A physician’s perspective on administrative burden, medical billing, and why the future of healthcare may depend on giving clinicians their time back.
“The white coat symbolizes … professionalism and caring
and an emblem of the trust they must earn from patients.” — American
Medical Association, August 2026
Bowie Pritchard was 17 months old.
His mother, Tamika Pritchard, was watching her son
battle a rare neurological disease.
Bowie had Leigh syndrome.
And then came the loss no parent should have to endure.
Bowie died at just 17 months old.
Tamika described his death as her “worst nightmare.”
You might reasonably ask:
What does a story about a 17-month-old child and his
mother have to do with medical billing?
At first glance, nothing.
And that is exactly why I want to start here.
Bowie's story was not a billing story.
It was not a story about claims, denials, revenue-cycle
management, prior authorization, or healthcare software.
We should not pretend it was.
But it was a story about something that sits underneath
every one of those subjects:
A human being trying to get care.
That distinction matters.
Because healthcare leaders have become remarkably good at
talking about patients as data.
Patients become encounters.
Encounters become claims.
Claims become transactions.
Transactions become accounts receivable.
And somewhere along the way, we can forget the person who
started the entire process.
Bowie was not an encounter.
He was not a claim.
He was not a reimbursement opportunity.
He was someone's son.
That should make every physician, clinic owner,
administrator, and healthcare entrepreneur uncomfortable.
Because if the purpose of healthcare is to care for people,
then every administrative process surrounding care should eventually answer one
question:
Does this help the people doing the caring—or does it get
in their way?
That is where the conversation about medical billing begins.
Not with AI.
Not with software.
Not with revenue.
With time.
With attention.
With people.
And with a question most healthcare organizations do not ask
often enough:
What if the biggest inefficiency in healthcare isn't a
lack of technology?
What if it is the amount of unnecessary work we have
learned to accept?
The healthcare problem we have normalized
Ask a physician what makes practice frustrating.
You will hear different answers.
The EHR.
Prior authorization.
Staffing.
Payer rules.
Documentation.
Inbox volume.
Patient access.
Low reimbursement.
Administrative work.
Billing.
Denials.
And probably some version of:
“I didn't go to medical school for this.”
That sentence has become almost a cliché.
But perhaps we should stop treating it as a joke.
Because when a physician spends time doing work that does
not require a physician, something has gone wrong.
When a nurse spends hours tracking down paperwork that could
have moved electronically, something has gone wrong.
When a billing specialist touches the same claim five times
because three systems do not communicate, something has gone wrong.
When a patient receives a confusing bill and cannot
understand what they owe, something has gone wrong.
And when a clinic owner hires another person simply to
compensate for a broken process, we should not automatically congratulate
ourselves for “scaling.”
Sometimes we are just scaling the inefficiency.
Healthcare does not have an AI shortage
Healthcare has an administrative-design problem.
That is a very different diagnosis.
We are currently surrounded by AI products.
AI scribes.
AI coding.
AI prior authorization.
AI scheduling.
AI documentation.
AI patient engagement.
AI billing.
AI everything.
And I believe much of this innovation is valuable.
But here is the uncomfortable part:
You can automate a bad workflow and still have a bad
workflow.
You can make a broken process faster.
You can make a confusing process more sophisticated.
You can put a beautiful dashboard on top of an ugly
operational problem.
You can call something intelligent because it uses a large
language model.
And still waste everyone's time.
That is why I think the healthcare AI conversation needs a
reset.
The question should not be:
“Where can we add AI?”
The question should be:
“What work should never have required a human in the
first place?”
That is a much harder question.
And a much more interesting one.
The hidden cost of one extra click
One click sounds trivial.
One phone call sounds trivial.
One fax sounds trivial.
One rejected claim sounds trivial.
One missing modifier sounds trivial.
One authorization request sounds trivial.
One additional documentation request sounds trivial.
Healthcare has millions of these “trivial” events.
That is the problem.
A single administrative task rarely breaks a practice.
Accumulated friction does.
Imagine a clinic where 20 employees each lose 15 minutes a
day to avoidable administrative work.
That is five hours of lost capacity every day.
More than 25 hours a week.
More than 1,300 hours a year.
And that is just one clinic.
