What Is the Average Claim Denial Rate in the US?

Overview & Quick Answer

There is no single national denial rate because the federal government does not track one centralized database across all insurance types. The most complete, publicly verifiable data comes from CMS’s Transparency in Coverage filings for ACA Marketplace plans, based on federal transparency filings for 2024 (the most recent year available):

• ACA Marketplace Plans (In-Network): 19%
• ACA Marketplace Plans (Out-of-Network): 37%
• ACA Marketplace Plans (Combined): 20%

Rates vary widely by insurer and state within this segment alone — from 3% to 36% in-network, depending on the insurer. Other market segments (commercial group plans, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed care) also see meaningful claim denials, but reliable, audited, publicly available national figures for those segments are harder to come by — see the next section for why.

Why There Is No Single “Official” National Number

The US health system relies on a fragmented reporting structure rather than one clearinghouse. Claim denial statistics come from separate sources, each covering a different slice of the market:

• CMS Transparency in Coverage Public Use Files: Covers non-group ACA qualified health plans (QHPs) sold on HealthCare.gov — it does not include employer-sponsored insurance, which covers the majority of insured Americans under 65.
• NAIC Market Conduct Annual Statement (MCAS): Tracks individual and group insurers across most states, though full plan- and insurer-level detail is available only to state regulators, not the public.
• Medicare Advantage Prior Authorization Data: Measures pre-service authorization denials, not post-service claim denials — a different metric than the ACA Marketplace figures above.
• State Insurance Commissioner Reports: Collected in unique formats by states like California, Connecticut, and Vermont, making cross-state comparisons difficult.
• Provider-Side Industry Surveys: Self-reported by health systems and hospitals, not independently audited.

Because of this fragmentation, the ACA Marketplace figures above are the most rigorous publicly available denial data in the US — but they represent only one slice of the market, not the country as a whole.

How Denial Rates Vary by State and Insurer

Within the ACA Marketplace, in-network denial rates for 2024 ranged from roughly 3% to 36% depending on the insurer. At the state level, Hawaii had the highest average denial rate (27%), while South Dakota had the lowest (7%).

Payer-level variation is just as significant. Among large national insurers, carrier-specific average in-network denial rates ranged from under 8% to upwards of 25%, depending on portfolio mix and regional network structure.

State averages can also mask wide internal variation. In Texas, for example, insurer-level denial rates ranged from 12% to 36% — meaning a Texan’s odds of a denial depend far more on which insurer they’re enrolled with than on the state average.

Root Causes: Medical Necessity vs. Administrative Paperwork

A common misconception is that most denials happen because a treatment or drug wasn’t medically necessary. In practice, clinical disputes make up a small fraction of total denials.

Of ACA Marketplace in-network denials in 2024:

Roughly six in ten denials trace back to administrative friction, coding issues, or unspecified reasons rather than a clinical determination that care wasn’t needed.

For a structured way to catch these issues before a claim is even submitted, see Denial Prevention Before Claim Submission: A Practical Framework.

The Appeal Bottleneck: Success Rates vs. Action Rates

Denials happen often, but consumers rarely push back:

• Low appeal volume: Enrollees appealed fewer than 1% of the roughly 85 million in-network Marketplace claims denied in 2024. A related consumer survey found only about 1 in 10 insured adults who had an insurance problem in the past year filed a formal appeal.
• Internal appeal outcomes: When formal internal appeals are filed, insurers uphold their original decision about 66% of the time — meaning roughly a third of appeals succeed.
• External review: Only about 4% of upheld internal appeals are escalated to independent external review.

High “success rate” figures sometimes cited in consumer guides (as high as 80%) typically reflect outcomes among a self-selected group of people who chose to appeal — not the baseline odds for a typical denied claim.

