Saturday, September 5, 2026

Tennessee “Tenny” Maya: The 95-Day NICU Journey That Should Change How Physicians Think About Medical Billing

A 95-day NICU journey, a tiny survivor, and the uncomfortable truth about the administrative systems that determine whether physicians can keep doing what they do best: care for patients.



“Patients should not have to fight the healthcare system to get the care they need and deserve.” — Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, MPH, President, American Medical Association

 

A 2-Pound, 10-Ounce Baby, a 95-Day NICU Stay, and the Healthcare Problem We Don't Like to Discuss

Two years ago, Reyanne Maya was 30 weeks pregnant and visiting Las Vegas.

She did not know that her trip was about to become a 95-day journey through one of the most intense parts of American medicine.

Reyanne needed an emergency C-section.

Her daughter, Tennessee “Tenny” Maya, was born weighing just 2 pounds, 10 ounces.

Ten days later, Tenny developed a life-threatening intestinal condition.

Surgeons removed approximately 65 centimeters of damaged intestine.

Then came the NICU.

Ninety-five days.

Today, Tenny is a thriving two-year-old.

Her mother has turned the experience into a children's book inspired by her daughter's strength. Sunrise Children’s Hospital in Las Vegas shared Tenny's story during NICU Awareness Month while recognizing the families and care teams behind more than 1,000 NICU journeys there each year.

There is something deeply human about that story.

A tiny baby.

A frightened mother.

A team of clinicians.

A difficult surgery.

A long hospitalization.

And, eventually, a child who gets to go home.

But here is the uncomfortable question:

What happens after the medicine works?

Because the hospital stay may end.

The surgery may be successful.

The child may recover.

The family may finally breathe.

But the healthcare machine does not stop.

The claim still has to be coded.

The documentation has to support it.

The payer has to process it.

The denial has to be investigated.

The underpayment has to be found.

The appeal has to be written.

The A/R has to be worked.

Someone has to reconcile the money.

And someone, somewhere, has to figure out why the practice delivered excellent care but did not get paid correctly for it.

That someone is often the physician.

Or the office manager.

Or the practice administrator.

Or the exhausted employee who has three browser windows open, two spreadsheets running and a payer portal asking them to reset their password again.

Welcome to modern medicine.

We have built extraordinary technology to save patients and remarkably primitive workflows to get physicians paid.

That contradiction deserves more attention.


The Contrarian Idea: Billing Is Not “Back Office”

Physicians are trained to think in clinical categories.

Patient care is important.

Administration is necessary.

Billing is somewhere in the administration bucket.

I think that framework is wrong.

Billing is part of the clinical infrastructure of a medical practice.

Not because physicians should become accountants.

Not because revenue is more important than patients.

And certainly not because every physician secretly dreamed of spending medical school learning payer rules.

The reason is simpler.

A financially dysfunctional practice eventually becomes a clinically dysfunctional practice.

If claims are routinely denied, cash flow suffers.

If cash flow suffers, hiring becomes harder.

If hiring becomes harder, staff become overloaded.

If staff become overloaded, administrative errors increase.

If errors increase, physicians get pulled into more cleanup.

If physicians get pulled into more cleanup, clinical time becomes more expensive.

And if the practice cannot sustain itself, access eventually suffers.

That is not theoretical.

It is a systems problem.

The AMA has continued to highlight the connection between physician payment, administrative burden and patient access. On September 4, 2026, AMA President Willie Underwood III, MD, wrote that delays in Medicare reform and prior authorization can harm patients and make it harder for physicians to provide timely care.

The uncomfortable truth is that bad administration can become a patient-care problem without ever appearing in the patient's chart.

That is the part we need to talk about.


The Healthcare Industry Has a Strange Definition of Efficiency

Think about how much money healthcare spends trying to improve efficiency.

Artificial intelligence.

Robotics.

Remote monitoring.

Predictive analytics.

Precision medicine.

Interoperability initiatives.

Population health.

Clinical decision support.

We will spend millions discussing how to save 30 seconds during a clinical workflow.

Then we may allow a claim worth hundreds or thousands of dollars to sit in A/R because nobody has clearly assigned ownership.

That is not efficiency.

That is theater.

And it is surprisingly common.

A physician may spend years developing clinical expertise, build a practice, hire staff, purchase equipment, maintain compliance, pay malpractice insurance, lease space and see patients all day.

Then the financial engine of the practice can depend on a collection of disconnected systems:

EHR.

Clearinghouse.

Payer portal.

Billing company.

Fax.

Email.

Spreadsheet.

Phone call.

Sticky note.

And, occasionally, the ancient healthcare technology known as:

“I think Susan handled that.”

Susan has no idea.

Susan left six months ago.

Nobody knows the password.

The claim is now 87 days old.

This is how revenue leakage happens.

Not necessarily through dramatic fraud.

Through friction.


Friction Is Expensive

The AMA's STEPS Forward program recently made an important point about workflow design: small sources of friction can consume valuable cognitive bandwidth, and fixing low-complexity, high-annoyance problems can create momentum for deeper change.

That observation applies beautifully to medical billing.

A physician does not need one giant billing disaster to lose money.

The leakage can happen in hundreds of small places.

A missing modifier.

An unsupported level of service.

A coding mismatch.

A claim submitted late.

An eligibility problem.

A documentation gap.

A denial nobody appealed.

An underpayment nobody noticed.

A secondary claim that never went out.

A payer rule that changed.

A staff member who does not know the new rule.

One error may be trivial.

Multiply it by 20 visits a day.

Then 100 visits a week.

Then 5,000 encounters a year.

Suddenly the “small” problem has a six-figure shadow.

The American Academy of Family Physicians explicitly notes that accurate coding supports payment, reduces audit risk and captures the complexity of care. Its current billing and coding resources also cite an estimate of $30,000 in average annual lost revenue from undercoding a few times a day.

