HealthAdminBench: Evaluating Computer-Use Agents on Healthcare Administration Tasks
Authors: Suhana Bedi, Ryan Welch, Ethan Steinberg, Michael Wornow, Taeil Matthew Kim, Haroun Ahmed, Peter Sterling, Bravim Purohit, Qurat Akram, Angelic Acosta, Esther Nubla, Pritika Sharma, Michael A. Pfeffer, Sanmi Koyejo, Nigam H. Shah
Organizations: Stanford University · Kinetic Systems · Stanford Health Care
Healthcare administration accounts for over $1 trillion in annual spending, making it a promising target for LLM-based computer-use agents (CUAs). While clinical applications of LLMs have received significant attention, no benchmark exists for evaluating CUAs on end-to-end administrative workflows. To address this gap, we introduce HealthAdminBench, a benchmark comprising four realistic GUI environments: an EHR, two payer portals, and a fax system, and 135 expert-defined tasks spanning three administrative task types: Prior Authorization, Appeals and Denials Management, and Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Order Processing. Each task is decomposed into fine-grained, verifiable subtasks, yielding 1,698 evaluation points. We evaluate seven agent configurations under multiple prompting and observation settings and find that, despite strong subtask performance, end-to-end reliability remains low: the best-performing agent (Claude Opus 4.6 CUA) achieves only 36.3 percent task success, while GPT-5.4 CUA attains the highest subtask success rate (82.8 percent). These results reveal a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world administrative workflows. HealthAdminBench provides a rigorous foundation for evaluating progress toward safe and reliable automation of healthcare administrative workflows.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: HealthAdminBench evaluation loop. Each task is executed by an agent through iterative observation, action selection, and interaction with simulated environments (EHR, payer portals, and fax). Task success is determined using a combination of deterministic checks and LLM-based judges.
Benchmark
Cross-App Workflows
Strict Forms & Commits
Objective Success
Healthcare Admin
WebShop (2022)
x
✓
✓
x
Mind2Web (2023)
x
x
x
x
WebArena (2023)
x
✓
✓
x
WorkArena (2024)
x
✓
✓
x
OSWorld (2024)
✓
✓
✓
x
REAL (2025)
x
✓
✓
x
Table 1: Comparison of HealthAdminBench with related benchmarks. ✓ = present, x = absent. Columns denote: (1) workflows spanning multiple disjoint applications, (2) UI environments with rigid schema validation and terminal commit actions, (3) verifiable, programmatic success criteria, and (4) tasks grounded in healthcare administration.
Figure 2: HealthAdminBench contains four environments which mimic commonly utilized applications for administrative healthcare tasks – (a) an EHR inspired by Epic, (b) a payer portal inspired by Anthem, (c) a portal inspired by Availity, and an eFax inspired by RightFax. These environments are implemented as websites following the REAL framework Garg et al. (2025)
Subtask
Prior Authorization
Appeals & Denials Management
DME
Information Retrieval
93.3%
100.0%
33.3%
Documentation
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Form Completion
58.3%
3.3%
66.7%
Task Resolution
98.3%
96.7%
100.0%
Document Handling
53.3%
23.3%
100.0%
Clinical Reasoning
60.0%
71.7%
6.7%
Table 2: For each task type, the percentage of tasks that include at least one subtask from each subtask type.
Figure 3: Performance of evaluated agents on HealthAdminBench , reported as (a) task success rate and (b) subtask success rate. 95% test-set bootstrap confidence intervals are noted with error bars.
Agent
Task Type
Prior Authorization
Appeals & Denials Management
DME
Claude Opus 4.6 CUA
38.3%
25.0%
73.3%
GPT-5.4 CUA
26.7%
18.3%
60.0%
Kimi K2.5
18.3%
13.3%
13.3%
Claude Opus 4.6
16.7%
16.7%
0.0%
Qwen 3.5
16.7%
5.0%
33.3%
Table 3: End-to-end task success rates, split by task type.
Agent
Subtask
Information Retrieval
Documentation
Form Completion
Task Resolution
Document Handling
Clinical Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.6 CUA
96.5%
74.3%
88.9%
70.7%
92.3%
61.3%
GPT-5.4 CUA
96.1%
84.4%
84.9%
66.2%
94.3%
77.0%
Kimi K2.5
87.7%
45.6%
53.2%
45.3%
58.1%
39.3%
Claude Opus 4.6
88.5%
43.0%
23.4%
40.5%
49.3%
32.0%
Qwen 3.5
87.4%
54.0%
44.6%
51.6%
52.0%
44.5%
Table 4: Granular success rate for individual subtasks, split by subtask type. Note that one task can include many subtasks.