Why Claim Denial Rates Are Rising

Several factors are pushing denial rates upward across payer types in 2025–2026:

• Expanded utilization review. Insurers both report tighter documentation and coding requirements, increasing the number of claims flagged for administrative denial.
• Automated claims screening. Commercial insurers have scaled up automated systems that screen claims before payment, and some providers report denial volumes rising as a result. For physician groups specifically, this shift cuts both ways — see How AI Improves Denial Management for Physician Groups for how the same technology payers use to flag claims is increasingly used on the provider side to prevent denials before they happen.
• Growth of Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage now covers more than half of Medicare beneficiaries and relies more heavily on prior authorization than traditional Medicare, which shapes overall utilization review trends across the industry.
• Rising administrative burden. As documentation and coding requirements tighten, the operational cost of preventing and managing denials is a growing focus for providers, independent of whether raw denial volume is rising or falling in a given segment.

Has the Denial Rate Changed Over Time?

The ACA Marketplace in-network denial rate has stayed relatively stable since CMS began requiring this reporting, hovering in the high teens (roughly 17–20%) most years since 2015. What has shifted is the distribution: the share of insurers with very high denial rates (30%+) fell from about 17% of reporting insurers in 2023 to about 3% in 2024 — suggesting some convergence toward the middle even as the overall average stayed flat.

Practical Steps for Patients Facing a Claim Denial

Because a large share of denials trace back to paperwork rather than a permanent coverage exclusion, a few steps make the biggest difference:

1. Read the denial reason code, not just the letter. Insurers must state a specific reason category — administrative, prior authorization, exclusion, or medical necessity — and the right fix depends on which one applies.

2. Check for a resubmission fix first. Since roughly a quarter of denials are administrative (wrong code, missing information, timing), many can be resolved by correcting and resubmitting rather than filing a formal appeal.

3. File the internal appeal anyway. A 66% uphold rate still means about a third of appeals succeed, and the process is free and legally time-bound.

4. Escalate to external review if the internal appeal is upheld. Independent external review exists because internal appeals are decided by the same insurer that issued the denial. Very few eligible patients use this option, so it’s worth pursuing if you’re upheld internally.

5. Check state-specific protections. States like California, Connecticut, and Vermont collect additional denial and appeal data and, in some cases, offer consumer protections beyond the federal minimum.

For a broader, systematic approach to lowering denial rates rather than fighting them one at a time, see How to Reduce Claim Denial Rates: A Step-by-Step Guide and Denial Management Services: How to Prevent Claim Denials Before They Happen.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is a 10–20% denial rate normal?

For ACA Marketplace plans specifically, yes — the in-network denial rate has held in the high teens (17–20%) every year since CMS began requiring this reporting in 2015. Out-of-network claims are denied at a substantially higher rate, around 37%.

2. Which types of insurers tend to have the lowest denial rates?

Among large ACA Marketplace insurers, average in-network denial rates for major carriers have ranged from under 8% to upwards of 25%, with meaningful differences tied to portfolio mix, network structure, and state footprint rather than insurer size alone.

3. Do most denied claims get overturned on appeal?

No. Fewer than 1% of denied Marketplace claims are formally appealed. Of those that are, insurers uphold their own denial roughly two-thirds of the time, meaning about a third of appeals succeed.

4. Does a high denial rate mean an insurer is denying necessary care?

Not necessarily. Most denials are coded as administrative or “other” reasons rather than medical necessity, meaning paperwork or coding issues — not clinical judgment — drive the majority of rejections.

5. Can technology reduce claim denials?

Tools that catch missing documentation, coding errors, eligibility issues, and authorization gaps before a claim is submitted can meaningfully reduce preventable, administrative-cause denials — the largest single category. They’re less effective against medical-necessity or coverage-exclusion denials, which require a different kind of intervention (stronger documentation of clinical rationale, not just cleaner data entry). For more on what this looks like in practice, see Healthcare Revenue Cycle Automation: What Actually Works.

Bottom Line

There is no single official national claim denial rate in the US. The most comprehensive publicly available data, based on CMS Transparency in Coverage filings for ACA Marketplace plans, shows an approximately 19% in-network claim denial rate and 37% out-of-network claim denial rate for 2024, the latest reporting year available. The most important takeaway is that most denials are driven by administrative issues rather than medical necessity, and most patients never appeal their denied claims—even though roughly one-third of those who do file an appeal are successful.