The lesson is not “code more aggressively.”

The lesson is:

Document accurately. Code accurately. Bill accurately. Follow the money.

Those are very different things.


The Myth: “We Have a Billing Company, So Billing Is Solved”

This is probably the most dangerous assumption in independent practice.

And I say that carefully.

Outsourcing billing can absolutely make sense.

Third-party billing vendors can provide expertise, staffing and infrastructure that a small practice may not want to build internally. AMA coverage has also recognized situations in which third-party billing can improve private-practice efficiency.

The problem is not outsourcing.

The problem is outsourcing without visibility.

You can outsource the work.

You cannot outsource accountability.

That distinction matters.

If a vendor tells you:

“Your clean-claim rate is 96%.”

Great.

What about:

  • Net collection rate?
  • Denial rate?
  • Days in A/R?
  • A/R over 90 days?
  • First-pass acceptance?
  • Underpayment rate?
  • Appeal success rate?
  • Coding variance?
  • Missing charges?
  • Payer-specific performance?
  • Dollars at risk?
  • Dollars recovered?

If the answer is:

“I'm not sure.”

Then you don't have a billing strategy.

You have a billing relationship.

Those are not the same thing.


The Physician Should Not Become a Biller

Let me be equally contrarian on the other side.

The answer to broken billing is not to turn physicians into billing specialists.

Physicians already have enough jobs.

Diagnostician.

Proceduralist.

Counselor.

Documentation specialist.

Team leader.

Recruiter.

Compliance officer.

Employer.

Negotiator.

Technology evaluator.

And, increasingly, unpaid customer-service representative for the healthcare system.

We should not add:

Part-time certified revenue-cycle analyst.

The better model is physician oversight without physician micromanagement.

A practice owner should understand the economics of the practice.

But the physician should not be spending Tuesday afternoon calling a payer about claim number 847291.

That is not physician-level work.

It is a workflow failure.


Three Experts, Three Lessons

1. Willie Underwood III, MD: Payment Problems Become Patient Problems

AMA President Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, MPH has been outspoken about the relationship between administrative and payment barriers and patient access.

His September 4, 2026 commentary emphasized the harm that delays in Medicare reform and prior authorization can create for patients and physicians.

The lesson for practice owners is bigger than Medicare policy.

Revenue-cycle friction eventually touches care delivery.

If your practice cannot predict when money will arrive, you cannot plan confidently.

Hiring becomes harder.

Technology investments get delayed.

Staffing becomes reactive.

And physicians end up carrying operational uncertainty that should have been managed by the system.

 

2. Liz Harry: Stop Teaching People to Cope With Broken Workflows

The AMA STEPS Forward discussion this week featured Liz Harry, chief well-being officer at Michigan Medicine, emphasizing an idea that deserves to become standard practice:

Redesign the workflow instead of simply teaching people to tolerate the workflow.

That distinction is enormous.

Healthcare has a strange habit of treating administrative dysfunction as an employee wellness issue.

The inbox is overflowing?

Offer mindfulness.

The EHR takes forever?

Offer resilience training.

Billing staff are drowning?

Offer pizza.

Physicians are exhausted?

Offer yoga.

There is nothing wrong with yoga.

But yoga cannot fix a broken revenue cycle.

Wellness cannot compensate indefinitely for bad system design.

If a process repeatedly creates unnecessary work, fix the process.

 

3. Thomas Weida, MD, FAAFP: Small Coding Errors Can Become Big Money

The AAFP's billing and coding guidance cites Thomas Weida, MD, FAAFP, in estimating that undercoding a few times each day can cost a practice approximately $30,000 annually.

That is an important reminder.

Revenue optimization does not always require inventing a new revenue stream.

Sometimes the revenue is already sitting inside the practice.

It simply isn't being captured.

You don't necessarily need more patients. You may need better execution on the patients you already have.

That is a very different growth strategy.


The 2027 Medicare Warning Shot

The timing could not be more relevant.

On September 4, 2026, the AMA published an analysis of the proposed 2027 Medicare physician fee schedule, highlighting proposals involving same-day E/M services, maternity care codes, remote monitoring and other payment issues.

The AMA also reported this week that more than 150 medical specialty societies are urging CMS not to finalize a proposed 50% payment reduction for certain separately identifiable office/outpatient E/M services reported with modifier 25 on the same day as certain procedures.

Whether you agree with every advocacy position is beside the point.

The larger lesson is obvious:

Payment rules are moving targets.

A workflow that worked last year may not be optimal next year.

A code that staff understand today may require different interpretation tomorrow.

A modifier that looks insignificant can become financially significant at scale.

This is why “we've always done it this way” is not a billing strategy.

It is nostalgia.


What Physicians Should Actually Measure

If you own a practice, you should know these numbers.

Not your billing company.

Not just your office manager.

You.

Not every morning.

But often enough to see the trend.

1. Days in A/R

How long does it take for billed revenue to become collected revenue?

A growing number is a warning.

2. A/R over 90 days

Old A/R deserves disproportionate attention.

Money becomes harder to collect as it ages.

3. Denial rate

Don't just ask how many claims are denied.

Ask:

Why?

A denial categorized as “insurance issue” is not an analysis.

It is a shrug.

4. Clean-claim rate

How many claims make it through the initial submission without requiring correction?

5. Net collection rate

How much collectible revenue actually becomes cash?

6. Underpayment rate

This is where many practices become uncomfortable.

A claim can be “paid” and still be wrong.

Payment does not automatically mean correct payment.

7. Charge capture

Were all billable services actually captured?

8. Coding variance

Are different clinicians documenting and coding similar encounters in dramatically different ways?

Variation is not automatically wrong.

But unexplained variation deserves investigation.

9. Appeal recovery

How much money is recovered after denial?

