We Trained Doctors to Save Lives. Then We Made Them Professional Clickers.

The healthcare system has become remarkably efficient at creating problems—and increasingly sophisticated at selling solutions to the problems it created.

“The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.” —Sir William Osler

The Doctor Isn’t Ignoring You. The Computer Has Taken You Hostage.

Here’s a strange thought.

What if your doctor is spending more time proving that you received care than actually caring for you?

Picture your last doctor’s appointment.

You’re sitting on an examination table wearing a paper gown that somehow manages to be both uncomfortable and completely useless against the cold.

Your doctor walks in.

You exchange greetings.

Then comes the third person in the room.

The computer.

Your doctor asks about your symptoms while typing. You explain your concerns while your doctor clicks through menus. You mention something important, and your doctor pauses to find the right field in the electronic medical record.

You came for medical attention.

The computer seems to be getting most of it.

Naturally, you wonder whether your doctor is distracted, rushed, or simply uninterested.

Now consider what you cannot see.

That physician may have started the morning with a mountain of electronic messages, unfinished notes, prescription requests, laboratory results, insurance questions, and prior authorization problems.

The doctor is trying to take care of you while simultaneously satisfying a system that demands evidence of nearly everything.

The patient thinks the doctor doesn’t care. The doctor wonders when caring became a clerical occupation.

And the computer?

It never complains.

It just asks for another click.

Welcome to modern healthcare, where we have invented technology to save time and somehow made everyone busier.

The problem is not that doctors dislike documentation.

Documentation is essential.

The problem is that documentation has gradually become a competing occupation.

We trained physicians to recognize disease, make difficult decisions, and guide patients through uncertainty.

Then we surrounded them with administrative requirements that demand constant attention.

And when physicians became exhausted, we introduced wellness programs.

Think about that.

We created a workload problem and offered meditation as the solution.

Meditation has value.

But it cannot fix a broken insurance workflow.

It cannot prevent a claim denial.

And it certainly cannot make an unnecessary electronic message disappear.

As a physician and founder of OnnX, I believe healthcare needs to ask a different question.

Not how we can make doctors tolerate more administrative work.

How can we eliminate the administrative work that never needed to exist?

That question connects three problems we usually discuss separately: physician burnout, medical billing denials, and the survival of independent medical practices.

And the connection is more important than most people realize.

The Great Healthcare Paradox: More Technology, Less Time

Healthcare has a fascinating relationship with innovation.

We can perform robotic surgery.

We can identify subtle abnormalities using advanced medical imaging.

We can analyze enormous amounts of clinical information.

We can even use artificial intelligence to help interpret complex data.

But ask a physician to obtain insurance authorization for a routine service, and suddenly the future looks suspiciously like 1995.

Fax machines still have remarkable job security.

The contradiction is difficult to ignore.

Medicine has entered the age of artificial intelligence while healthcare administration remains emotionally attached to the fax machine.

Technology itself is not the villain.

Electronic health records have improved access to information, legibility, communication, and coordination.

The problem is what happens when technology is introduced without redesigning the work around it.

A paper form becomes an electronic form.

A telephone call becomes a portal message.

A filing cabinet becomes a digital inbox.

The old work survives.

Now it arrives faster.

And sometimes it multiplies.

Digitizing a bad process does not make it a good process. It makes it a digital bad process.

Consider the electronic health record inbox.

A physician receives laboratory results, specialist notes, hospital notifications, prescription renewals, patient questions, and administrative requests.

Some require immediate clinical judgment.

Others are routine.

Still others may be duplicates, informational updates, or messages routed to the wrong person.

But the physician often must inspect the message before determining whether it matters.

Imagine receiving 100 emails daily, except you cannot safely ignore any of them because one might contain a critical clinical finding.

That is not ordinary email.

That is a constant test of attention.

And attention is not unlimited.

Every interruption competes with the patient sitting in front of the physician.

The irony?

We built electronic systems to make information accessible, then made physicians responsible for personally navigating too much of it.

More information is not always better information.

And more notifications do not necessarily produce better care.

