For self-insured employers, rising medical claim denials are no longer a back-office nuisance, they represent a direct fiduciary risk under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Every denial that delays care or reimbursement can expose plan sponsors to financial volatility, regulatory scrutiny, and litigation. As fiduciaries, employers must act prudently and solely in the interest of plan participants. Failure to monitor claim adjudication processes, especially those delegated to third-party services providers (e.g., TPAs and PBMs), can result in breaches of ERISA duties and reputational harm.
This article reframes claim denials through the plan sponsor lens. We will explore the drivers behind rising denials, the financial and legal implications, recent court cases, and practical steps to strengthen governance and protect both plan integrity and member trust.
Why Claim Denials Are Rising
The rise in claim denials has become a growing concern across the healthcare landscape, with recent data highlighting just how widespread and unpredictable the issue has become. Public reporting shows that denial rates are not only higher than many employers anticipate but also vary significantly across insurers. For example, analysis of Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) data revealed that in 2023, insurers on the federal marketplace denied 19% of in-network claims and 37% of out-of-network claims. Complementing this, a survey by Experian Health found that 41% of respondents experienced denial rates of at least one in ten claims, while over 54% believed denial rates are continuing to climb. These trends underscore the need to examine underlying factors contributing to the surge in denials.
While many denials are clinically or contractually appropriate, the variability and frequency of denials across payers signal broader systemic issues. Recent industry literature and national surveys suggest several systemic factors contributing to the rise in claim denials:
- Automation and AI in claims review: While efficient, these tools often lack clinical nuance, leading to inappropriate denials. An American Medical Association survey found 61% of physicians reported increased prior authorization denials linked to AI tools. These denials can lead to delays in treatment and, in some cases, cause patients to discontinue their care altogether.
- Stricter documentation and coding standards: Missing data or minor errors trigger technical denials. According to the American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC), denials frequently stem from issues such as missing information, billing errors, and insufficient documentation, all of which are exacerbated by tighter compliance expectations. These technical denials not only delay reimbursement but also place additional administrative burdens on providers, making it critical for healthcare organizations to strengthen their claims management processes.
- Aggressive cost-containment strategies by TPAs: Down-coding, delayed payments, and restrictive formularies prioritize savings over medical necessity. While these measures may reduce costs for payers, they can also undermine medical necessity and disrupt patient care, placing providers in a difficult position as they navigate complex reimbursement landscapes.
- Regulatory complexity: Compliance with regulations such as ERISA, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act adds layers of risk. These include requirements related to surprise billing protections, transparency in coverage, and dispute resolution processes. These regulatory changes have amended multiple federal statutes, adding administrative burdens and increasing the risk of technical denials when claims fail to meet updated criteria.
Why Claim Denials Matter for Self-Insured Employers
Before moving into specific impacts, it is important to note that for self-insured employers, these trends are not just operational challenges; they create direct financial and fiduciary risk.
Financial Impact
Self-insured plans bear the full cost of approved claims. While cost-containment programs such as prior authorizations, medical necessity reviews, and formulary management play an important role in ensuring appropriate and efficient care, challenges arise when denials increase due to avoidable issues such as coding errors, documentation gaps, or inconsistent application of plan rules. In these situations, employers may face:
- Increased overhead from managing appeals and resolving coverage disputes.
- Delayed or abandoned patient care, which can lead to higher long-term costs and additional financial risk.
- Budget unpredictability and administrative burdens, particularly when overturned denials result in retroactive liabilities.
Fiduciary and Legal Risk
Under ERISA, plan sponsors must ensure claims are processed fairly and in compliance with plan terms. Improper denials, especially those overturned on appeal, signal systemic weaknesses that can lead to:
- Regulatory penalties for failing to provide a “full and fair review.”
- Potential litigation alleging fiduciary breaches.
- Reputational damage if employees perceive inequitable treatment.
The KFF reports that only 1% of denied claims are appealed, yet over half of those appeals are upheld, indicating systemic issues in claims processing and transparency. This low appeal rate suggests that many improper denials may never be corrected, further increasing employer exposure. These trends expose self-insured employers to reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny, especially if fiduciary duties, such as acting in the best interest of plan participants, are compromised by inefficient or opaque claims management practices. As oversight intensifies, employers must ensure robust internal controls and documentation to mitigate legal exposure and uphold fiduciary standards.
Legal Precedents
As claim denials continue to draw scrutiny, courts are increasingly clarifying how ERISA’s fiduciary standards apply to modern claims administration, especially when third-party administrators rely on automation, algorithms, or insufficient human review. Recent cases offer insight into how judges are evaluating these practices and the legal exposure that can arise when oversight is inadequate.