If the number is zero, ask why.

10. Revenue per encounter

This should never become an excuse to over-treat or over-code.

It should become a way to understand whether the practice is accurately capturing legitimate work.


The Most Dangerous Billing Number Is Sometimes the One That Looks Good

Here is a counterintuitive point.

A high collection rate can hide problems.

Imagine a practice has a 97% collection rate.

Sounds fantastic.

But 97% of what?

If the practice routinely undercodes legitimate services, the denominator itself may be too small.

You could collect 100% of an inaccurately low amount.

Congratulations.

You achieved perfect efficiency at losing money.

This is why revenue-cycle metrics have to be interpreted together.

A dashboard without context is just a colorful spreadsheet.


The “More Patients” Trap

When revenue is weak, physicians often hear one recommendation:

See more patients.

It is simple.

It is measurable.

And sometimes it is completely wrong.

If your revenue cycle is leaking 5% to 10% of legitimate collectible revenue, adding more volume can make the administrative problem worse.

More patients mean:

More claims.

More documentation.

More coding.

More denials.

More A/R.

More staff workload.

More opportunities for leakage.

You may end up running faster on a treadmill that is moving backward.

Before increasing volume, ask:

How much of the work we already perform are we successfully converting into revenue?

That question can be worth more than another half-day of clinic.


Where AI Actually Belongs in Medical Billing

Let's talk about AI.

There is a lot of hype.

Some of it is deserved.

Much of it is not.

The wrong question is:

“Where can we put AI?”

The right question is:

“Where is the repetitive cognitive work that a machine can perform reliably while humans retain appropriate oversight?”

Billing has plenty of candidates.

AI can potentially help identify:

  • Missing information
  • Documentation inconsistencies
  • Coding anomalies
  • Claim-edit patterns
  • Denial trends
  • Payer-specific behavior
  • Underpayment patterns
  • A/R prioritization
  • Repetitive administrative tasks
  • Workflow bottlenecks

But AI should not become a magical black box that tells a physician:

“Trust me.”

Healthcare needs the opposite.

Show me.

Show me the claim.

Show me the documentation.

Show me the rule.

Show me the pattern.

Show me why this was flagged.

Show me what happened after the intervention.

That is how AI becomes useful rather than theatrical.


The Human Still Matters

Technology does not eliminate judgment.

It changes where judgment is applied.

A machine can identify a pattern.

A human must determine whether the pattern makes sense.

A machine can flag a denial.

A human may need to understand the clinical and contractual context.

A machine can organize A/R.

A human still has to decide what deserves attention.

The best billing system is therefore not:

AI versus humans.

It is:

AI for repetitive work + humans for judgment.

That is the model worth pursuing.


A Practical 30-Day Revenue-Cycle Reset

If I were walking into an independent medical practice tomorrow, I would not start with a giant technology project.

I would start with the data.

Week 1: Find the leaks

Pull the last 90 days of:

  • Claims
  • Denials
  • Payments
  • A/R
  • Adjustments
  • Write-offs
  • Payer mix
  • CPT distribution
  • E/M distribution
  • Days to payment

Then categorize the problems.

Don't say:

“Billing is bad.”

Say:

“Twenty-seven percent of our denials are eligibility-related.”

Specificity creates action.

 

Week 2: Find the expensive problems

Rank issues by dollars, not irritation.

A problem that annoys staff but costs $200 may be less urgent than a boring problem costing $40,000.

This sounds obvious.

It isn't.

Organizations routinely optimize whatever is loudest.

You should optimize what is most expensive and most fixable.

 

Week 3: Fix one workflow

Choose one high-impact problem.

For example:

Eligibility verification.

Missing modifiers.

Incomplete documentation.

Denial follow-up.

Charge capture.

Then redesign the workflow.

Assign ownership.

Define the expected result.

Measure it.

Do not launch seventeen initiatives.

Healthcare already has enough committees.

 

Week 4: Automate the repeatable

Once the workflow is understood, ask:

What can be automated?

Then:

What should remain human?

That order matters.

Automating a broken workflow does not create efficiency.

It creates a faster broken workflow.


What OnnX Is Trying to Change

This is where my own work comes into the conversation.

I founded OnnX around a simple observation:

Small and medium-sized medical practices should not need a maze of intermediaries just to understand and manage their own revenue cycle.

The goal is not to make physicians think about billing all day.

Quite the opposite.

The goal is to make the billing operation more visible, more intelligent and less dependent on unnecessary manual work.

That means using technology to reduce friction.

It means giving practices better visibility into what is happening.

It means identifying opportunities and problems earlier.

And it means keeping physicians and practice owners in control of the economics of their own businesses.

Because there is something fundamentally strange about owning a medical practice while having limited visibility into how the money moves through it.

You own the clinical operation.

You employ the people.

You take the regulatory risk.

You carry the overhead.

You serve the patients.

You make the clinical decisions.

You should also understand your revenue cycle.


But Here Is What I Don't Believe

I don't believe every practice needs AI.

I don't believe every billing company is bad.

I don't believe every denial is someone else's fault.

I don't believe every physician is undercoding.

I don't believe more technology automatically means better healthcare.

And I don't believe revenue optimization should become a euphemism for aggressive coding.

That last point matters most.

The objective is not to extract every possible dollar.

The objective is to accurately capture the value of legitimate care.

That means:

No upcoding.

No manufactured complexity.

No inappropriate modifiers.

No gaming.

No documentation designed backward from reimbursement.

No shortcuts that create compliance risk.

The strongest revenue cycle is not the most aggressive one.

It is the most accurate one.


The Legal and Compliance Line

Physicians and practice owners should be careful here.

Revenue optimization can quickly cross into compliance territory if the objective becomes maximizing reimbursement without regard to whether the underlying service, documentation and coding support the claim.

