Why “Quick Calls” to Payors Turn Into 20-Minute Workflows

Inside most healthcare organizations, there’s a familiar phrase that gets used dozens of times a day.

“Can you make a quick call to the payor?”

It sounds harmless. A small task. Something that should take a few minutes between other responsibilities.

But anyone who has spent time in a billing department or a centralized revenue cycle team knows what usually happens next.

That “quick call” rarely stays quick. It stretches. It branches. It pulls in other tasks. And before anyone notices, twenty minutes have passed—sometimes more.

The question isn’t why this happens occasionally. It’s why it happens so consistently.

The Call Is Only One Moment in a Larger Workflow

Part of the confusion comes from how the task is framed.

A payor call is treated as a discrete action: pick up the phone, get the information, move on. But in practice, the call sits in the middle of a much longer sequence.

Before the call begins, someone has already reviewed the patient’s information, checked the system for existing notes, and often attempted to resolve the issue through a portal or prior documentation. That work doesn’t get labeled as part of the “call,” but it’s inseparable from it.

After the call ends, there’s documentation, follow-up, and often a decision about what to do next. In some cases, the call simply unlocks the next step rather than resolving the issue.

So when people say a call took twenty minutes, they’re usually describing only the visible portion of a workflow that began earlier and continues afterward.

Finding the Right Path Takes Time

Once the phone call begins, the first challenge is directional.

Payor systems are built to handle a wide range of inquiries, and the burden of navigating that system falls on the caller. Even experienced staff have to interpret how their specific need fits into the structure of the IVR.

It’s not uncommon for the first attempt to be slightly off. A selection that seems correct leads to the wrong department. The caller realizes it a few minutes in, backs out, and tries again.

Over time, teams develop instincts for each payor—unwritten knowledge about which paths lead where. But those instincts aren’t perfect, and they don’t eliminate the friction. They just make it manageable.

What looks like a delay is often just the process of aligning two systems that weren’t designed to work seamlessly together.

Waiting Isn’t Idle—It’s Fragmented Work

Hold time is the most visible source of delay, but it’s also the most misunderstood.

From the outside, it looks like waiting. From the inside, it’s something closer to fragmentation.

While waiting, staff are rarely doing nothing. They’re documenting partial information, starting another task, or preparing for the conversation that’s about to happen. In high-volume environments, it’s common to see people juggling multiple calls at different stages—one on hold, one being documented, one just completed.

This kind of multitasking keeps things moving, but it also introduces complexity. Context has to be reloaded each time attention shifts. Small details can be lost between transitions. And when the call finally connects, the caller has to reorient quickly.

The time isn’t wasted, but it isn’t clean either.

The Conversation Rarely Resolves Everything

There’s an assumption that once a representative answers, the rest of the process is straightforward.

In reality, the conversation is often where things become more complicated.

Questions that seem simple on the surface—eligibility, claim status, prior authorization requirements—tend to have layered answers. Coverage depends on plan details. Claim status depends on where the claim sits in a multi-step process. Prior authorization rules can change based on subtle variations in the service being performed.

So the caller isn’t just retrieving information. They’re clarifying it, validating it, and trying to translate it into something actionable.

Sometimes that requires follow-up questions. Sometimes it requires being transferred to another department. Occasionally, it requires ending the call with partial information and planning a next step.

The conversation moves the process forward, but it doesn’t always complete it.

Documentation Extends the Timeline

Once the call ends, the work continues.

Information needs to be entered into systems in a way that other teams can understand and act on. That often means translating a conversation into structured fields and notes, capturing not just what was said but how it applies to a specific claim or visit.

This step takes time, and it requires precision.

A small omission—a missing detail about a deductible, an unclear note about prior authorization—can create confusion later. And because the original caller may not be the one dealing with the downstream issue, the documentation has to stand on its own.

So even after the call is technically over, the workflow isn’t.

One Call Often Creates the Next

In many cases, the outcome of a payor call isn’t resolution—it’s direction.

The caller learns that additional documentation is needed, that a claim is pending in a specific way, or that a different department needs to be contacted. Each of these outcomes leads to another step, and often another call.

This is how a single “quick call” turns into a chain.

Each link in that chain is logical. Each one is necessary. But taken together, they expand the original task far beyond what anyone expected when it was assigned.

The Accumulation Is Where the Cost Lives

Individually, a twenty-minute workflow doesn’t seem significant.

But across an organization, these workflows are happening constantly.

Hundreds of calls per day. Thousands per week. Each one carrying the same pattern: preparation, navigation, waiting, interpretation, documentation, and follow-up.

The time adds up. The variability adds up. And because the work is distributed across people and systems, the total cost is rarely captured in one place.

It shows up instead in staffing levels, backlog growth, and the general sense that the team is always catching up.

The Workflow Was Never Designed to Be Efficient

The underlying issue isn’t that staff are inefficient or that they’re taking longer than they should.

It’s that the workflow itself was never designed to be efficient from the provider’s perspective.

Payor systems are built around their own internal logic, priorities, and constraints. Providers adapt to those systems because they have to. Over time, those adaptations become standard practice.

But adaptation isn’t the same as optimization.

What feels like a slow process is often just the natural outcome of navigating multiple systems that weren’t built to align.

A Different Way to Think About “Quick”

When organizations start to look more closely at these workflows, the definition of “quick” begins to change.

It’s no longer about how fast a single call can be completed. It’s about how much of the surrounding work can be reduced, standardized, or handled more consistently.

At SuperDial, we see teams shifting their focus from individual calls to the workflows those calls represent. Instead of asking how to make each call faster, they’re asking how to reduce the number of steps, the amount of variability, and the need for repeated follow-up.

That shift doesn’t eliminate complexity on the payor side.

But it changes how that complexity is handled.

Closing Thought

A “quick call” to a payor is rarely just a call.

It’s a compressed version of a larger workflow—one that includes preparation, navigation, interpretation, and follow-up. The time it takes isn’t an anomaly. It’s a reflection of everything that’s happening beneath the surface.

Once you recognize that, the goal stops being speed.

It becomes clarity. Consistency. And, eventually, a different way of doing the work altogether.

‍