Sometimes they produce more exhausted doctors.

The Statistics: When the Numbers Start Sounding Like Satire

The administrative burden in healthcare is not merely a collection of frustrating anecdotes.

Research has repeatedly identified significant demands associated with electronic records, documentation, and clinical communication.

Consider several findings.

36 minutes of electronic record work for a 30-minute visit.

Research discussed by the American Medical Association found that primary care physicians in a studied setting spent approximately 36 minutes working in the electronic health record for every 30-minute patient visit.

The exact burden varies across practices and specialties.

But the underlying contradiction is clear.

A half-hour appointment can generate more than a half-hour of computer work.

Apparently, healthcare has discovered how to make 30 minutes last 66.

Unfortunately, physicians cannot bill the laws of physics for overtime.

A 2026 study published in JMIR Human Factors reported that among surveyed Ontario physicians, 74.6% identified managing reports received through electronic records among their three most burdensome administrative tasks.

Another 65.1% identified managing patient-care communications, and 54.2% identified entering patient data.

These activities can be clinically important.

The problem is their cumulative burden.

The same research discussed Canadian Medical Association survey findings indicating that the proportion of respondents reporting moderately high or excessive electronic-record administrative work outside regular hours increased from 36% in 2017 to 64% in 2025.

That brings us to one of medicine’s least glamorous traditions.

Pajama-time charting.

The physician sees patients all day.

Goes home.

Has dinner.

Spends time with family.

Then opens the laptop to finish the work that could not fit into the workday.

Imagine telling a restaurant chef that after cooking dinner for 100 customers, they must go home and spend another two hours proving that the meals were prepared correctly.

We would call that absurd.

In healthcare, we call it documentation.

Of course, clinical records are necessary for safety, continuity, accountability, and reimbursement.

But necessity does not justify every inefficiency.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis involving 41 studies and 54,443 healthcare professionals also reported a significant association between electronic health record use and occupational burnout.

The pooled odds ratio was 2.49, although results varied across analyses and study designs.

That does not establish that electronic records alone cause burnout.

It does, however, reinforce an important observation.

When the tools designed to support professionals become major sources of frustration, the design deserves scrutiny.

We should stop asking only whether physicians are resilient enough.

We should also ask whether the system is reasonable enough.

The First Contrarian Lesson: Stop Automating Work That Shouldn’t Exist

One of the most useful lessons from healthcare workflow improvement is surprisingly simple.

Before making a task faster, ask whether the task is necessary.

This sounds obvious.

Yet much of the healthcare technology industry is built around accelerating existing work.

Faster documentation.

Faster claim submission.

Faster denial appeals.

Faster message responses.

Faster prior authorization processing.

Speed is valuable.

But speed is not the same as progress.

Imagine a physician receiving 50 unnecessary notifications every day.

A technology company develops artificial intelligence that helps the physician review each notification twice as fast.

Wonderful.

The physician is now wasting time more efficiently.

What if the better solution is to eliminate the unnecessary notifications?

That is a different kind of innovation.

One improves the processing of waste.

The other removes the waste.

The best automation may be the task you no longer need to automate.

This principle is reflected in a workflow framework associated with Atrius Health:

Eliminate. Automate. Delegate. Collaborate.

Four ordinary words.

But together, they challenge much of how healthcare approaches operational improvement.

Eliminate: The most underrated form of innovation

At Atrius Health, efforts to redesign electronic inbox workflows included improving message routing and reducing unnecessary notifications.

Instead of requiring physicians to process every incoming item, teams examined why messages arrived and whether they belonged there.

Consider a specialist ordering a laboratory test.

If the result is routed unnecessarily to the primary care physician rather than directly to the responsible ordering clinician, the system creates extra work and potential confusion.

The solution is not necessarily a better message-reading tool.

It is better routing.

Sending information to everyone is not coordination. Sometimes it is simply distributing confusion.

The same principle applies to billing.

If an insurance eligibility problem can be detected before an appointment, why wait until the claim is rejected?

If an authorization requirement is known before a procedure, why discover it afterward?