Coding must reflect the services actually provided.

Documentation should support the billed service.

Modifiers should be used appropriately.

Medical necessity remains fundamental.

And practices should maintain appropriate compliance processes.

The AAFP emphasizes accurate documentation, appropriate coding and correct use of modifiers as part of sound billing practice.

The safest philosophy is simple:

Don't code to get paid. Code what happened, document what you did, and get paid accurately for it.


The Ethical Question Nobody Should Avoid

There is an ethical dimension to billing that goes beyond compliance.

Physicians sometimes feel guilty talking about money.

I understand why.

Medicine is a profession built around service.

But avoiding financial conversations does not make financial incentives disappear.

It merely means somebody else controls them.

There is nothing unethical about building a financially healthy practice.

In fact, there is an ethical argument for doing so.

A sustainable practice can:

  • Keep clinicians employed.
  • Maintain equipment.
  • Invest in technology.
  • Offer patient access.
  • Support staff.
  • Serve communities.
  • Continue operating when reimbursement changes.

Financial health is not the opposite of patient care.

It can be one of the conditions that makes patient care sustainable.


The Real Enemy Isn't Billing

This may be the most contrarian point in the entire article.

Billing is not the enemy.

Bad billing isn't even necessarily the enemy.

The deeper enemy is unnecessary complexity.

A physician documents.

A coder interprets.

A billing system transforms.

A clearinghouse processes.

A payer adjudicates.

A vendor reports.

A dashboard summarizes.

A manager interprets the dashboard.

And eventually the physician asks:

“Wait. Why did we get paid this amount?”

That is too many layers between the work and the understanding of the work.

Healthcare has accumulated intermediaries because each one solved a problem at a particular moment.

But solving yesterday's problem by adding another layer can create tomorrow's problem.

The future should be about removing friction, not adding software for the sake of software.


What the Tenny Maya Story Has to Do With All of This

At first glance, almost nothing.

Tenny's story is about a premature birth, an emergency C-section, a life-threatening intestinal condition, surgery and a 95-day NICU stay.

It is about medicine at its most human.

Billing seems like a completely different universe.

But look closer.

Behind every successful medical outcome is an enormous operating system.

People.

Protocols.

Staff.

Technology.

Documentation.

Supplies.

Facilities.

Contracts.

Payments.

The public sees the miracle.

Healthcare leaders also have to manage the machinery that makes the miracle possible.

That is not glamorous.

There is no Hollywood movie about a clean claim.

Nobody writes a children's book about a perfectly reconciled A/R report.

And nobody rings a bell when a denial gets appealed successfully.

Maybe they should.

Because healthcare depends on thousands of invisible victories.


The Future Belongs to Practices That Understand Their Data

The independent practice of the future will not necessarily be the largest practice.

It may be the smartest.

It may know:

Which payers pay slowly.

Which codes generate recurring denials.

Which clinicians have documentation variation.

Which claims are aging.

Which workflows create staff frustration.

Which dollars are being left behind.

Which processes can be automated.

And which processes should never be automated.

This is not about turning doctors into business executives.

It is about giving physician-owners enough information to make good decisions.

The same principle applies clinically.

You would not diagnose a patient without information.

So why run a practice without financial information?


Seven Questions Every Physician-Owner Should Ask This Month

  1. What percentage of our A/R is older than 90 days?
  2. What are our three most common denial reasons?
  3. How much money did we fail to collect last quarter?
  4. How much of our revenue cycle still depends on manual work?
  5. Can I see payer performance by dollar, not just by claim count?
  6. Can I explain our billing process from patient encounter to payment in five minutes?
  7. If our billing team disappeared tomorrow, would we understand what was happening?

That last question is uncomfortable.

It is also revealing.

If the answer is no, you have an operational dependency.

Not necessarily a vendor problem.

A visibility problem.


Three Billing Myths Physicians Should Retire

Myth #1: “Paid means correct.”

No.

A claim can be paid incorrectly.

Payment is an event.

Accuracy is a process.

 

Myth #2: “Our billing company handles it.”

Maybe.

But if you cannot see the metrics, trends and problems, you cannot manage the outcome.

Outsourcing execution is reasonable.

Outsourcing understanding is dangerous.

 

Myth #3: “The only way to increase revenue is to see more patients.”

Sometimes the fastest revenue improvement is not another appointment.

It is capturing and collecting the revenue associated with care you are already providing.

More volume is not always growth.

Sometimes it is just more work.


Five Pitfalls to Avoid

1. Chasing every dollar equally

Prioritize by financial impact.

2. Measuring activity instead of outcomes

“Claims submitted” is an activity.

“Cash collected” is an outcome.

3. Automating before understanding

Map the process first.

4. Treating staff frustration as a personality problem

Repeated frustration often signals workflow friction.

5. Turning compliance into an afterthought

The smartest revenue strategy is the one that survives scrutiny.


The Physician-Owner's New Role

The physician-owner does not need to become a billing expert.

But the physician-owner should become a revenue-cycle literate leader.

That means understanding the vocabulary.

Understanding the dashboard.

Asking better questions.

Knowing where the risk lives.

Knowing where the opportunity lives.

And refusing to accept:

“That's just how billing works.”

Maybe it is.

But maybe it shouldn't be.

That sentence has protected a lot of bad processes for a very long time.


A Better Mental Model

Think about your practice as three connected systems.

Clinical system

You deliver care.

Administrative system

Your team documents, schedules, authorizes and coordinates.

Financial system

The organization captures, submits, adjudicates and collects payment.

Most practices obsess over the first.

Many struggle with the second.

Too few truly understand the third.

But they are connected.

Clinical quality without operational sustainability is fragile.

Operational efficiency without clinical integrity is dangerous.

Financial optimization without ethics is unacceptable.

The goal is all three.


What Happens Next?