Multiply small inefficiencies across thousands of practices
and you begin to see the scale of the problem.
Healthcare does not always need another revolutionary
invention.
Sometimes it needs someone to remove 15 minutes of
nonsense from every person's day.
The numbers are getting harder to ignore
The evidence is no longer anecdotal.
MGMA's 2026 Provider Compensation & Productivity
reporting says 77% of practices cite regulatory and administrative burden as
a major contributor to burnout. It also reports that 33% of medical
groups had a physician retire or leave in the prior year because of burnout.
The AMA's 2026 prior-authorization survey is equally
sobering.
Physicians report completing an average of 40 prior
authorizations per week.
Nearly 32% say requests are often or always denied.
Prior authorization consumes about 13 hours of physician
and staff time each week.
And 94% of physicians surveyed say prior authorization
contributes to burnout.
The most disturbing number may be this:
26% of physicians reported that prior authorization had
contributed to a serious adverse event, including hospitalization,
permanent impairment, or death.
That does not mean every administrative task causes clinical
harm.
It means we should stop pretending administrative friction
exists in a separate universe from patient care.
It doesn't.
The system itself is beginning to admit the problem
CMS recently described administrative burden as redundant,
outdated, or overly complex requirements or processes that may inhibit or delay
quality care.
Notice the wording.
CMS is not describing inconvenience.
It is describing something that can affect access to care.
The agency's current framework explicitly calls for reducing
unnecessary steps, simplifying processes, automating appropriate tasks,
reducing redundant data collection, and increasing provider time with patients.
That is significant.
Because the argument for administrative simplification is no
longer:
“Doctors don't like paperwork.”
It is:
Administrative friction can interfere with healthcare
delivery.
That is a much more serious claim.
And now CMS wants to retire the fax machine
In March 2026, CMS finalized a rule establishing national
standards for electronic healthcare claims attachments and electronic
signatures.
CMS estimates the rule could save the healthcare industry
approximately $781 million annually.
The objective is straightforward:
Move clinical documentation away from manual faxing and
mailing and toward standardized electronic exchange.
There is something almost funny about this.
We can perform extraordinarily complex surgeries.
We can sequence genomes.
We can train sophisticated AI models.
We can put advanced imaging systems into operating rooms.
And we are still faxing clinical documentation.
That is not a technology problem.
It is a workflow-design problem.
And the lesson extends far beyond fax machines.
The real enemy isn't the payer
Here is another contrarian point.
It is tempting to turn every administrative problem into a
villain story.
Physicians versus insurers.
Clinics versus payers.
Doctors versus administrators.
Technology versus humans.
That may be emotionally satisfying.
It is not always operationally useful.
Healthcare is a network.
Payers have administrative requirements.
Physicians have documentation requirements.
Regulators have compliance requirements.
Clearinghouses have transaction standards.
EHRs have workflows.
Billing companies have processes.
Patients have financial responsibilities.
Everyone adds another piece.
The result is a system in which no single participant
necessarily designed the entire maze.
Yet the patient and physician experience the maze as one
system.
That is why simplification matters.
We do not necessarily need one villain.
We need fewer unnecessary handoffs.
The middleman question
This is particularly important for small and medium-sized
practices.
A typical revenue cycle can involve:
The practice.
The EHR.
The practice-management system.
The clearinghouse.
The payer.
The billing company.
The coding service.
The denial-management process.
The patient statement system.
The payment processor.
Each layer may have a legitimate reason to exist.
But every layer introduces another interface.
Another handoff.
Another potential failure point.
Another place where information can become disconnected.
And another place where accountability can become blurry.
The physician usually does not care which system failed.
They want the claim resolved.
The patient does not care which vendor caused the billing
problem.
They want an understandable bill.
The practice manager does not care which integration broke.
They want the money collected.
That is the operational reality.
Patients experience systems as one system, even when
organizations experience them as separate departments.
What I think healthcare has gotten backward
We have spent years asking:
“Who should own this task?”
I think we should ask:
“Does this task need to exist?”
That is a more disruptive question.
Before hiring another employee, ask whether the work can be
eliminated.
Before buying another software platform, ask whether the
workflow can be simplified.