If documentation is incomplete, why allow the claim to travel through multiple systems before anyone notices?

Elimination begins by identifying unnecessary steps and preventable defects.

Automate: Give computers the repetitive work

Automation makes sense when tasks are predictable, rules-based, and appropriately supervised.

Insurance eligibility verification.

Missing demographic fields.

Claim-format validation.

Authorization status tracking.

Routine administrative routing.

These are promising areas.

But automation must respect clinical context.

A laboratory result within a reference range is not automatically clinically insignificant.

A claim that passes technical edits is not automatically payable.

And an AI-generated note is not automatically accurate.

Computers are excellent at following rules. Medicine is full of situations where the rules require judgment.

The goal is not to remove clinicians from clinical decisions.

It is to stop requiring clinicians to perform work that does not require their expertise.

Delegate: Stop making the most expensive professional perform every task

Imagine a hospital hiring a highly trained surgeon and then requiring that surgeon to personally schedule every appointment, verify every insurance policy, and answer every routine administrative message.

Nobody would call that efficient.

Yet healthcare often creates similar inefficiencies through fragmented workflows.

Appropriately trained staff can manage many administrative tasks.

Nurses can triage clinical concerns within their professional scope and approved protocols.

Billing specialists can resolve technical claim issues.

Physicians can focus on work requiring medical judgment.

Delegation is not about avoiding responsibility.

It is about assigning responsibility intelligently.

A physician’s medical degree should not be a prerequisite for clicking an administrative checkbox.

Collaborate: Replace departmental success with patient-centered success

A front desk can complete registration.

A physician can complete documentation.

A coder can assign codes.

A biller can submit the claim.

And the claim can still be denied.

Why?

Because everyone completed their task, but the information did not move reliably between them.

This is the difference between individual productivity and system performance.

A team can be full of hardworking people and still operate through a broken process.

The solution requires shared accountability, clear handoffs, and feedback between clinical and administrative teams.

The Second Contrarian Lesson: Medical Billing Is Not Just a Billing Problem

Now we reach the part of healthcare that rarely appears in inspirational medical school speeches.

Medical billing.

Nobody enters medical school dreaming of becoming an expert in insurance eligibility, procedure modifiers, or claim denial codes.

Yet these details can determine whether a medical practice gets paid.

And whether it survives.

Here’s the contradiction.

A physician can deliver excellent medical care.

The patient can improve.

The clinical documentation can describe an appropriate service.

And the insurance claim can still be denied.

Sometimes because the payer disputes coverage or medical necessity.

Sometimes because of incorrect coding.

Sometimes because of missing authorization.

And sometimes because a small administrative error occurred before the physician ever entered the examination room.

The patient got better. The paperwork got rejected.

Welcome to a system where a successful medical encounter can become an unsuccessful financial transaction.

This is why I believe we need to rethink revenue cycle management.

Traditionally, revenue cycle management follows the financial journey from patient registration to final payment.

That definition is useful.

But it can encourage organizations to focus on what happens after a claim is submitted.

Claims processing.

Denial management.

Appeals.

Collections.

Accounts receivable.

All essential.

But consider the earlier stages.

Was the patient’s insurance verified?

Was the correct payer identified?

Was authorization required?

Was the authorization valid for the actual service?

Was the documentation complete?

Were the procedure and diagnosis codes appropriate?

Were the required modifiers applied correctly?

Many downstream billing problems begin as upstream information problems.

That insight changes where improvement should begin.

Instead of asking only how to recover denied claims faster, ask how to prevent avoidable denials.

Instead of asking how many appeals the billing team completed, ask how many appeals could have been unnecessary.

Instead of celebrating the recovery of delayed revenue, ask why the revenue was delayed.

Denial management treats the symptom. Denial prevention addresses the cause.

Both are necessary.

But prevention deserves a larger role in the conversation.

A Story Every Independent Physician Owner Will Recognize

Imagine an independent physician in a busy community clinic.

Let’s call the physician Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee sees patients all day.

The schedule is full.

Patients appreciate the care.

The staff works hard.

The clinic looks successful.

But something strange is happening.