Healthcare is heading toward more automation.

More AI.

More payer complexity.

More data.

More payment-model experimentation.

More scrutiny.

And more pressure on independent physicians.

The answer cannot simply be:

“Hire another person.”

At some point, we have to redesign the system.

The technology exists.

The data exists.

The expertise exists.

The question is whether we are willing to use them intelligently.


Final Thoughts: Stop Treating Revenue as Someone Else's Problem

Tennessee “Tenny” Maya's story is ultimately about something much bigger than a hospital stay.

It is about what happens when people, expertise, technology and persistence come together to protect a vulnerable human being.

That is what healthcare is supposed to do.

But the system surrounding that care also matters.

A practice that cannot manage its revenue eventually loses options.

And options matter.

They determine whether you can hire another nurse.

Whether you can replace an aging piece of equipment.

Whether you can invest in better technology.

Whether you can keep your doors open.

Whether you can continue serving the community.

So here are three things I would challenge every physician-owner to do:

Know your numbers.

Fix the friction.

Protect the mission.

Do not confuse revenue-cycle discipline with greed.

Do not confuse administrative complexity with sophistication.

And do not accept broken workflows simply because healthcare has lived with them for decades.

Tenny's story reminds us what is worth protecting.

The patient is the mission.

The practice is the vehicle.

And the revenue cycle is the fuel.

You do not worship the fuel.

But you cannot drive without it.


Continue the Conversation

I would genuinely like to hear from physicians and practice owners:

What is the single most frustrating part of your medical billing process today?

Is it denials?

Prior authorization?

Slow payments?

A/R?

Coding?

Lack of visibility?

Your billing vendor?

Your EHR?

Or simply the feeling that you are spending too much time managing a system that was supposed to support your practice?

Tell me in the comments.

Your experience may help another physician recognize a problem they have been quietly tolerating.

If this article gave you one useful idea, share it with a physician-owner or practice administrator who needs to see it.

And if you disagree with me, even better.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

The healthcare system gets better when the people living inside it are willing to challenge its assumptions.


A Practical Free Resource

For physician-owners who want to go deeper, I recommend starting with a simple Revenue-Cycle Health Check:

Track:

  • Days in A/R
  • A/R over 90 days
  • Denial rate
  • Clean-claim rate
  • Net collection rate
  • Underpayment rate
  • Charge capture
  • Appeal recovery
  • Revenue per encounter
  • Top five denial reasons

You do not need an expensive transformation project to begin.

You need visibility.

Then you need a plan.

Then you need consistency.


About the Author

Dr. Daniel Cham is a physician-entrepreneur and founder of OnnX, an AI-powered medical billing SaaS platform built around a simple idea: small and medium-sized medical practices should have better control, visibility and efficiency in their revenue cycle without unnecessary layers of intermediaries.

His work sits at the intersection of medicine, entrepreneurship, healthcare technology, artificial intelligence and practice operations.

The goal is not to make physicians think more about billing.

It is to help them spend less time fighting the administrative machinery surrounding the medicine they practice.


Disclaimer

This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes and is not legal, medical, accounting, coding or reimbursement advice.

Healthcare payment rules, payer policies, Medicare requirements, CPT guidance and regulatory requirements can change. Physicians and practice owners should consult qualified legal, compliance, coding, accounting and reimbursement professionals regarding their individual circumstances.

The discussion of Tennessee “Tenny” Maya and Reyanne Maya is based on publicly reported information from FOX5 Las Vegas and is intended to provide a human-interest context for the broader discussion. It should not be interpreted as commentary on the medical care provided to the family.


Continue Connecting

You can continue the conversation through my professional and educational channels:

Visit Dr. Cham's website

Listen to the podcast on Spotify

Watch on YouTube

Follow Dr. Cham on X

Follow Dr. Cham on Facebook

If this article is useful to you, please repost it.

One physician seeing this at the right time could change how an entire practice thinks about its revenue cycle.


Recent Reading and Resources

FOX5 Las Vegas — Tenny Maya's story
A human-interest account of Reyanne Maya, her daughter Tennessee “Tenny” Maya, Tenny's emergency birth, life-threatening intestinal condition, surgery and 95-day NICU stay. Read the FOX5 story

American Medical Association — 2027 proposed Medicare fee schedule
A current analysis of proposed 2027 Medicare physician payment changes, including same-day E/M services and other reimbursement issues. Read the AMA analysis

American Medical Association — Delays in Medicare reform and prior authorization
AMA President Willie Underwood III, MD, discusses the consequences of payment and prior-authorization barriers for physicians and patients. Read the AMA commentary

American Academy of Family Physicians — Medical billing and coding
Practical guidance covering coding accuracy, documentation, modifiers, payment and revenue-cycle fundamentals. Read the AAFP resource

AMA STEPS Forward — Small Workflow Changes Can Make a Big Impact
A timely reminder that fixing small, high-friction workflow problems can create meaningful improvements in physician work and organizational efficiency. Explore the AMA resource


One Last Question

If you could eliminate one completely unnecessary administrative task from your practice tomorrow, what would it be?

Leave your answer in the comments.

I suspect the answers would tell us more about the future of healthcare than another thousand-page strategy document.

#Healthcare #MedicalBilling #PhysicianPractice #HealthcareAI #RevenueCycleManagement #MedicalPracticeManagement #PhysicianEntrepreneur #HealthcareTechnology #AIinHealthcare #MedicalCoding #HealthcareInnovation #IndependentPractice #PhysicianLeadership #RevenueCycle #DigitalHealth #PracticeManagement

 

Friday, September 4, 2026

Megan White Was a 2-Pound NICU Baby. Dr. Stephen Ragatz Helped Care for Her. 42 Years Later, She Came Back as His Colleague.

One Patient Became a Nurse. Why Can’t Healthcare Systems Learn the Same Way?