Before outsourcing another function, ask whether the process
can be redesigned.
Before building an AI model, ask whether the data can be
standardized.
Before creating another dashboard, ask whether someone
actually needs the information.
This is not anti-technology.
It is pro-purpose.
The physician's time is not just another operating
expense
A physician's hour is different from an ordinary
administrative hour.
Not because physicians are more important than everyone
else.
Because physician capacity is clinically scarce.
If a billing issue consumes 30 minutes of a physician's
time, the cost is not simply 30 minutes.
There is an opportunity cost.
That time could have been used for:
A patient visit.
A complex consultation.
A difficult conversation.
A follow-up call.
Teaching.
Mentoring.
Research.
Rest.
Family.
Or simply going home on time.
Healthcare leaders should therefore stop measuring
administrative burden only in dollars.
Measure it in clinical capacity.
That may be the more important currency.
Three experts. Three uncomfortable lessons.
1. Willie Underwood, MD: digitizing the problem isn't
enough
AMA President Willie Underwood has emphasized the need for
standards that allow clinical and administrative systems to communicate more
effectively.
The AMA's July 2026 initiative focuses on mapping SNOMED
CT clinical concepts to CPT coding to improve electronic prior
authorization workflows.
The lesson:
Interoperability is not a technical luxury. It is a
workflow requirement.
If the clinician documents one thing and the payer's
administrative system requires another language, someone has to translate.
Usually that someone is a human.
And usually that human is already busy.
2. Dr. Mehmet Oz: every minute matters
CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz has framed administrative
simplification in unusually direct terms:
“Every minute providers save on paperwork is another
minute they can spend caring for patients.”
I agree.
But I would take the idea one step further.
Every minute saved should have an owner.
If automation saves 60 minutes, what happens to those 60
minutes?
Do physicians see another patient?
Does staff spend more time helping patients?
Does someone leave work earlier?
Does the practice improve access?
Does the team simply absorb more tasks?
Time savings are not automatically value creation.
Leadership determines what happens next.
3. MGMA: administrative burden is a retention issue
MGMA's current data makes another point clear.
Administrative burden is not just about productivity.
It is connected to whether physicians stay.
That should change the ROI calculation for healthcare
technology.
A system that saves a few dollars but frustrates clinicians
may be a bad investment.
A system that saves modest administrative costs while
materially improving physician capacity and retention may be enormously
valuable.
The ROI of better workflows is not always found on the
billing report.
Sometimes it appears six months later when a physician
decides not to leave.
Recent news: the administrative reset is already underway
There are several signals worth watching.
The AMA is pushing interoperability initiatives for
electronic prior authorization ahead of the January 1, 2027 compliance
deadline for applicable health plans.
Congressional efforts are also moving toward greater
standardization and transparency around Medicare Advantage prior authorization.
CMS is advancing administrative simplification through
electronic claims attachments, interoperability initiatives, and broader
burden-reduction efforts.
And physicians remain skeptical.
Only 33% of physicians surveyed by the AMA believe
the latest insurer commitments on prior authorization will make a meaningful
difference.
That skepticism is important.
Healthcare has had many promises of simplification.
Physicians have heard:
“We're going electronic.”
“We're going paperless.”
“We're integrating.”
“We're automating.”
“We're using AI.”
And yet someone is still faxing something.
The lesson is brutal:
A technology promise is not the same thing as workflow
improvement.
This is where medical billing becomes interesting
Billing is often treated as the end of the healthcare
process.
It isn't.
It is part of the operating system of the practice.
If the revenue cycle works well:
Claims move.
Cash arrives.
Staff know what to do.
Patients receive understandable information.
Physicians have fewer interruptions.
The practice can invest.
If it works badly:
A/R grows.
Denials accumulate.
Staff chase claims.
Patients receive confusing statements.
Physicians get pulled into administrative issues.
Margins shrink.
People leave.
The practice becomes fragile.
So medical billing is not simply about getting paid.
It is about whether the practice has enough operational
oxygen to keep caring for patients.
The question I would ask every clinic owner
Not:
“How much are you collecting?”
Ask:
“How hard is it for you to collect what you are already
owed?”
Those are different questions.
A practice may have excellent reimbursement rates and
terrible operational efficiency.