The practice is busy.

The bank account is not.

Every month, the billing team reports outstanding claims.

Some are waiting for payment.

Others require corrections.

Some have been denied.

The physician is asked to clarify documentation.

The front desk is asked to verify old insurance information.

The billing staff spends hours contacting payers.

The same problems keep returning.

Dr. Lee decides to hire another billing specialist.

That seems logical.

More work requires more people.

But three months later, the same problems remain.

There are simply more people working on them.

The clinic did not solve the problem. It expanded the department responsible for managing it.

Now imagine a different approach.

Dr. Lee reviews the recurring claim failures.

A pattern emerges.

Certain insurance policies are not being verified consistently.

Authorization requirements are discovered too late.

A small number of documentation gaps generate repeated clarification requests.

The clinic redesigns those workflows.

It establishes clear ownership.

It introduces pre-submission checks.

It measures whether the errors decline.

The goal is not to make the billing team work harder.

It is to give the billing team fewer preventable problems.

This is a hypothetical example, not a verified case study.

But the underlying pattern is familiar across many operational settings.

A business can become highly skilled at cleaning up mistakes while remaining surprisingly ineffective at preventing them.

That is not a staffing problem alone.

It is a design problem.

Three Expert Perspectives: What Healthcare Leaders Should Be Asking

The most useful insights often come from experts who examine different parts of the same problem.

Here are three perspectives that help connect physician workload, digital systems, and administrative reform.

1. Dr. Christine Sinsky: Measure the work that happens after the workday

Dr. Christine Sinsky’s work in physician well-being and practice transformation has helped draw attention to how physicians spend their time.

The key operational lesson is that the scheduled clinic day does not necessarily reflect the full working day.

A physician may see patients for eight hours while completing additional administrative work before or after those appointments.

If an organization measures only patient volume, it may overlook the hidden workload supporting that volume.

My takeaway: A full appointment schedule can conceal an unsustainable operating model.

For practice owners, the practical question is simple.

How many hours of physician work occur outside the appointment schedule?

Measure them.

Then ask which activities genuinely require physician expertise.

2. Dr. Julia Adler-Milstein: Information availability is not information usefulness

Dr. Julia Adler-Milstein’s research in health informatics and interoperability helps illuminate the gap between having digital information and making it useful.

A medical record can contain thousands of data points.

That does not mean the clinician can find the right information efficiently.

A laboratory result can be transmitted electronically.

That does not mean it reaches the correct person.

An authorization request can be submitted digitally.

That does not mean the information is complete.

My takeaway: More data does not create better decisions unless the right information reaches the right person at the right time.

For independent practices, this suggests examining duplicate data entry, unnecessary handoffs, and poor integration between electronic systems.

3. Dr. Mehmet Oz and CMS: Administrative modernization needs operational readiness

Under CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, federal healthcare policy continues to intersect with ongoing efforts to improve electronic information exchange and administrative processes.

CMS’s prior authorization and interoperability requirements create opportunities for more standardized workflows.

But new technical standards do not automatically produce efficient operations.

A practice still needs reliable patient information, correct documentation, and clear responsibility for authorization requests.

My takeaway: Government can change the rules of the road, but healthcare organizations still need to learn how to drive more efficiently.

These three perspectives point toward the same conclusion.

The problem is not simply too much paperwork.

It is the way information, responsibility, and technology interact.

Recent News: AI Is Learning to Write Faster. Doctors Are Still Working Late.

One of the most interesting healthcare technology stories in early November 2026 concerned artificial intelligence and patient portal messaging.

A November 2 report from TechTarget discussed research involving AI-generated draft responses to patient messages.

The technology could help clinicians compose replies more efficiently.

But it did not meaningfully eliminate the broader burden of after-hours messaging.

That is not an argument against AI.

It is a reminder that task efficiency and workload reduction are not the same thing.

Suppose a physician receives 80 messages.

AI cuts the time needed to draft each response.

That is useful.

But if the physician still must read, evaluate, verify, and approve every response, the inbox remains a major responsibility.

And if message volume increases because communication becomes easier, some of the time savings may disappear.