“Although we are in different systems, none of us compete in quality, safety or equity. There is no competition. We all win together there.”Jason Mitchell, MD, Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Geisinger

 

On February 5, 1984, Megan White entered the world 12 weeks early.

She was born at 29 weeks.

She weighed just 2 pounds, 8 ounces.

Her first home was not a nursery.

It was the neonatal intensive care unit at Ascension St. Joseph Hospital in Milwaukee.

She needed a ventilator.

Her parents had a premature baby.

The medical team had a fragile patient.

And one of the physicians involved in her care was Dr. Stephen Ragatz, a neonatologist who has worked at the hospital for nearly 45 years.

Then something happened that no revenue-cycle dashboard can measure.

Megan grew up.

She survived.

She became a nurse.

And eventually, she returned to the very hospital where her life began.

Not as a patient.

As a NICU nurse.

Today, Megan White has spent 16 years caring for premature infants.

And she works alongside some of the physicians who once cared for her.

Including Dr. Stephen Ragatz.

Think about that.

The 2-pound, 8-ounce baby became the healthcare professional standing on the other side of the incubator.

The patient became the caregiver.

The person who once needed the system became part of the system.

That is an extraordinary human story.

But there is another lesson hiding inside it.

One that has almost nothing to do with neonatology.

And everything to do with how we run medical practices.

Because healthcare has a strange habit.

We talk about patient care as the mission.

Then we build administrative systems that sometimes make delivering that care unnecessarily difficult.

We tell physicians to focus on patients.

Then give them documentation burdens.

We tell nurses to focus on patients.

Then bury them in workflows.

We tell independent practice owners to stay focused on medicine.

Then hand them a revenue cycle that requires the investigative skills of Sherlock Holmes and the patience of a saint.

And when the system breaks?

We call it a billing problem.

I think that's too simple.

The revenue cycle is part of the clinical infrastructure.

Not because billing is medicine.

It isn't.

But because sustainable medicine requires sustainable operations.

And sustainable operations depend on information.

That is where Megan White's story unexpectedly connects to medical billing.


The uncomfortable question

Here is my question for physicians and clinic owners:

What if your billing problem isn't really a billing problem?

What if it started much earlier?

At registration.

At eligibility verification.

At authorization.

At documentation.

At coding.

At the handoff between clinical and administrative teams.

What if the denial you are working today was created three weeks ago?

Or three months ago?

What if your biller is not failing?

What if you are asking the biller to repair a problem the system created upstream?

This is where I think healthcare needs a different conversation.

We have become very good at fixing problems after they become claims.

We need to become much better at preventing them before they become claims.


The great healthcare repair shop

Consider the typical revenue cycle.

A patient arrives.

The front desk verifies insurance.

The physician sees the patient.

The physician documents the encounter.

Someone codes it.

Someone submits the claim.

The payer processes it.

Then, perhaps, the fax machine lights up with bad news.

Denied.

Pending.

Incorrect.

Missing information.

Authorization required.

Modifier issue.

Medical necessity question.

Duplicate.

Timely filing.

Wrong payer.

Wrong patient.

Wrong something.

Now the practice starts repairing.

The biller investigates.

The coder reviews.

The physician gets a query.

The payer gets called.

An appeal is submitted.

A corrected claim goes out.

Everyone celebrates when the payment finally arrives.

And then we do it again tomorrow.

This is not necessarily a people problem.

It is often a system-design problem.

We have built an enormous healthcare repair shop.

And then we congratulate ourselves for becoming very efficient at repairing things.

That's a little like designing a leaky roof and then celebrating how quickly you mop the floor.


Megan White gives us a different way to think

Megan's story is about continuity.

Her care did not end when she left the NICU.

The experience became part of her life.

Eventually, it influenced her career.

She came back and became part of the next generation of care.

Healthcare leaders should think about operations the same way.

An encounter should not be an isolated event.

It should create a useful information trail.

Clinical intent → documentation → coding → claim → payment → learning → better future workflow.

That last word matters.

Learning.

Too many revenue cycles stop at payment.

The claim gets paid.

The file gets closed.

The team moves on.

But the organization learned almost nothing.

Then the same denial appears next Tuesday.

And Wednesday.

And Friday.

At some point, that stops being bad luck.

It becomes a process.


The biggest myth in medical billing

Here is one of my favorite myths:

"We just need a better biller."

Sometimes you do.

Great billing professionals are incredibly valuable.

But even the best biller has limits.

A biller cannot reliably recover clinical intent that was never captured.

A biller cannot control a payer's policy.

A biller cannot fix a confusing EHR workflow.

A biller cannot permanently solve a recurring documentation problem by correcting the same claim 200 times.

And a biller certainly shouldn't need to become the institutional memory of every payer rule in America.

That isn't a workflow.

That's survival.


The second myth

"We need more staff."

Maybe.

But before adding another person, ask:

How much of our staff's workload exists because our process creates avoidable work?

That question can be uncomfortable.

Suppose five employees spend several hours every week correcting the same category of errors.

Hiring another employee may increase capacity.

It does not necessarily eliminate the error.

You have increased the size of the bucket.

You haven't fixed the hole.


The third myth

"AI will fix medical billing."

This one is particularly fashionable.

And particularly dangerous when oversimplified.

AI can absolutely help.

It can identify patterns.

Classify information.

Flag inconsistencies.

Assist with coding workflows.

Surface anomalies.

Summarize documentation.

Predict potential problems.

Prioritize work.

But AI is not magic dust.

If the underlying information is incomplete, inconsistent, or poorly structured, AI doesn't automatically transform it into truth.

Better intelligence requires better information.

That is why I believe the more important question is not:

"Where can we add AI?"

It is:

"Where can we improve the information before AI ever touches it?"


The real problem may be upstream

This is the thesis behind what I am building with OnnX.