Figure 4: Performance of evaluated agents on HealthAdminBench across prompting and observation settings, reported as task success rate.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Context
Action
Description
Screenshot Only
click_coord(x, y)
Left-click at pixel coordinates (x,y) (origin at top-left).
double_click_coord(x, y)
Double-click at pixel coordinates (x,y) .
triple_click_coord(x, y)
Triple-click at pixel coordinates (x,y) .
right_click_coord(x, y)
Right-click at pixel coordinates (x,y) .
move_coord(x, y)
Move the cursor to pixel coordinates (x,y) .
type_text(text)
Type text at the current cursor focus.
Appendix
Table 5: Complete action space for HealthAdminBench. Agents with access to the accessibility tree operate on symbolic UI elements referenced by data-testid identifiers, while screenshot-only agents interact with the environment via coordinate-based mouse and keyboard actions.
Figure 5: Violin plots indicating the distribution of steps taken by each agent for easy, medium, and hard tasks. The average number of steps for each agent is printed to the right of each violin. A dotted red line indicates the maximum steps each model was allowed to take before being terminated.
Figure 6: Violin plots indicating the cost taken by each agent for easy, medium, and hard tasks on HealthAdminBench. The average cost is printed to the right of each violin. CUA agents have not been plotted due to harness limitations.
Figure 7: Subtask success rate of evaluated agents on HealthAdminBench across prompting strategy (rows) and observation modality (columns). Error bars show 95% bootstrap confidence intervals on the test set. Native CUA agents (dark bars) are evaluated only in screenshot mode. This figure complements Figure 4 , which reports the same experiments by task success rate.
Baseline Compare
Claude Opus 4.6 CUA
GPT-5.4 CUA
Kimi K2.5
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen 3.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
GPT-5.4 CUA
9.6% (2.2% - 17.8%)
Kimi K2.5
20.7% (11.8% - 29.6%)
11.1% (3.7% - 18.5%)
Claude Opus 4.6
21.5% (13.3% - 29.6%)
11.9% (3.0% - 20.7%)
0.7% (-5.2% - 7.4%)
Qwen 3.5
23.0% (14.1% - 31.1%)
13.3% (5.9% - 20.7%)
2.2% (-4.4% - 8.9%)
1.5% (-5.2% - 8.2%)
Gemini 3.1 Pro
24.4% (16.3% - 33.3%)
14.8% (7.4% - 23.0%)
3.7% (-3.7% - 11.1%)
3.0% (-4.4% - 11.1%)
1.5% (-5.2% - 8.1%)
GPT-5.4
30.4% (22.2% - 39.3%)
20.7% (13.3% - 28.9%)
9.6% (3.0% - 17.0%)
8.9% (2.2% - 15.6%)
7.4% (0.7% - 13.3%)
5.9% (0.0% - 11.9%)
Appendix
Table 6: Head-to-head differences in task success rate (percentage points). Positive numbers indicate that the agent in the column is better than the agent in row. 95% test-set bootstrap confidence intervals are reported under the overall difference between agents. Bolded rows are statistically significant ( p<0.05 ).
Baseline Compare
Claude Opus 4.6 CUA
GPT-5.4 CUA
Kimi K2.5
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen 3.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
GPT-5.4 CUA
-4.4% (-8.8% - -0.3%)
Kimi K2.5
20.9% (14.5% - 27.1%)
25.3% (19.9% - 30.7%)
Claude Opus 4.6
23.0% (15.4% - 30.5%)
27.4% (21.0% - 33.7%)
2.1% (-4.9% - 9.4%)
Qwen 3.5
16.4% (9.9% - 22.9%)
20.8% (15.7% - 25.9%)
-4.5% (-10.8% - 1.7%)
-6.6% (-13.4% - 0.1%)
Gemini 3.1 Pro
6.9% (2.3% - 11.4%)
11.4% (8.2% - 14.6%)
-13.9% (-19.4% - -8.4%)
-16.0% (-23.1% - -8.9%)
-9.5% (-15.2% - -4.1%)
GPT-5.4
32.8% (26.6% - 38.9%)
37.2% (31.9% - 42.5%)
11.9% (5.6% - 18.3%)
9.8% (2.5% - 17.2%)
16.4% (10.8% - 22.1%)
25.9% (19.9% - 31.7%)
Appendix
Table 7: Head-to-head differences in subtask success rate (percentage points). Positive numbers indicate that the agent in the column is better than the agent in row. 95% test-set bootstrap confidence intervals are reported under the overall difference between agents. Bolded rows are statistically significant ( p<0.05 ).