This is the healthcare version of buying a faster treadmill.

You may be moving faster.

But you are still in the same place.

The next frontier in healthcare AI should not be merely answering more messages. It should be understanding why so many messages require physician attention.

The same lesson applies to billing.

AI can help draft appeals.

It can classify denial reasons.

It can identify missing information.

It can support coding review.

These capabilities may create real value.

But an AI system that generates appeals faster does not automatically reduce the number of denials.

And that distinction matters.

The most impressive AI may not be the one that wins the argument with the insurance company. It may be the one that helps prevent an unnecessary argument.

What the 2026–2027 prior authorization reforms mean

CMS has established requirements intended to improve prior authorization transparency, response times, and electronic exchange for specified payers and services.

Certain operational requirements began in 2026, with major application programming interface requirements generally scheduled for 2027.

The rule includes specified decision timeframes of 72 hours for expedited requests and seven calendar days for standard requests, subject to applicable scope and exceptions.

These reforms may reduce some administrative friction.

But they do not eliminate the need for accurate submissions.

An incomplete authorization request submitted electronically remains incomplete.

A wrong payer selected automatically remains the wrong payer.

Technology can move bad information at extraordinary speed. That does not make the information better.

Ten Practical Changes That Could Make a Bigger Difference Than Another Software Subscription

Before purchasing another platform, independent practices should consider ten operational questions.

1. Where does the same mistake keep happening?

Review recurring denials, registration errors, authorization failures, and documentation requests.

Do not treat every incident as unrelated.

Patterns often reveal structural problems.

Action: Identify the five most frequent preventable failures and assign someone to investigate their root causes.

2. Which tasks should never reach the physician?

Not every administrative request requires medical judgment.

Action: Review physician inbox categories and develop safe routing rules with appropriate clinical oversight.

3. Are we verifying insurance early enough?

Eligibility and coverage problems discovered after services are delivered can create unnecessary complications.

Action: Verify eligibility before appointments when practical, and establish a process for resolving exceptions.

4. Are authorization requirements checked before treatment?

Authorization delays can affect both care delivery and reimbursement.

Action: Create a shared authorization tracker with clear ownership and escalation procedures.

5. Are we measuring preventable denials or merely total denials?

A denial caused by incomplete registration is different from a disputed payer medical necessity decision.

Action: Separate internal process failures from external payer disputes.

6. Are we asking physicians to correct problems created elsewhere?

Physician clarification requests may be necessary, but recurring requests can indicate upstream workflow defects.

Action: Track the reasons for documentation clarification and address avoidable patterns.

7. Does our billing team have a feedback loop with the front desk?

Billing teams often discover errors that originated during registration.

But the people responsible for registration may never learn about them.

Action: Establish a short monthly meeting to review recurring errors and preventive changes.

8. Are we measuring the cost of rework?

A recovered claim is not automatically a profitable success.

The recovery may require substantial staff time.

Action: Estimate rework hours per denied claim and monitor whether that burden declines.

9. Does our technology reduce work or relocate it?

A tool that saves physician time while creating excessive nursing workload may not improve overall efficiency.

Action: Evaluate total team workload before and after implementation.

10. What would happen if we eliminated one recurring problem permanently?

This is the question I would ask at every operational meeting.

Action: Choose one preventable problem each month and test a specific intervention.

Because the goal is not to become better at fixing the same mistake.

The goal is to stop needing to fix it.

A 90-Day Plan: Stop Admiring the Problem and Start Redesigning It

Healthcare organizations can spend years discussing administrative inefficiency.

Sometimes the problem becomes so familiar that everyone accepts it as normal.

That is dangerous.

A recurring problem does not become a best practice simply because everyone has learned to live with it.

Independent practices do not need to redesign everything at once.

They can start with a focused 90-day improvement project.

Days 1–15: Find the friction

Measure physician administrative time, claim denials, accounts receivable aging, authorization delays, and staff rework.

Interview the people who perform the work.

Ask what they repeatedly fix.

Goal: Establish a baseline and identify the most expensive recurring failures.