Healthcare billing is often treated as a downstream optimization problem.

I see it differently.

It is frequently an upstream data-quality problem.

Think about the chain:

Patient

Encounter

Clinical intent

Documentation

Coding

Claim

Payer

Payment

Every arrow is a potential failure point.

The farther downstream you discover the problem, the more expensive it can become to fix.

That's why I am interested in moving intelligence upstream.

Not replacing physicians.

Not replacing clinical judgment.

Not creating another dashboard nobody opens.

But helping practices identify potential problems earlier.


Why this matters right now

The timing is important.

This week, MGMA reported that fewer than one in 10 medical practices saw faster prior-authorization turnaround times in 2026, while 44% of medical group leaders reported that payer turnaround had become slower.

The AMA has also documented the continuing administrative burden of prior authorization on physicians and their teams.

And the policy environment isn't exactly getting boring.

CMS continues to update payment and coding policies.

The proposed 2027 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule has generated concern among physician organizations about payment changes, including proposed treatment of certain same-day E/M services.

There are also ongoing debates about coding structures and how physicians are paid.

Meanwhile, practices still have patients waiting in examination rooms.

The contradiction is obvious.

The clinical environment changes quickly. The administrative infrastructure often doesn't.


The statistic that should bother practice owners

The AMA has reported that physicians and their staff spend substantial time dealing with prior authorization, with physicians reporting an average of 40 prior authorizations per week and roughly 13 hours of physician and staff time per week devoted to the process.

Even more striking:

94% of surveyed physicians said prior authorization contributes to burnout.

95% said it delays necessary care.

79% reported that patients sometimes abandon treatment because of authorization problems.

Those aren't just administrative statistics.

They're human statistics.

Every hour consumed by avoidable administrative work is an hour that cannot be spent doing something else.

Seeing another patient.

Calling a patient.

Reviewing a complex case.

Training a staff member.

Going home on time.

Having dinner with your family.

Healthcare loves to measure dollars.

We should also measure attention.

Because attention is finite.


Expert perspective: Dr. Jill Jin

Jill Jin, MD, MPH, has contributed to AMA education around outpatient documentation and coding.

The lesson isn't "write more."

It is almost the opposite.

Write what matters.

Documentation should tell the clinical story clearly enough to support the service provided.

That means capturing the reasoning that matters.

What problem was addressed?

What information was considered?

What decisions were made?

What risks mattered?

What was the plan?

The objective isn't to produce the longest note in the building.

Nobody wins a Pulitzer Prize for a 14-page progress note.

Longer is not automatically better.

Clearer is better.


Expert perspective: Dr. Jeannine Engel

Jeannine Engel, MD, MACP, has also contributed to AMA education on documentation and coding.

The practical lesson for physicians is to understand what actually drives coding rather than relying on myths.

A physician should not document unnecessary material simply because someone once said:

"More words equals more reimbursement."

That's not a sound strategy.

The better strategy is:

accurate clinical reasoning + appropriate documentation + correct coding.

Simple.

But healthcare has a talent for making simple things complicated.


Expert perspective: Dr. Kevin D. Hopkins

Kevin D. Hopkins, MD, a family medicine physician and physician leader involved in AMA documentation and coding education, reinforces the importance of making documentation and coding workflows understandable to physicians.

That matters because technology should serve the clinical workflow.

Not the other way around.

If a system forces physicians to think like coders while they're trying to think like physicians, something has gone wrong.

The software should carry more of the administrative burden.

The clinician should retain the clinical judgment.


Here's my contrarian take

I think healthcare has confused documentation volume with information quality.

And it has confused billing activity with revenue-cycle performance.

Those aren't the same thing.

A practice can have hundreds of employees touching claims and still have a weak revenue cycle.

A practice can have sophisticated software and still have poor data.

A practice can submit thousands of claims and still leak revenue.

And a practice can have a high collection rate while quietly accumulating operational problems.

Activity is not performance.

Work is not necessarily progress.

That distinction is crucial.


What should physicians actually measure?

Forget the giant dashboard with 47 metrics.

Start with the basics.

Clean-claim rate

How many claims are accepted without avoidable corrections?

Denial rate

How frequently are claims denied?

Denial dollars

How much money is represented by those denials?

Days in A/R

How long does earned revenue remain outstanding?

Underpayment rate

Are payments consistent with contractual expectations?

Correction volume

How many claims require human intervention?

Root-cause concentration

Are a few recurring problems creating most of the leakage?

That final metric is particularly powerful.

Because concentration creates leverage.

If three problems create 60% of your avoidable administrative work, you don't need a hundred projects.

You need three good projects.


A simple experiment for your practice

Try this next week.

Take your last 100 denied claims.

Don't appeal them yet.

First categorize them.

Use buckets such as:

Eligibility

Authorization

Documentation

Coding

Modifier

Medical necessity

Duplicate

Timely filing

Payer processing

Other

Then ask:

Which three categories create the most financial damage?

Now ask the more important question:

Where did those problems begin?

Not where they were discovered.

Where did they begin?

That's your leverage point.


A practical 30-day revenue-cycle reset

Days 1–7: Stop guessing

Pull 90 days of claims and payment data.

Identify:

Top payers.

Top denial reasons.

Top dollar losses.

A/R aging.

Correction volume.

Underpayments.

Do not start by buying software.

Start by understanding the problem.


Days 8–14: Find the root

Choose your top three problems.

For each one, trace the workflow backward.

Where did the information originate?

Who entered it?

Who changed it?

Who interpreted it?

Where was the first opportunity to catch the problem?

You are looking for the first failure, not the last person who touched the claim.


Days 15–21: Fix one workflow

Pick one.

Maybe eligibility.

Maybe authorization.

Maybe documentation.

Maybe coding.

Maybe claim validation.

Don't redesign your entire practice.