Another may have mediocre reimbursement but extremely
disciplined revenue-cycle management.
You need to know both.
That is why the most useful metrics are operational, not
just financial.
The metrics I would watch
Days in A/R
How long does money remain outstanding?
Do not simply compare yourself with a benchmark.
Understand what is driving the number.
Clean-claim rate
How many claims move through without preventable correction?
This is an upstream metric.
It tells you something about the quality of your process
before the payer ever sees the claim.
Denial rate
Track it.
But go deeper.
A denial is not a diagnosis.
The reason for the denial is the diagnosis.
Preventable denial rate
This is more useful.
Which denials could reasonably have been prevented?
Eligibility?
Authorization?
Coding?
Documentation?
Demographics?
Timely filing?
Fix those upstream.
Staff touches per claim
This may become one of the most valuable operational metrics
in modern revenue-cycle management.
How many times does a person touch the same claim?
If one claim takes one touch and another takes seven, ask
why.
Cost to collect
Calculate the total labor and vendor cost required to
collect revenue.
Then compare it with the result.
More collections are not automatically better if the cost of
collecting them grows even faster.
Physician interruption
Track this.
How often does billing require physician involvement?
If the answer is “a lot,” that is not just a billing
problem.
It is a workflow-design failure.
The practical playbook
Step 1: Follow one claim
Pick an ordinary claim.
Track it from patient registration to payment.
Do not use a theoretical workflow.
Use a real one.
Document every handoff.
Every portal.
Every phone call.
Every correction.
Every human touch.
You will probably find something surprising.
Step 2: Find the bottleneck
Ask:
Where does work stop?
Where does information disappear?
Where does someone re-enter information?
Where does someone wait?
Where does someone call another person?
Where does someone print something?
Where does someone fax something?
Where does someone copy and paste?
Those are your clues.
Step 3: Eliminate before automating
This is the step most technology projects skip.
If a task does not create meaningful value, eliminate it.
If it is required but unnecessarily complex, simplify it.
Only then ask whether it should be automated.
Step 4: Automate the predictable
Technology is excellent at repetitive, rules-based work.
Use it for appropriate tasks such as:
Eligibility verification.
Claim validation.
Work-queue prioritization.
Denial categorization.
Status monitoring.
Documentation prompts.
Payment reconciliation.
Exception detection.
But keep human review where judgment matters.
Step 5: Build exception-based workflows
Humans should not have to inspect every normal transaction.
Let routine work move.
Surface exceptions.
Prioritize exceptions by:
Clinical urgency.
Financial value.
Age.
Likelihood of recovery.
Payer deadline.
Patient impact.
This is where AI can become genuinely useful.
Not because it sounds intelligent.
Because it helps humans know where to look.
The AI mistake I hope healthcare avoids
Here is my biggest concern about AI in revenue cycle:
We may automate the wrong thing.
Imagine a practice with a terrible claims process.
Instead of fixing the workflow, the practice buys AI.
Now the AI generates more work faster.
More alerts.
More recommendations.
More flags.
More dashboards.
More exceptions.
More things for humans to review.
Congratulations.
You have automated administrative overload.
This is why I believe the best healthcare AI will often be
invisible.
The user should not necessarily notice that the system is
“AI.”
They should notice:
“That used to take me 30 minutes. Now it takes two.”
That is the product.
What OnnX is trying to prove
This is the philosophy behind OnnX.
As a physician-entrepreneur, I did not want to build another
piece of healthcare software simply because AI was available.
The problem I care about is more basic:
Why should small and medium-sized clinics need so many
layers of people, systems, and intermediaries to get paid for legitimate care?
OnnX is being built around an AI-powered medical billing
SaaS model designed to reduce unnecessary intermediaries and simplify
revenue-cycle workflows.
The goal is not to make physicians think more about billing.
It is the opposite.
Make billing require less physician attention.
The goal is not to eliminate people.
It is to reduce unnecessary work.
The goal is not another dashboard.
It is better visibility.
The goal is not to promise magical automation.
It is to make measurable improvements in the workflows that
actually affect practice sustainability.
That is a much higher bar.
The middleman isn't always the enemy
Let me be fair.
Intermediaries exist for reasons.
