In the highly regulated environment of health insurance, the appeals and grievances process often serves as more than a compliance mechanism. When a health plan denies coverage for a necessary service or a member experiences poor care, the formal dispute process becomes a critical measure of how seriously that plan treats accountability and trust. These moments often emerge at times of urgency or distress, making the process not just procedural but deeply personal. How a plan handles these disputes reflects its broader values—and its willingness to correct course when mistakes occur.
An appeal is a member or provider initiated request to have a denied claim or benefit decision reconsidered, usually regarding issues like prior authorization or eligibility. A grievance refers to a complaint about the delivery of care or customer service, whether from the health plan itself or a contracted provider. These mechanisms are not merely regulatory obligations. They are windows into whether a health plan listens and responds when something has gone wrong.
Challenges Reflected in the Numbers
Every year, health insurers process hundreds of millions of claims. Many are straightforward, and others are rejected or delayed, triggering frustration. But very few rejections are formally challenged.
In 2023, insurers denied 19 percent of in-network claims. Only 1 percent of those denials were appealed. Among the appeals submitted, 56 percent were rejected, meaning the original denial stood.1
These figures point to deeper flaws. If members do not know the process exists or find it too intimidating to pursue, then the system may not be functioning as intended. Low engagement does not always reflect satisfaction—it often reflects confusion, mistrust, or fatigue. The burden of navigating a complex process falls on people already managing illness or uncertainty, which can discourage even valid appeals from being filed.
The Human Cost
The technical complexity of appeal workflows often obscures the personal stakes. These are not abstract policy disputes. Many members file appeals during deeply vulnerable moments—when a cancer therapy has been denied, or when a child is waiting for behavioral health services and time feels urgent.
Yet many health plans operate processes that are fragmented and rigid. Letters explaining denials are often dense and difficult to interpret. The process for submitting appeals may require printing and mailing documents, tracking multiple deadlines, or enduring long hold times with customer service. Real-time updates are rare, and timelines can stretch weeks or months with little visibility along the way.
This lack of clarity can amplify stress at a time when members are already navigating complex medical, emotional, or financial pressures. For many, it becomes easier to give up than to push forward—leading to delayed care, unnecessary costs, or worsening conditions. What was intended as a safeguard can, in practice, deepen harm.
Technology as Tool
To address these shortcomings, insurers are increasingly exploring automation and AI-driven solutions. Document processing tools and predictive analytics are being introduced to streamline operations and improve regulatory compliance.
These tools offer real benefits. AI systems can identify repeat grievances across departments, and flag cases likely to require escalation. When integrated responsibly, such platforms reduce administrative burden and allow human reviewers to focus on the most complex or sensitive cases.
But automation alone cannot fix trust. AI models trained on biased or incomplete data can reinforce disparities in care and coverage. Technology that lacks transparency may reduce turnaround time while also distancing plans from the members they serve. Empathy cannot be coded. And no platform—no matter how efficient—can replicate the reassurance provided by a clinician or caseworker taking the time to explain a decision and listen to a concern.
Building Better Systems
Reforming the appeals and grievances experience begins with treating it as a service, not just a safeguard. Health plans that aim to retain members and maintain compliance should apply the same design thinking and strategic investment to dispute resolution as they do to care coordination.
Several principles offer a foundation for a better model:
- Clarity - Decision letters must use plain language and cite the exact reason for a denial. Vague or legalistic phrasing undermines understanding and increases frustration.
- Accessibility - Members should be able to file appeals online or over the phone, without barriers created by outdated or inaccessible systems. Portals must be mobile-compatible and available in multiple languages. Support staff should be trained not only in regulations, but in trauma-informed communication that acknowledges the emotional weight many members carry when seeking help. Just as importantly, service must be reachable—members should not have to wait hours on hold or navigate endless transfers to speak to someone who can assist. When access is delayed, the system fails before the appeal even begins.
- Accountability - Regular analysis of grievances and appeal outcomes can surface trends, including departments with recurring issues or policies that lead to high overturn rates. Plans should integrate these findings into continuous quality improvement efforts.
- Compassion - Each grievance filed reflects a gap in service and communication. Reviewing that case with care sends a signal that the member's experience matters, even when the ultimate decision cannot be changed.
When these processes fail, the consequences extend beyond any single case. Members who feel dismissed may disengage from the healthcare system entirely. Delayed care can lead to complications or preventable hospitalizations and these are costs borne by public systems and families. Dissatisfaction can ripple outward, influencing network reputation and member retention.
Health plans cannot afford to treat appeals and grievances as back-office obligations. These systems are among the most direct reflections of whether a plan hears and acts on its members’ concerns. When functioning well, they resolve problems early and prevent litigation that can inform stronger, more equitable operations.
The appeals and grievances process is more than a means of dispute resolution. It is a litmus test of a health plan’s values. A plan that engages seriously with its members' complaints is one that learns from its failures and evolves to meet changing needs. The system will never eliminate all conflict. But it can be designed to respond with fairness and dignity. In an era when trust in institutions is fragile, that kind of system is a competitive advantage and a moral imperative. It signals that the plan is not just administering coverage—it is earning confidence, one decision at a time. And in healthcare, few things matter more than knowing someone is willing to listen.
1KFF