Model
Task Success Rate
Subtask Success Rate
Fine Tuned?
Claude Opus 4.6
25.7%
75.0%
-
Qwen-3.5
17.1%
65.4%
-
Qwen-3.5-Kinetic-SFT
40.0%
83.3%
✓
Appendix
Table 8: Results of domain-specific finetuning on 35 held-out examples using accessibility tree observations and task description + portal guidance prompting.
Baseline Compare
Qwen -3.5-Kinetic-SFT
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen-3.5
Claude Opus 4.6
14.3% (-2.9% - 31.4%)
Qwen-3.5
22.9% (8.6% - 37.1%)
8.6% (-2.9% - 20.0%)
Appendix
Table 9: Head-to-head differences in task success rate for the 35-task finetuning comparison (percentage points).
Baseline Compare
Qwen -3.5-Kinetic-SFT
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen-3.5
Claude Opus 4.6
8.4% (1.2% - 15.4%)
Qwen-3.5
17.9% (7.2% - 29.8%)
9.5% (-1.2% - 20.1%)
Appendix
Table 10: Head-to-head differences in subtask success rate for the 35-task finetuning comparison (percentage points).
As AI agents become increasingly capable of complex, long-horizon reasoning, rigorous evaluation is essential for measuring progress toward real-world healthcare applications. However, existing healthcare benchmarks are often static or narrow in clinical scope, motivating broader evaluation of agents acting on raw patient data. We introduce HealthAgentBench, a suite of 75 agentic healthcare tasks across 9 categories each with its unique environment. The benchmark suite spans diagnosis, specimen assessment, research, and data management workflows and a broad range of modalities. Each task is designed to replicate an end-to-end clinical workflow: given task instructions and supporting resources, an agent must explore raw healthcare data, operate within a complex environment, and execute multi-step solutions that go beyond naive prompting, such as querying large clinical databases or interpreting gigapixel pathology images. All tasks are scored using binary success criteria derived from reference labels, executable rules, or computational baselines. We evaluate six agents (three GPT models through Codex and three Claude models through Claude Code) with one scored attempt per task (450 evaluations). Overall success ranges from 32.0% to 57.3%; Claude Code Opus-5.5 leads with a 57.3% success rate, followed by GPT-6-astra and Sonnet-5.5 at 50.7% each. Performance varies substantially by category with specialized imaging modalities such as CT and MRI being especially difficult. HealthAgentBench provides a challenging and realistic benchmark with substantial room for future progress. We release our benchmark athttps://github.com/microsoft/HealthAgentBench.
We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.
Ruoqi Liu, Imran Q. Mohiuddin, Austin J. Schoeffler +10
End-to-end automation of realistic healthcare operations stresses three capabilities underrepresented in current benchmarks: policy density, decisions must be grounded in a large library of medical, insurance, and operational rules; Multi-role composition: a single task requires the agent to play multiple roles with handoffs; and multilateral interaction: intermediate workflow steps are multi-turn dialogs, such as peer-to-peer review and patient outreach. We introduce χ-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon healthcare workflows across three domains: provider prior authorization, payer utilization management, and care management. Each task hands the agent a clinical case in a high-fidelity simulator of 20 healthcare apps exposed via 87 MCP tools, which it must drive to a terminal status through tool calls and writing the role's artifacts, guided by a 1,290+ document managed-care operations handbook skill. Across 30 agent harness/models configurations, the best agent resolves only 28.0% of tasks, no agent clears 20% on strict pass^3, and executing all tasks in a single session slumps the performance to 3.8%. These results raise the hypothesis that similar gaps are likely to surface in other policy-dense, role-composed, irreversible enterprise domains.
Haolin Chen, Deon Metelski, Leon Qi +30
Johns Hopkins Medicine · Wellstar Health System · Stanford University +16