Clearinghouses can provide important connectivity.
Billing companies can provide expertise.
Coding professionals can add value.
Consultants can solve specialized problems.
Vendors can provide infrastructure.
The problem is not the existence of intermediaries.
The problem is unnecessary intermediation.
Every intermediary should earn its place by creating
measurable value.
If a layer saves the practice time, reduces errors, improves
collections, or increases compliance, it may be worth keeping.
If it simply adds another fee and another handoff, ask why
it exists.
That is the conversation healthcare should be having.
Myth buster: “Outsourcing solves billing”
No.
Outsourcing changes who performs the work.
It does not automatically fix the process.
A practice can outsource a bad workflow.
And then have less visibility into it.
The better question is:
What should remain inside the practice, what should be
outsourced, and what should disappear entirely?
That is strategic outsourcing.
Myth buster: “AI means fewer employees”
Not necessarily.
The more useful goal is:
More value per employee.
If automation removes repetitive work, staff can spend more
time on:
Patient communication.
Complex claims.
Appeals.
Problem solving.
Care coordination.
Practice improvement.
The objective should be capacity.
Not headcount reduction for its own sake.
Myth buster: “Denials are a billing department problem”
Sometimes.
But often they are symptoms of upstream problems.
A billing team cannot fix every registration error.
A biller cannot correct every documentation gap.
A coder cannot fix every scheduling problem.
Revenue cycle is a team sport.
The claim simply reveals where the process broke.
Myth buster: “More automation always means better care”
No.
Poorly governed automation can create new risks.
A billing algorithm can make an incorrect recommendation.
A coding system can misinterpret documentation.
A workflow engine can propagate bad data.
An AI model can be confidently wrong.
Healthcare technology needs human oversight,
auditability, privacy protection, and clear accountability.
Automation should remove unnecessary work.
It should not remove responsibility.
Legal and compliance considerations
This is where enthusiasm for AI needs to meet reality.
Medical billing involves sensitive health information and
regulated financial activity.
Before implementing or expanding an AI billing system,
practices should evaluate:
HIPAA requirements.
Business associate agreements.
Data access controls.
Data retention.
Cybersecurity.
Audit trails.
Coding compliance.
Documentation standards.
Payer contracts.
Fraud-and-abuse considerations.
False Claims Act risk.
State requirements.
And practices should understand exactly what the technology
does.
Does it recommend?
Does it automatically change?
Does it submit?
Does it appeal?
Does it communicate with payers?
Does it write back into the EHR?
Who reviews the output?
Who is responsible when it is wrong?
Those are not theoretical questions.
They are governance questions.
For specific legal or compliance decisions, practices should
consult qualified healthcare counsel and compliance professionals.
Ethical considerations
There is an ethical argument for reducing administrative
burden.
It is simple.
Human attention is finite.
If we spend less human attention on unnecessary
administrative work, more attention becomes available for patients.
But there is also an ethical warning.
Do not use automation simply to extract more productivity
from already exhausted teams.
If AI saves an hour, the organization should decide how that
hour creates value.
Perhaps it means seeing another patient.
Perhaps it means improving access.
Perhaps it means giving staff time to solve difficult
problems.
Perhaps it means reducing overtime.
Perhaps it means letting a physician go home earlier.
Efficiency should create capacity, not merely demand.
That is an important distinction.
The 30-day practice reset
If I were advising a small practice tomorrow, I would not
start by selling them software.
I would give them 30 days.
Days 1–5: Observe
Follow claims.
Interview staff.
Measure touches.
Find bottlenecks.
Days 6–10: Quantify
Calculate:
A/R.
Denials.
Clean claims.
Staff hours.
Cost to collect.
Physician interruptions.
Days 11–15: Eliminate
Remove unnecessary steps.
Remove duplicate data entry.
Remove redundant reports.
Remove unnecessary meetings.
Remove workflows nobody can explain.
Days 16–20: Standardize
Create clear rules.
Create escalation paths.
Create ownership.
Create exception categories.
Days 21–25: Automate
Only now introduce technology.
Start with one workflow.
Measure the baseline.
Measure the result.
Days 26–30: Decide
Keep it.
Modify it.
Or kill it.
That last option matters.
