In many parts of the country, especially rural America, a hospital is not simply a healthcare facility. It is critical infrastructure. It is where trauma care begins, where babies are delivered, and where chronic conditions are managed. When a community hospital becomes financially unstable, the consequences extend far beyond its walls. Local economies suffer. Emergency response systems weaken. Patients lose access to timely care.
I saw this firsthand while serving as a state Secretary of Health and Human Services and as a Medicaid Director. In those roles, the public sector’s payments were often blamed for instability. But what I repeatedly saw on the ground was something different: even when reimbursement rates were adequate, administrative delay could still choke a provider. The problem was not only “how much.” It was “how long,” “how often,” and “how hard it was to get paid for care that was already delivered.”
Rural hospitals today face sustained pressures from workforce shortages, rising supply costs, and difficult demographics. But a less visible and increasingly consequential threat is the growing administrative and financial strain imposed by commercial insurers, particularly through payment timing and coverage determinations. When margins are thin, delayed reimbursements are not a nuisance. They are an operational threat.
HEALTHCARE OVERTAKES ECONOMY AS TOP VOTER WORRY IN GALLUP POLL
One case I worked on illustrates this point. A rural provider did everything right. The clinician documented medical necessity. The patient followed instructions. The service was covered on paper. Payment, however, turned into a monthslong fight because the insurer demanded additional steps after the fact and then questioned the claim on technical grounds that had little to do with the patient’s need. This was not a large health system with teams of lawyers built for prolonged disputes. It was a small hospital with a lean revenue cycle staff trying to keep the doors open. That is what administrative friction looks like in real life.
Such strain is already reshaping the rural hospital landscape. Over the last decade, these facilities have closed or discontinued inpatient services at an alarming pace, and many more operate on negative margins. In those conditions, even small disruptions in cash flow can force difficult decisions: reduce services, delay equipment purchases, limit staffing, or eliminate inpatient capacity. Each of those choices makes care harder to access close to home.
Meanwhile, commercial insurance markets have become increasingly concentrated. In many regions, one insurer dominates. When that happens, hospitals have limited leverage, employers have fewer effective options, and patients often discover that “coverage” does not always mean “access.”
A growing slew of prior authorization requirements is illustrative of how that has played out in practice.
What began as a targeted tool to ensure appropriate utilization has expanded into a routine prerequisite for a wide range of treatments, tests, procedures, and medications. Physicians who determine that a service is medically necessary must often wait for plan approval before care can proceed. For patients, that can mean delays measured in days or weeks. For providers, it means building administrative infrastructure just to navigate payer-specific rules that differ across plans.
Technology has not solved this problem. In many cases, it has intensified it. Insurers increasingly rely on automated systems to accelerate initial determinations. Speed, however, is not the same as fairness. When decisions are generated quickly but require repeated documentation, rework, and appeals to correct, the burden simply shifts onto providers and patients. A process that is opaque, difficult to challenge, and inconsistently applied is not “efficient.” It is an obstruction by design.
For rural hospitals, the cost of this friction is real. It consumes staff time, forces expensive billing infrastructure, and ties up revenue needed to sustain core services. The hospitals most at risk are the ones least able to absorb it.
This is why protecting patients and sustaining rural hospitals are aligned goals. When a rural hospital closes, communities lose critical care access and with it, jobs and local capacity. Patients travel farther for emergency care and specialty services. Families lose time. Outcomes worsen when care becomes less timely and less available.
Reform should start with practical guardrails that restore balance without eliminating legitimate oversight. Standardize prior authorization across plans. Make decisions fast and transparent. And enforce appeal timelines so delay cannot become a backdoor cost-control strategy.
The system also needs sunlight. Public reporting of approval rates, denial rates, and overturn rates should be required. Employers, regulators, and consumers deserve to know whether a plan’s utilization management is truly about appropriate care or simply about blocking it.
HOW CONGRESS CAN DELIVER HEALTHCARE AFFORDABILITY AND MITIGATE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT DISASTER
Hospitals are not asking to be insulated from accountability. Oversight is appropriate in any system managing substantial healthcare spending. But there is a difference between reasonable utilization management and a system so cumbersome that it undermines access to care.
Patients who pay premiums deserve coverage they can actually use. Providers who deliver care deserve a predictable and intelligible process for reimbursement. Restoring that balance is essential not only to the stability of rural hospitals, but to the integrity of the insurance promise itself.
Gary D. Alexander served as Rhode Island’s secretary of health and human services and Pennsylvania’s secretary of human services.