Days 16–30: Follow the information

Choose one recurring problem.

Trace it backward.

Where did the error begin?

Who first entered the information?

When could the problem have been detected?

Why was it not corrected earlier?

Goal: Identify the earliest practical prevention point.

Days 31–45: Redesign the workflow

Clarify responsibilities.

Remove unnecessary steps.

Create reliable verification checkpoints.

Define escalation procedures.

Goal: Prevent the error before it moves downstream.

Days 46–60: Test the change

Pilot the new workflow in a limited setting.

Measure error rates, staff time, patient impact, and unexpected consequences.

Goal: Determine whether the intervention works in actual practice.

Days 61–75: Improve the process

Ask staff what worked and what did not.

Adjust instructions.

Address exceptions.

Consider automation only after the workflow becomes reliable.

Goal: Build a process that staff can sustain.

Days 76–90: Decide whether to expand

Compare results against the baseline.

Did preventable denials decline?

Did rework decrease?

Did physician interruptions improve?

Did cash flow become more predictable?

Were patient safety and care quality maintained?

Goal: Expand only when the evidence supports expansion.

The point is not to create another impressive project report.

It is to make daily work meaningfully easier.

Healthcare does not need more meetings about efficiency. It needs fewer reasons to hold those meetings.

The Metrics That Matter: Stop Confusing Activity With Progress

Healthcare dashboards can display dozens of metrics.

But not every number deserves equal attention.

A practice may report thousands of processed claims.

That tells us something about activity.

It tells us less about quality.

A billing team may report hundreds of resolved denials.

That may demonstrate effective recovery work.

But it does not establish that the underlying process is improving.

I would prioritize several measures.

First-pass claim acceptance: How many claims pass initial submission checks without correction?

Denial rate: How frequently are claims denied, and why?

Preventable denial rate: How many denials arise from issues the practice could reasonably have avoided?

Days in accounts receivable: How long does the practice take to collect payment?

Accounts receivable older than 90 days: How much outstanding revenue is aging beyond expected processing periods?

Rework hours: How much staff time is spent correcting errors after the initial workflow?

Authorization delays: How often do administrative requirements postpone treatment or payment?

Physician administrative time: How much work occurs outside direct patient care?

A first-pass acceptance rate above 95%, a denial rate near 5%, and days in accounts receivable below 45 may serve as useful internal improvement goals for some practices.

They are not universal industry standards, and appropriate targets depend on specialty, payer mix, and measurement definitions.

The important issue is consistency.

Track the same measures over time.

Investigate changes.

Connect operational performance to patient care and staff workload.

The best dashboard is not the one showing how much work everyone completed. It is the one showing how much unnecessary work has disappeared.

Seven Healthcare Myths That Deserve an Early Retirement

Myth 1: Doctors are burned out because they cannot manage stress.

Reality: Stress management matters, but it cannot eliminate excessive documentation, fragmented systems, and unnecessary administrative requirements.

A physician does not need a breathing exercise to fix a missing authorization.

Myth 2: More software means greater efficiency.

Reality: More software can mean more passwords, more dashboards, more notifications, and more duplicated work.

Sometimes the best technology investment is better integration between systems already in place.

Myth 3: Medical billing problems begin in the billing department.

Reality: Many preventable errors originate during registration, eligibility verification, authorization, or documentation.

By the time the billing department discovers them, the damage may already be done.

Myth 4: A high claim recovery rate means excellent revenue cycle management.

Reality: Recovery is important, but a high volume of recoverable denials may indicate preventable upstream failures.

Winning the same argument repeatedly is not necessarily a sign of progress.

Myth 5: Artificial intelligence will automatically solve physician burnout.

Reality: AI can reduce certain tasks, but it can also introduce review requirements, new alerts, and additional workflow complexity.

The outcome depends on implementation.

Myth 6: Outsourcing billing eliminates administrative problems.

Reality: Outsourcing may provide expertise and capacity, but inaccurate upstream information can still create denials and rework.

The external team cannot reliably repair information it never receives.

Myth 7: A busy practice must be a successful practice.