External Reference

• Federal Data & Transparency: Access raw datasets and federal exchange files via the CMS Health Insurance Exchange Public Use Files (Exchange PUFs) and guidelines on CMS Health Plan Price Transparency.
• Industry Performance Benchmarks: Explore clinical and operational baseline metrics through the MGMA (Medical Group Management Association) DataDive Practice Operations and research updates via HFMA (Healthcare Financial Management Association) Revenue Cycle Insights.
• Payer Trends & Utilization Policy: Review federal analyses on Medicare Advantage network controls, prior authorization impacts, and provider payment adequacy via the MedPAC March Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy.
• Regulatory Oversight Guidelines: Understand multi-state insurance oversight standards through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

Related Articles

How AI Improves Denial Management for Physician Groups

Claim denials are among the most severe drains on ambulatory practice revenue. Industry data indicate that initial claim rejection rates typically range from 10% to 15%, with many practices experiencing even higher rates. Every unprocessed or overlooked denial...

Denial Prevention Before Claim Submission: A Practical Framework

Most denial management strategies are built backward. They start with a stack of rejected claims and work toward a fix. By the time a denial reaches a biller's desk, the financial damage is already done. The claim has been submitted. The payer has reviewed it. The...

How to Reduce Claim Denial Rates: A Step-by-Step Guide

Reducing claim denial rates requires a disciplined approach across the revenue cycle. Start by analysing historical denial trends, verifying patient eligibility before services are delivered, strengthening prior authorization workflows, maintaining accurate medical...

Denial Management Services: How to Prevent Claim Denials Before They Happen

For many revenue cycle leaders, denial management has become a repetitive cycle of chasing claims, filing appeals, and reworking rejections. This reactive approach keeps staff busy without ever addressing the root causes behind failed claims. The result is the same...

Healthcare Revenue Cycle Automation – What Actually Works

Healthcare Revenue Cycle automation has become a strategic priority for providers seeking to improve financial performance while managing increasing administrative complexity. Rising claim volumes, evolving payer requirements, staffing shortages, and shrinking...

RCM vs. Medical Billing – What’s the Difference?

If your practice is submitting claims consistently but revenue remains difficult to predict, the issue may extend beyond the billing process itself. Even accurately submitted claims can face delays or denials due to problems that occur earlier in the revenue cycle....

RCM Outsourcing Companies in the USA – How to Choose the Right One

Navigating the crowded marketplace of RCM outsourcing companies in the USA is one of the most critical decisions a healthcare executive or practice manager can make. With shrinking operating margins, rising claim denials, and increasingly complex payer...

What Is Revenue Cycle Management in Healthcare?

Revenue Cycle Management in healthcare (RCM) is a critical financial process that helps healthcare providers receive timely and accurate reimbursement for services rendered. It encompasses the complete financial lifecycle of a patient, from appointment scheduling...

Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management: The Complete Guide to AI-Governed RCM

Healthcare organizations are under growing financial pressure as claim denial rates increase, payer requirements evolve, staffing shortages persist, and regulatory expectations become more complex. These challenges make it increasingly difficult for providers...

AI Revenue Cycle Management for Hospitals

Hospitals today face unprecedented financial and operational challenges that directly impact healthcare revenue cycle management, including rising claim denials, reimbursement delays, staffing shortages, and increasing administrative costs. Modern hospital revenue...

FQHC Billing and Coding Services: The Complete Guide

Federally Qualified Health Centers do not bill like the rest of healthcare, and that is the first thing most outsourcing vendors get wrong. FQHC payment runs on a different framework, the documentation rules tie directly to HRSA funding conditions, and the math on...

Medical Coding Accuracy: How to Measurably Improve It

"Our coding is accurate" is the most common and least useful claim in the revenue cycle. Accurate against what benchmark? Measured how? On what sample size? Accuracy is a number, not a feeling, and the path to improving it runs through a disciplined measurement...