Healthcare disputes are being shaped by three converging forces: rising costs, AI-driven coverage decisions, and consolidation across the industry.
Rising costs are creating pressure on both sides of the healthcare system. Payors are working to control spending and maintain affordability, while providers are managing higher operational costs and tighter margins.
“This puts tremendous pressure on healthcare payors and providers, which leads to major conflicts over what health services should be covered by health insurance and at what price point,” said Mitch Zamoff, assistant dean of experiential education and J. Stewart and Mario Thomas McClendon Professor in Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution at the University of Minnesota Law School.
The growing use of AI and algorithms in coverage decisions is adding another layer of complexity. When automated tools are used to make or support decisions about whether healthcare costs should be covered, disputes may occur over how those decisions were reached, what data or criteria informed them, and whether the outcome can be explained.
Consolidation is raising the stakes further.
“Consolidation across the healthcare industry has led to fewer players, higher stakes, and less tolerance for compromise,” Zamoff said.
These conflicts often extend beyond a single coverage or pricing decision. They can shape cost structures, contractual relationships, market position, and long-term strategy. This makes the dispute resolution process an important strategic decision for parties that need to manage complexity without adding unnecessary delay or cost.
A Process Built Around the Dispute
Healthcare disputes often involve technical issues, sensitive information, and significant financial or operational consequences. According to Zamoff, resolving them effectively starts with responsiveness.
“I try to give the parties and lawyers who appear before me in arbitrations and mediations the same level of client service and responsiveness that I gave my clients when I practiced law,” he said.
That means moving early, listening carefully, and focusing on practical solutions.
Arbitration can also give parties more control over how the dispute is managed. Because it is a contractual process, parties can shape procedures around the issues at stake rather than defaulting to a standard litigation path.
“There is plenty of room for innovation and creativity,” Zamoff said.
This flexibility can help parties focus on the issues that will drive resolution, limit unnecessary discovery or motion practice, and move toward an outcome more efficiently.
The Value of Subject Matter Expertise
One of the most important advantages of arbitration and mediation is the ability to select a neutral with relevant experience.
“There is an element of democracy in the selection of an arbitrator or mediator that is missing from litigation,” Zamoff said.
That can be especially important in healthcare disputes, where the issues may involve coverage standards, reimbursement structures, clinical context, regulatory requirements, or complex commercial relationships.
Rather than having a decision-maker assigned through the court system, parties in arbitration and mediation can help select a neutral whose background matches the dispute. When a case is filed with the American Arbitration Association® (AAA®), the AAA usually provides the parties with a list of qualified neutrals, allowing them to participate in selecting someone with experience relevant to the issues in dispute, Zamoff explained.
Privacy in High-Stakes Healthcare Disputes
Healthcare disputes can involve confidential business information, competitive concerns, reputational risk, or positions that parties may not want debated publicly.
“There may be many reasons why the parties to a dispute do not want to fight it out in public,” Zamoff said.
Arbitration proceedings are private, unlike court proceedings, which are generally public. Parties also may agree to keep arbitration cases and awards confidential when doing so serves their mutual interests.
This privacy can make it easier to address complex disputes without unnecessarily exposing sensitive information.
Dispute Resolution Should Be a Strategic Decision
For parties entering a healthcare dispute, Zamoff cautions against moving too quickly into litigation.
“Do not reflexively default to a sue-or-be-sued mentality,” he said. “Litigation should be the last resort.”
Mediation can help parties better understand or narrow the dispute, even when it doesn’t result in a settlement. Arbitration can offer a more focused path when parties need a decision-maker with relevant expertise and a process suited to the issues involved.
In a field where disputes can affect finances, operations, relationships, and strategy, choosing the right forum is part of managing the risk.
For parties involved in healthcare disputes, the goal is not only to resolve the immediate conflict. It is to choose a process that preserves control, protects sensitive information, and supports a clearer path forward.
See How Disputes Are Being Resolved Across Industries
A Wall Street Journal feature highlights how parties are addressing complex disputes and turning to alternative approaches to resolve them more efficiently.