Reality: High patient volume does not guarantee reliable collections, healthy margins, manageable workloads, or satisfied patients.

A full waiting room and an empty bank account can coexist.

That is not a business model anyone should celebrate.

The Legal Reality: A Faster Mistake Can Still Be a Very Expensive Mistake

Administrative automation introduces important legal and regulatory considerations.

Practices should evaluate HIPAA, data security, payer contracts, coding compliance, and professional responsibility before deploying new systems.

Artificial intelligence may process protected health information.

That creates questions about access, retention, vendor responsibilities, security safeguards, and appropriate business associate agreements.

Automated coding tools must not fabricate clinical information or encourage unsupported billing.

Clinical delegation must comply with applicable professional licensing and scope-of-practice requirements.

Billing automation must account for the False Claims Act, payer policies, and other relevant compliance obligations.

And prior authorization workflows must follow applicable rules without creating inappropriate barriers to care.

The principle is simple.

Efficiency does not excuse inaccuracy. Automation does not eliminate accountability.

A wrong claim submitted manually is a problem.

A wrong claim submitted automatically at scale may become a much larger problem.

Healthcare technology should therefore be designed around prevention, validation, human oversight, and auditability.

Not merely speed.

The Ethical Question Nobody Should Ignore: Who Benefits From Efficiency?

Suppose an AI system reduces documentation time.

That sounds promising.

But what happens to the saved time?

Does the physician spend more time listening to patients?

Does the practice reduce after-hours work?

Does the team become less overwhelmed?

Or does the organization simply add more appointments to the schedule?

This is not an argument against productivity.

It is an argument for being clear about the purpose of productivity.

If technology saves a physician ten minutes and the system immediately fills those ten minutes with more administrative work, what exactly have we improved?

Efficiency should support better care, sustainable workloads, and responsible financial performance.

It should not become an excuse to remove every moment of flexibility from clinical practice.

Ethical implementation also requires attention to patient privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency, and clinical accountability.

AI-generated content can contain errors.

Automated systems can misclassify unusual cases.

Patients with complex needs may not fit standardized workflows.

Human oversight remains essential.

And financial optimization must never override medical necessity or patient welfare.

The purpose of medicine is not to maximize the number of transactions per hour. It is to improve human health.

The business of healthcare must remain sustainable.

But sustainability is a means of supporting care, not a substitute for its purpose.

The Next Healthcare Revolution May Be Surprisingly Boring

When people imagine the future of healthcare, they picture extraordinary technologies.

Robotic surgery.

Personalized medicine.

Artificial intelligence diagnosing rare diseases.

Digital twins.

Predictive analytics.

These developments are exciting.

But I suspect some of the most valuable innovations for independent practices will look much less dramatic.

A patient arrives with the correct insurance information already verified.

The authorization is completed before treatment.

The physician documents the encounter without unnecessary duplication.

The claim is checked for missing information before submission.

The correct payer receives the correct claim.

Payment arrives without avoidable rework.

No emergency billing meeting.

No frantic appeal.

No mysterious missing modifier.

No physician reopening the record at 10 p.m. to correct an administrative detail.

Nothing dramatic happens.

And that is precisely the point.

The greatest operational innovation may be the problem nobody has to solve.

This is the direction I believe healthcare technology should pursue.

Not simply more powerful tools for processing administrative complexity.

But better systems that reduce complexity at its source.

For medical billing, that means moving intelligence upstream.

For electronic records, it means reducing unnecessary information processing.

For physicians, it means protecting time for clinical judgment.

For patients, it means restoring attention and continuity.

And for independent practices, it means improving financial reliability without building an ever-larger administrative machine.

The future of healthcare may not belong to the organizations that automate the most work. It may belong to those that eliminate the most unnecessary work.

What This Means for OnnX and Independent Medical Practices

As a physician and founder of OnnX, I see medical billing as more than a financial transaction.

It is the final expression of information collected and decisions made throughout the patient journey.

If the information is incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrectly routed, the billing process becomes harder.

If those problems can be identified earlier, the practice may avoid some of the downstream rework.