Healthcare needs more leaders willing to kill bad
technology projects.
Not every AI pilot deserves to become a permanent
subscription.
The question vendors should welcome
If I were buying healthcare technology today, I would ask
every vendor:
“Show me the work that disappears.”
Not the dashboard.
Not the demo.
Not the AI model.
Not the number of integrations.
Show me what my employees no longer have to do.
Then ask:
How many minutes?
How many claims?
How many denials?
How many staff touches?
How many dollars?
How many physician interruptions?
If the answer cannot be measured, the value proposition
probably needs more work.
The new ROI: time returned to care
Healthcare has traditionally measured technology through
financial ROI.
That matters.
But I think we need another metric:
TRC — Time Returned to Care.
How much time did the technology return to clinicians and
staff?
And what happened to that time?
That second question is critical.
Because saving time is not the final outcome.
What you do with the time is the outcome.
Why small practices may have the biggest opportunity
Large health systems have resources.
Small practices have something else:
speed.
A five-physician practice can sometimes change a workflow in
a week.
It does not need a 14-person steering committee.
It does not need six months of enterprise governance.
It can decide:
“This is ridiculous.”
And change it.
That is an enormous competitive advantage.
Small practices should not try to imitate large health
systems.
They should build simpler operating models.
The practice of the future may not look more
technological
It may actually look calmer.
Fewer clicks.
Fewer portals.
Fewer faxes.
Fewer duplicate entries.
Fewer interruptions.
Fewer mysterious denials.
Fewer billing surprises.
Fewer people asking:
“Who owns this?”
And more people knowing:
“Here is what happens next.”
That may be the real future of healthcare technology.
Not more screens.
Less friction.
What Bowie makes us remember
This is why I return to Bowie.
Not because his family should be used to promote a billing
product.
They should not.
And not because his story proves something about claims or
reimbursement.
It doesn't.
Bowie's story reminds us of something much simpler.
Healthcare is personal before it is operational.
Before the claim, there was a patient.
Before the patient, there was a person.
Before the diagnosis, there was a family.
And before the healthcare system ever touched them, there
was a human life.
If we remember that, the administrative conversation
changes.
We stop asking:
“How do we process more transactions?”
And start asking:
“How do we remove work that prevents people from caring for
other people?”
That is a better question.
Three things I would change tomorrow
If you own or lead a medical practice, start here.
1. Find your most expensive administrative habit.
Not your biggest expense.
Your most expensive habit.
What does your team repeatedly do that nobody has challenged
in years?
2. Find the task that interrupts physicians most often.
Then ask why the physician is doing it.
Could staff handle it?
Could the workflow prevent it?
Could technology surface only the exceptions?
Could the task disappear?
3. Measure what happens after automation.
Do not stop at:
“Look how much time we saved.”
Ask:
“Where did the time go?”
That is where the real ROI lives.
Final Thoughts: Stop Automating the Maze
The healthcare industry loves the word innovation.
But innovation is not adding technology.
Innovation is making something meaningfully better.
Sometimes that means AI.
Sometimes it means interoperability.
Sometimes it means a better billing workflow.
Sometimes it means deleting a form.
Sometimes it means stopping a meeting.
Sometimes it means turning off a fax machine.
And sometimes the most innovative thing a healthcare leader
can do is ask:
“Why are we still doing this?”
That question has enormous power.
Because the healthcare system is full of tasks that have
survived not because they are valuable, but because nobody has stopped to
challenge them.
We should.
For physicians, the stakes are not abstract.
Administrative burden consumes time.
Time is finite.
And every unnecessary administrative task competes with
something else.
A patient.
A family.
A colleague.
A conversation.
A clinical decision.
A little more time at home.
That is why medical billing deserves more serious attention.
Not because revenue is more important than care.
Because a financially healthy practice has more capacity
to provide care.
And because physicians should not have to choose between
being excellent clinicians and becoming full-time administrators.
The Challenge
Here is my question to physicians and clinic owners:
What is one administrative task in your practice that
everyone complains about—but nobody has seriously questioned?
Tell me in the comments.
I want the ugly answers.
The fax.
The spreadsheet.
The payer portal.
The claim queue.
The authorization.
The report nobody reads.