- K.D. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
- The court found violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and ERISA when Anthem failed to provide adequate review for denied mental health claims. The ruling reinforced that plan sponsors must actively oversee appeals to avoid fiduciary breaches.
- Kisting-Leung et al. v. Cigna Corporation
- Plaintiffs alleged Cigna used an algorithm to deny claims in seconds without medical review. The court ruled that delegating medical necessity determinations to an algorithm violated plan terms and constituted an abuse of discretion, allowing fiduciary breach claims under ERISA to move forward.
These cases highlight the legal risk self-insured employers may face when third-party administrators rely too heavily on automated or AI-driven systems without adequate human oversight or fail to meet their fiduciary responsibilities in the claims adjudication process. Employers cannot assume TPAs’ processes meet ERISA standards. Oversight is non-delegable, and plan sponsors must ensure that delegated functions align with ERISA’s requirements.
Employee Trust and Satisfaction
Claim denials erode confidence in employer-sponsored benefits. When employees face unclear or inconsistent coverage decisions:
- Morale declines, impacting retention and productivity.
- Out-of-pocket costs rise, creating financial stress.
- Perceived lack of support undermines engagement.
Trust in health benefits is a cornerstone of workforce loyalty. For self-insured employers, protecting that trust is both a compliance and business imperative.
What Should Employers Be Doing?
Strengthen TPA Oversight and Accountability
Self-insured health plans must take proactive steps to strengthen oversight of their TPAs, who are often responsible for processing claims and managing provider networks. Oversight of TPAs is important to reduce legal exposure, improve employee satisfaction, and fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of plan members.
- Establish clear performance benchmarks: Metrics such as denial rates, appeal success, and adjudication timelines should be reviewed regularly and incorporated into quarterly performance evaluations to identify trends and areas for improvement.
- Demand transparency: Require detailed reporting on denials and appeals, including justifications and resolution outcomes.
- Audit regularly: Independent audits can help uncover patterns of inappropriate denials and ensure ERISA compliance.
Use Data to Drive Governance
Self-insured health plans should consider adopting a proactive, data-driven approach to manage risk and improve outcomes.
- Analyze claims data, utilization patterns, and denial rates to identify trends and systemic issues.
- Apply predictive modeling to forecast high-cost claims and adjust benefit design.
- Monitor AI-driven adjudication for compliance and fairness.
Improve Appeals and Member Support
Plan sponsors must ensure compliance with federal regulations that mandate a “full and fair review” of denied claims and participants are aware of their rights to internal and external appeals.
- Ensure denial notices are clear and understandable.
- Enhance transparency by providing employees with access to the full administrative record during appeals.
- Involve Independent Review Organizations (IROs) to ensure impartiality and regulatory compliance.
- Offer personalized navigation tools and HR training to support members empathetically.
Reassess Stop-Loss Coverage
Rising denial rates and catastrophic claims demand robust stop-loss protection. Self-insured health plans must reassess their stop-loss coverage to protect against financial volatility.
- Re-evaluate whether existing deductible levels and attachment points offer sufficient protection against rising healthcare costs
- Review contract terms such as run-out provisions and coverage triggers to avoid gaps.
- Use analytics to forecast risk and tailor stop-loss policies.
Monitor Legal and Regulatory Trends
Evolving standards under laws such as ERISA introduced new layers of compliance.
- Stay informed on ERISA litigation, Department of Labor guidance, and new regulations.
- Update plan documents and TPA contracts to reflect evolving standards.
Key Takeaways for Plan Sponsors
Claim denials are more than administrative friction; they represent a fiduciary risk that can expose self-insured employers to regulatory scrutiny, litigation, and reputational harm. Under ERISA, plan sponsors have a legal obligation to act prudently and in the best interest of participants, which means they cannot assume TPAs are meeting compliance standards. Delegating claims adjudication does not absolve fiduciary responsibility. Employers must take an active role in monitoring denial practices, auditing claims processes, and ensuring appeals meet federal requirements for a “full and fair review.” These steps are essential to mitigate legal exposure and maintain trust in employer-sponsored benefits.
Good governance is the cornerstone of sustainable health plans. Independent audits, transparent reporting from TPAs, and data-driven oversight allow employers to identify systemic issues before they escalate. Beyond compliance, these practices strengthen employee confidence and transform health benefits from a reactive cost center into a strategic asset. By prioritizing accountability and member advocacy, self-insured employers not only protect plan integrity but also reinforce their commitment to workforce well-being, a critical differentiator in today’s competitive talent market.
Author: Izzie Iglesia | [email protected]
Contact Us
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Withum’s Multiemployer Benefit Plans Services Team.
