Paying in the Dark: Third-Party Administrator Fees and the Limits of Employer Cost Control in Self-Insured Health Plans

Clicks: 1
ID: 322464
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #84 of 90 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Employers are the largest purchasers of health care in the United States, covering more than 165 million people, yet they face persistent difficulty controlling costs. Most enrollees are in self-insured plans, which rely on third-party administrators (TPAs) to build provider networks and adjudicate claims. The fees employers pay these administrators are an under-documented source of health care spending. While recent litigation and news reporting allege that administrators overpay providers and charge large fees, the peer-reviewed literature offers limited detail on how these compensation mechanisms operate. Methods We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with 34 participants during the fall of 2025, drawn from four groups nationwide: employers and employer coalitions; TPAs and partners; benefit consultants and brokers; and legal and policy experts. Transcripts were coded and analyzed for key themes. Results Participants distinguished the base administrative fee, which employers compare across vendors, from additional fees that are less visible at contract signing. These include percentage-based shared-savings fees on out-of-network claims, overpayment-recovery fees, retained network discounts, a-la-carte service fees, and cross-plan offsetting. Interviewees described two pathways to address these fees—expanded transparency and clearer fiduciary accountability. Conclusion While potential solutions exist, market consolidation may limit employers’ ability to act on disclosed information.
Reference Key
openalex_W7170178983 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Christine Buttorff, Petra W. Rasmussen, Mallika Bhandarkar, Mekdes Shiferaw, Erin Duffy
Journal Health Affairs Scholar
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/haschl/qxag177
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag177
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.