The task that has been “temporary” for three years.
Name it.
Then tell us why it still exists.
And if this article made you rethink how administrative work
affects physicians and patients, repost it.
Someone in your network may be quietly fighting the same
battle.
Three actions worth taking
Question the workflow before buying the software.
Measure the time your practice loses before trying to
automate it.
Build technology around the people who care for
patients—not around the technology itself.
That is how we move from healthcare technology that looks
impressive to healthcare technology that actually helps.
Start with one workflow.
Remove one unnecessary burden.
Give one more person time back for the work that matters.
About the Author
Dr. Daniel Cham is a physician and medical consultant
with experience in healthcare management, medical technology, and medical
billing. His work focuses on practical ideas that help physicians, clinic
owners, and healthcare leaders navigate the operational challenges of modern
medicine.
As a physician-entrepreneur and founder of OnnX, Dr.
Cham focuses on simplifying medical billing and reducing unnecessary
administrative friction for small and medium-sized medical practices through
technology and automation.
His approach is straightforward:
Technology should earn its place by making healthcare
work better for the people delivering it.
Connect with Dr. Cham on LinkedIn to
learn more.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for general educational and
informational purposes. It does not constitute medical, legal, compliance,
coding, billing, financial, or other professional advice.
Healthcare regulations, payer requirements, coding rules,
contracts, and applicable laws can change and may differ by jurisdiction.
Practices should consult appropriately qualified professionals for advice
relating to their specific circumstances.
Continue the Conversation
The most useful healthcare conversations are not always
about the newest product.
They are about what happens when the technology meets a real
clinic on a real Tuesday morning.
Explore more perspectives on healthcare operations,
medical technology, physician entrepreneurship, innovation, and the practical
realities of running a medical practice.
- Visit
the personal website
- Listen
to the podcast on Spotify
- Subscribe
and watch on YouTube
- Follow
updates on X (Twitter)
- Follow
on
Facebook
- Discover AI-powered medical billing solutions for busy physicians
- Connect professionally on LinkedIn
Knowledge creates momentum. Keep learning, challenge the
assumptions, and bring better ideas back to the practice.
Free Resource
Check the Featured section of Dr. Cham's LinkedIn profile
for free resources and practical materials. Where a resource is available, it
is intended to be accessible without an additional signup.
PS: The next useful resource may already be waiting in
Featured on LinkedIn.
Share the Conversation
If this perspective resonates with you, consider reposting
it on LinkedIn.
A repost can help another physician, clinic owner, practice
manager, or healthcare entrepreneur stop accepting an unnecessary
administrative burden as “just the way healthcare works.”
Question what everyone else has stopped questioning.
Fix the friction that keeps clinicians from doing their
best work.
Help build a healthcare system where technology gives
people time back instead of giving them more work.
#MedicalBilling #HealthcareInnovation #PhysicianEntrepreneur
#MedicalPracticeManagement #RevenueCycleManagement #HealthcareAdministration
#PhysicianBurnout #HealthcareTechnology #AIHealthcare #HealthTech
#MedicalPractice #ClinicManagement #HealthcareLeadership #AdministrativeBurden
#PhysicianLeadership #PracticeManagement #RevenueCycle #HealthcareOperations
#DigitalHealth #OnnX
References
1. CMS — Administrative Simplification and Claims
Attachments
CMS's 2026 final rule establishes electronic standards intended to replace
manual faxing and mailing for claims attachments and projects approximately $781
million in annual savings.
Read
the CMS fact sheet
2. American Medical Association — 2026 Prior
Authorization Physician Survey
The AMA's latest survey documents the continuing burden of prior authorization,
including approximately 40 requests per physician per week, 13 hours
of physician and staff time, and widespread concerns about delays and
patient harm.
Read
the AMA survey findings
3. MGMA — 2026 Provider Compensation & Productivity
Report
Current MGMA data connects administrative burden with physician burnout and
practice retention, including 77% of practices identifying administrative
burden as a major burnout contributor.
Read
the MGMA report
A final question for healthcare leaders
What if the most patient-centered technology investment
you can make this year is not another clinical tool—but eliminating one
administrative task that never should have existed?
That is the question worth answering.
No comments:
Post a Comment