Your claims team is good. They’re experienced, they know the rules, and they catch things that would slip past a less seasoned group.

But here’s the problem: they’re drowning.

‍

Every day, the queue grows faster than they can clear it. Documents pile up. Providers call asking for status updates. And somewhere in that chaos, errors happen—small ones at first, then bigger ones that show up months later in audit findings or overpayment reports.

‍

Manual claims vetting worked fine when volumes were manageable. But in high-volume operations, the math has changed. The hidden costs—inefficiency, errors, bottlenecks, burnout—are now bigger than the salary line items you can see on a spreadsheet.

‍

Let’s break down where those costs actually live.

‍

The scale problem: why manual vetting breaks down

Manual vetting doesn’t fail because people are bad at their jobs. It fails because the work multiplies faster than headcount ever can.

‍

Think about what a single claim review actually involves:

• Pulling member eligibility data
  
  
• Cross-referencing provider contracts
  
  
• Verifying procedure codes against policy terms
  
  
• Checking for prior authorizations
  
  
• Reviewing documentation for medical necessity
  
  

Each step takes time. Each step requires judgment. And each step has to happen before the next claim in the queue even gets looked at.

At 500 claims a month, it’s manageable.

‍
At 5,000, it’s a grind.

‍
At 50,000, it’s a system that’s one sick day away from collapse.

‍

And the cost isn’t just overtime pay. It’s also:

• Claims sitting in queue for days
  
  
• Providers losing trust in turnaround times
  
  
• Members calling support because reimbursements haven’t landed
  
  

Those costs don’t show up neatly on a P&L—but they’re real.

‍

Human error: the unseen cost

Nobody sets out to approve a claim that should have been denied. But when you’re reviewing your 87th claim of the day, things slip through.

A decimal point in the wrong place.

‍
A procedure code that looked right but wasn’t.

‍

A preauthorization that was issued for a different facility.

‍

That isn’t negligence—it’s the natural result of asking humans to do repetitive, detail-heavy work at high volume for hours on end.

The bigger issue is that small errors compound:

• One incorrect approval becomes a pattern when a provider submits similar claims
  
  
• One missed flag becomes a compliance finding six months later
  
  
• One inconsistent denial becomes a legal dispute when someone asks why identical cases were handled differently
  
  

And here’s the part that really hurts: by the time you find these errors, the money is already gone.

‍

Overpayments are notoriously hard to recover. Audit penalties are expensive. And the reputational damage from inconsistent decision-making erodes provider and member trust in ways that don’t reverse quickly.

‍

The bottleneck effect

‍

Manual reviews create chokepoints that ripple through your entire operation.

Here’s how it usually plays out:

1. A claim comes in that needs additional documentation.
   
   
2. It gets flagged and moved to a secondary queue.
   
   
3. The reviewer moves on to the next claim.
   
   
4. Days later, the documentation arrives.
   
   
5. Now the claim waits again—until someone picks it back up, re-reads the case, and finishes the review.
   
   

Meanwhile:

• The provider is calling
  
  
• The member is calling
  
  
• Support is fielding questions they can’t answer because the claim is “in review”
  
  
• Reviewers are spending time on status updates instead of actual vetting
  
  

These bottlenecks don’t just slow things down—they create frustration that damages relationships.

‍

Providers who can’t get timely approvals start routing patients elsewhere. Members who wait weeks for reimbursement start shopping for new coverage. Operational inefficiency becomes a customer experience problem, which becomes a retention problem.

‍

The staffing trap

When manual volume exceeds capacity, the obvious solution is to hire more people.

‍

But that math doesn’t work the way you’d hope.

‍

New hires need training—typically 3 to 6 months before they’re fully productive. During that ramp-up, your experienced staff are doing double duty: handling their own caseload while mentoring. Productivity often dips before it improves.

‍

And once the new hires are up to speed? Volume has usually grown again. You’re back where you started—except now you have:

• A larger payroll
  
  
• More management overhead
  
  
• The same process that still doesn’t scale
  
  

The staffing trap is expensive: salaries, benefits, training, turnover when burned-out reviewers leave for less demanding roles.

‍

One insurer we spoke with estimated they were spending 40% more on claims operations than they would with an automated workflow—and still falling behind on turnaround times.

‍

What automation actually changes

Automation isn’t about replacing your team. It’s about changing what they spend their time on.

‍

Here’s what shifts when you automate claims vetting:

• Eligibility verification happens instantly

Before a claim even enters the review queue, the system confirms member status, checks benefit limits, and flags exclusions. No manual lookup required.

• Routine claims get auto-processed

Straightforward cases—clean documentation, matching preauth codes, in-network providers, standard procedures—don’t need human review. They flow through automatically, freeing your team for the claims that actually require judgment.

• Exceptions surface with context

When a claim does need human review, it arrives with relevant data already pulled: member history, provider patterns, similar past decisions. Reviewers aren’t starting from scratch every time.

• Audit trails generate automatically

Every decision—automated or human—gets logged with the reasoning attached. When auditors ask why a claim was approved or denied, you have documentation that doesn’t depend on someone’s memory.

• Provider behavior becomes visible

Which providers have the highest denial rates? Who submits incomplete documentation most often? Who are billing outliers? Automation doesn’t just process claims—it generates the data you need to manage the process proactively.

‍

The ROI question

Insurers who’ve made this shift report measurable results:

• 60–80% of claims processed without human intervention
  
  
• Turnaround times cut from days to hours
  
  
• Error rates dropping by double digits
  
  

But the real ROI isn’t just efficiency. It’s what your team can do when they aren’t buried in routine work.

‍

Claims analysts who used to spend their days on data entry can now focus on complex cases, fraud investigation, provider negotiations. The work becomes more interesting, which improves retention. Decisions become more consistent, which reduces legal exposure. The process becomes faster, which improves customer satisfaction.

‍

Proof point: In 2025, Curacel helped insurers vet 2M+ claims and save $15M+ through AI-powered automation.

‍

That’s not a cost reduction story. That’s a capacity story.

The bottom line

Manual claims vetting isn’t sustainable at scale. The hidden costs—errors, bottlenecks, burnout, missed fraud, audit exposure—add up to far more than the visible line items on your operations budget.

‍

Automation doesn’t eliminate the need for skilled claims professionals. It eliminates the need for them to do work machines can do faster and more consistently.

‍

The question isn’t whether your team is good enough. It’s whether you’re asking them to do work that shouldn’t require humans in the first place.

‍

How long can your team sustain manual claims vetting without sacrificing accuracy or efficiency?

‍

See where automation fits in your claims workflow. Book a 20-minute diagnostic and we’ll map the quick wins specific to your operation.

‍
Book a Diagnostic → curacel.co/contact-us

‍