That is the direction guiding my thinking about OnnX.

Shift from denial management toward denial prevention.

The opportunity is to explore how artificial intelligence, better data quality, and more reliable workflows can help independent clinics reduce preventable administrative friction.

That does not mean every denial can be eliminated.

It does not mean automation can replace experienced billing professionals.

And it certainly does not mean technology can substitute for physician judgment.

The real opportunity is to support the people who already understand healthcare by removing some of the repetitive work that prevents them from doing their best work.

Independent practices need more than another impressive dashboard.

They need tools that fit actual workflows.

They need measurable results.

They need reliable information.

And they need greater control over the operational processes that influence their survival.

Healthcare innovation should make independent practice more sustainable, not more dependent on complexity.

That is a goal worth pursuing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are doctors spending so much time on computers?

Electronic health records support clinical documentation, ordering, communication, and compliance. But excessive notifications, duplicate entry, fragmented systems, and administrative requirements can create substantial additional work.

Is physician burnout mainly a technology problem?

No. Burnout has multiple causes, including staffing, workload, organizational culture, autonomy, and administrative pressure. Poorly designed technology can intensify those problems.

How does medical billing affect physician burnout?

Billing-related documentation requests, prior authorization requirements, coding clarification, and denied claims can interrupt clinical care and extend the workday.

What causes the most medical claim denials?

Common causes include eligibility issues, missing authorization, incomplete documentation, coding errors, coverage restrictions, medical necessity disputes, and payer errors. The most common causes vary by practice.

What is the difference between a rejected claim and a denied claim?

A rejected claim generally fails preliminary submission checks. A denied claim generally reaches payer adjudication but is not approved for payment under applicable rules.

Can AI prevent medical billing denials?

AI may help detect missing information and identify potential errors before submission. It cannot guarantee payment or eliminate every denial.

Is outsourcing billing better than keeping it in-house?

It depends on practice size, specialty, staffing, costs, contracts, and operational needs. Outsourcing can add expertise, but it does not automatically fix upstream information problems.

What should a small clinic improve first?

Identify the most frequent, costly, and preventable workflow failure. Start with a focused intervention and measure whether it improves outcomes.

What is the best way to reduce administrative burden?

Eliminate unnecessary tasks, improve information routing, automate suitable repetitive work, delegate appropriately, and coordinate across teams.

Will artificial intelligence replace medical billing specialists?

AI may change the nature of billing work by automating some routine tasks. Human expertise will remain important for complex claims, exceptions, appeals, compliance, and payer disputes.

Can CMS prior authorization reforms eliminate authorization problems?

No. They may improve transparency and electronic processes for certain payers and services, but practices will still need accurate information and reliable workflows.

What should practice owners measure?

First-pass claim acceptance, denial rates, preventable denials, accounts receivable aging, rework hours, authorization delays, physician administrative time, and patient experience.

How can independent practices remain financially sustainable?

By combining quality care with reliable information, disciplined revenue cycle management, appropriate technology, trained staff, and continuous workflow improvement.

What is the biggest mistake healthcare organizations make when adopting AI?

Automating existing processes without first determining whether those processes are necessary, accurate, safe, and efficient.

What should the future doctor’s appointment look like?

A physician using technology quietly and effectively, with more attention available for the patient and less time consumed by avoidable administrative tasks.

Final Thoughts: We Have Become Too Good at Fixing the Wrong Problems

Healthcare has developed extraordinary medical capabilities.

We can diagnose diseases that were once invisible.

We can treat conditions that were once fatal.

We can use sophisticated technology to improve clinical decisions.

Yet we still struggle with insurance forms, missing authorizations, duplicate documentation, and avoidable claim denials.

Perhaps the greatest irony is not that healthcare has administrative problems.

Every complex industry does.

The irony is that we have built an enormous infrastructure around managing those problems without giving equal attention to preventing them.

We celebrate faster appeals.

Better denial dashboards.

More efficient message processing.

Daniel Cham MD

We Trained Doctors to Save Lives. Then We Made Them Professional Clickers.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply