For decades, the practice of prior authorization—the requirement that patients or providers obtain approval from a health insurer before a service, procedure, or medication is covered—has served as a contentious cornerstone of U.S. health care. Insurers argue that it is a vital tool to control costs and prevent the utilization of low-value or unnecessary medical interventions. Conversely, patients and clinicians frequently view it as an administrative hurdle that fuels systemic burnout and delays critical, life-saving care.
In a landmark shift toward transparency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a 2024 regulation requiring health insurers to publicly disclose specific metrics regarding their prior authorization practices. This analysis explores the results of that first reporting cycle, covering the 2025 calendar year, and examines what these disclosures reveal about the landscape of American health coverage.
The Mandate: A New Era of Accountability
The 2024 CMS regulation was designed to transform the opaque "prior authorization" process into an accountable system. By mandating that insurers in Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed care, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) federally facilitated Marketplaces (FFM) report key performance indicators, the government aimed to provide consumers and policymakers with the data necessary to evaluate insurer behavior.
Starting with the 2025 data, which was made public by March 31, 2026, insurers were required to report:
- Approval and denial rates for medical services (excluding prescription drugs).
- Median response times for both "standard" and "expedited" requests.
- Data on the overturning of denials during the appeals process.
The regulation seeks to empower consumers to use this information as a tool when shopping for health plans, theoretically introducing market competition based on administrative efficiency and patient accessibility.
Chronology of Regulatory Implementation
The path to these disclosures was paved by years of mounting public pressure. According to KFF health tracking polls, nearly 7 in 10 insured adults cite prior authorization as a significant burden when navigating the health care system.
- 2024: CMS releases the final rule, mandating systemic automation and public reporting of prior authorization metrics.
- January – December 2025: The initial period for data collection under the new regulatory requirements.
- March 31, 2026: The deadline for insurers to publish their first annual reports for the 2025 calendar year.
- July 2026: CMS releases an updated template and guidance to address data quality issues observed during the first reporting cycle, setting the stage for more granular 2027 reports.
Supporting Data: What the 2025 Numbers Tell Us
A comprehensive analysis of the 14 largest insurers—covering 25 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, 35 million Medicaid managed care enrollees, and 11 million ACA Marketplace enrollees—reveals significant variance in how these plans manage patient access.
Approval and Denial Rates
On a broad scale, insurers denied between 12% and 18% of standard prior authorization requests in 2025.
- Medicare Advantage: 12% of standard requests were denied.
- Medicaid Managed Care: 14% of standard requests were denied.
- ACA Marketplace: 18% of standard requests were denied.
However, these averages mask massive discrepancies between individual insurers. For instance, in the ACA Marketplace, standard denial rates ranged from as low as 3% (GuideWell) to as high as 25% (Centene). Similar, if not more pronounced, variations appeared in the Medicaid and Medicare segments, suggesting that an enrollee’s chance of having a service denied is heavily dependent on the specific insurer they choose.
The Appeals Process: A Crucial Safety Valve
One of the most revealing findings from the 2025 data concerns the appeals process. While many patients and providers assume an initial denial is the final word, the data shows that a significant number of these decisions are reversed upon appeal.
- In Medicare Advantage, 67% of appealed standard denials were overturned.
- In Medicaid managed care, 47% were overturned.
- In the ACA Marketplace, 43% were overturned.
These high overturn rates raise a critical question: if a majority of appeals result in an approval, were the initial denials based on sufficient medical evidence, or were they a result of insufficient documentation or overly aggressive utilization review algorithms? The presence of automatic, independent reviews in Medicare Advantage, which are notably absent in the ACA Marketplace and Medicaid, may explain why Medicare Advantage sees a higher rate of reversals.
Speed of Decision-Making
Median response times for standard requests were generally efficient, hovering around one day across all market segments. Expedited requests were handled even faster, with a median of less than one day in Medicare Advantage. While this indicates that the "administrative machinery" is functioning quickly, it does not necessarily capture the patient experience. A one-day median does not account for the outliers—patients who wait weeks for life-altering treatments—nor does it reflect the burden placed on physicians to provide the necessary documentation to achieve that one-day turnaround.
Implications and Challenges in Interpretation
While the new transparency is a victory for consumer rights, the current data remains difficult to navigate for the average patient.
The "Missing Context" Problem
Insurers are currently not required to report the absolute number of requests, only percentages. This makes it impossible to know the true volume of denials. A 5% denial rate from a massive insurer represents a far higher number of patients denied care than a 20% denial rate from a smaller, regional plan. Without numeric counts, the percentages can be misleading.
"Gold Carding" and Provider Incentives
The emergence of "gold card" programs—where insurers exempt high-performing, clinically compliant providers from prior authorization—further muddies the water. Insurers with robust gold card programs may report lower approval rates because their data pool is skewed toward providers who struggle with documentation, rather than the entire spectrum of care.
Comparability and Standardization
The lack of a mandatory reporting format in the first year meant that some insurers reported data at the state level, while others reported national averages. For a consumer, a national average provides little insight into whether their specific plan in their specific state is restrictive.
Looking Forward: The Path to Meaningful Transparency
The regulatory environment is already shifting to address these limitations. The 2026 CMS proposed rule aims to standardize denominators, require numeric reporting, and mandate the disclosure of outcomes for drug-related authorizations.
Furthermore, state-level activity is outpacing federal efforts. Massachusetts, for example, recently conducted a special examination of insurer data that led to the outright elimination of prior authorization requirements for several routine services, such as physical therapy and certain radiology procedures for cancer patients. Iowa has similarly moved to require state-regulated insurers to justify their prior authorization requirements.
As CMS moves toward 2027, the focus is shifting from simply "posting data" to ensuring that data is usable, consistent, and granular enough to hold insurers accountable. The ultimate goal is to move beyond the current "black box" of insurance denials, ensuring that prior authorization serves its intended purpose—protecting patient safety and lowering costs—rather than acting as a barrier to essential health care.
For the millions of Americans navigating these systems, the next few years of reporting will be the true test of whether transparency can translate into actual improvements in patient access and outcomes.
About the Author
