 2026.
Translation: We’re already required to do this in Medicare Advantage. And since we delayed implementation of e-authorization until 2027, we’re in the clear until then anyway.
Improve communications by providing members with clear explanations for authorization determinations and support for appeals.
Translation: We’re already required by state and federal law to do this. We’ll double-check our materials.
Ensure 80% of prior authorizations are processed in real time and expand new API standards to all lines of business.
Translation: We had to promise to hold ourselves accountable to at least one measurable goal. We will set the denominator – we’ll decide which procedures and medications require PA – so we’ll hit this goal, no problem, and we might even use more non-human AI algorithms to do it.
6. Ensuring medical review of non-approved requests.
Translation: People will be relieved we’re not using robots. And we’ll avoid having Congress insist that reviews must be done by a same-specialty physician, as proposed in the Reducing Medically Unnecessary Delays in Care Act of 2025 (H.R. 2433).
Of course, I wasn’t in the room when AHIP drafted these commitments, so take my translations with a grain of salt. But let’s be honest: These promises are thin on specifics, short on accountability, and devoid of measurable impact.
They also follow a familiar script, blaming physicians for cost escalation by “deviating from evidence-based care” and the “latest research”, while positioning PA as a necessary safeguard to protect patients from “unsafe or inappropriate care.” And largely ignoring how PA routinely delays necessary treatment and harms patients.
It’s also rich coming from an industry still reliant on something called the X12 transaction standard – technology that is now over 40 years old – to process prior authorization requests, while simultaneously pointing the finger at providers for outdated technology and being slow to adopt modern systems. Many insurers did not start accepting electronic submissions of prior authorization until roughly 2019, nearly 20 years after clinicians started using online portals such as MyChart in their regular practice. The claim that providers are the ones behind on technology is another ploy by insurers to dodge scrutiny for their schemes.
We shouldn’t settle for incremental fixes when the system itself is the problem. Nor should we allow the industry that created this problem - and perpetuates it in its own self-interest - to dictate the pace or terms of reforming it.
As we argued in our recent piece, Congress should act to significantly curtail the use of prior authorization, limiting it to a narrow, evidence-based set of high-risk use cases. Insurers should also be required to rapidly adopt smarter, lower-friction cost-control methods, like gold-carding trusted clinicians (if it can be implemented with integrity and fairness), without compromising patient access or clinical autonomy.
Letting the fox design the hen house's security perimeter won’t protect the hens. It’s time for Congress to build a better fence.
Seth Glickman, MD, is a former insurance and health system senior executive. He now is a researcher and advocate for reform in the health care finance space.
Previous post you might like:
The Leak UnitedHealth Didn’t Want You to See
JUNE 06, 2025
A confidential briefing intended for the C-suite is now public — and it reveals a company more focused on rewarding shareholders than meeting the needs of patients.
By Wendell Potter
Relaxing authorization requirements and minimizing authorization delays is really only half of the problem with insurance companies. With or without authorization being required, insurance companies simply deny payment for a plethora of reasons even when authorization is granted. All payers are very clear that obtaining authorization is not a guarantee of payment. This needs to be addressed in tandem with simplifying and streamlining authorization.
This blog in particular has adopted differing views on authorizations. On one hand, authors support networks and authorizations as an important cost cutting measure to nudge patients to better quality, lower cost care at say, an outpatient surgery center rather than a hospital as part of their disintermediation series. On the other hand there are articles like this which are firmly against prior authorizations. Is the take that prior authorization is good in some cases and not others or only in moderation or what?