Healthcare projects have a funny habit of becoming dissertations.

Keep it small.


Days 22–30: Measure again

Did the denial rate change?

Did correction volume fall?

Did staff time improve?

Did A/R improve?

Did physicians experience less friction?

If yes, repeat.

If no, learn.

Then adjust.


The physician's role

Physicians should not become billing experts.

But physicians should understand the financial consequences of clinical information.

That distinction matters.

A physician doesn't need to memorize every payer rule.

But they should understand:

Why documentation matters.

Why medical necessity matters.

Why coding accuracy matters.

Why incomplete information creates downstream work.

Why payer variation matters.

And why a recurring billing problem may indicate a workflow problem rather than an individual employee problem.

That is enough to make better decisions.


The clinic owner's role

Clinic owners have a different responsibility.

They need visibility.

You should know:

Where revenue is leaking.

Why it is leaking.

Who is spending time fixing it.

How often it happens.

Whether it is preventable.

And perhaps most importantly:

Whether the problem is getting better.

If your only financial metric is:

"Did we collect enough this month?"

you're looking in the rearview mirror.


The technology founder's responsibility

Healthcare founders have their own trap.

We love features.

Dashboards.

Integrations.

AI.

Automation.

Predictive analytics.

Agents.

APIs.

Beautiful interfaces.

But physicians don't wake up thinking:

"I hope someone gives me another dashboard today."

They wake up thinking:

"I have 24 patients."

Technology has to respect that reality.

The best healthcare technology often does something surprisingly unglamorous:

It removes work.

That should be the benchmark.

Not:

"How sophisticated is the technology?"

But:

"How much unnecessary friction disappeared?"


What OnnX is trying to change

OnnX is being built around a simple idea:

Make the revenue cycle more predictable by improving the information and workflow upstream.

The goal isn't to make physicians think about billing more.

It's to make them think about it less.

That means looking for opportunities to:

identify preventable problems earlier

reduce repetitive billing work

surface payer patterns

improve data consistency

connect clinical information with reimbursement workflows

reduce avoidable claim friction

And ultimately:

help independent practices keep more of the revenue they have legitimately earned.

No magic.

No promise that every denial disappears.

No suggestion that AI replaces judgment.

Just better infrastructure.


What about the patient?

This is where the Megan White story comes back.

A medical practice is not a factory.

The output isn't claims.

The output is care.

Claims are part of the machinery that finances that care.

That distinction matters.

If billing consumes excessive staff time, someone pays.

If physicians spend hours fixing documentation issues, someone pays.

If claims sit unresolved for months, someone pays.

If independent practices become financially unsustainable, communities pay.

And eventually patients may pay through reduced access, fewer services, longer waits, or consolidation.

That's why revenue-cycle improvement isn't merely about making owners richer.

It can be about protecting access to independent medical care.


The human lesson

Megan White's story is extraordinary because it closes a circle.

A baby entered a hospital.

A team cared for her.

She survived.

She grew.

She chose healthcare.

She returned.

And now she helps other families.

Dr. Stephen Ragatz once saw Megan as a premature newborn.

Today, he sees her as a colleague.

That is what healthcare can look like at its best.

Not a transaction.

A continuum.

And that is how I think we should approach healthcare operations.

Not as isolated events.

But as connected systems.

Encounter → information → decision → documentation → reimbursement → learning → better care.

When the chain works, everybody benefits.

When it doesn't, everybody feels the friction.


The bigger opportunity

There is a bigger healthcare question hiding underneath all of this.

We spend enormous amounts of money trying to improve medicine.

But how much attention do we give to the systems that allow physicians to practice medicine sustainably?

We fund new therapies.

New devices.

New diagnostics.

New AI models.

New digital platforms.

All valuable.

But sometimes the innovation opportunity is less glamorous.

Fix the handoff.

Fix the data.

Fix the workflow.

Fix the feedback loop.

Remove the unnecessary step.

Make the system easier for the human being actually using it.

That's innovation too.

Maybe especially so.


Ethical considerations

Revenue optimization needs a boundary.

That boundary is truth.

The objective should never be:

"How do we make this encounter pay more?"

The objective should be:

"How do we accurately represent the care that actually occurred?"

Those are very different questions.

Technology should never encourage unsupported coding.

Physicians should never alter clinical decisions for reimbursement.

Documentation should not be manufactured after the fact.

AI recommendations should remain subject to appropriate human oversight.

And practices need appropriate safeguards around patient information, privacy, security, and compliance.

Automation does not eliminate responsibility.

It increases the importance of knowing who is accountable.


Legal and compliance considerations

Medical billing operates inside a complex regulatory environment.

Depending on the practice and payer mix, considerations may include:

HIPAA and privacy requirements

coding compliance

medical necessity

payer contracts

False Claims Act risk

fraud and abuse laws

overpayment obligations

documentation requirements

audit readiness

AI governance

vendor contracts and business associate agreements

The details matter.

A technology platform should not be viewed as a compliance shield.

Physicians and organizations remain responsible for appropriate oversight.

The safest approach is not to avoid technology.

It is to implement technology with clear governance, auditability, appropriate access controls, human oversight, and documented processes.


Tools and resources

Physicians don't need to build a NASA mission-control center.

Start with a few useful tools.

Revenue-cycle dashboard

Track the metrics that actually affect your practice.

Denial log

Record the reason, payer, code, dollar amount, root cause, and resolution.

Payer matrix

Maintain a current reference for important payer-specific requirements.

Documentation education

Give physicians short, practical education rather than giant coding manuals.

CMS resources

Use authoritative CMS payment and coding resources when evaluating Medicare requirements and payment policies. CMS maintains its Physician Fee Schedule tools and payment information online.

AMA resources

The AMA maintains resources for private practices, including guidance on improving revenue-cycle processes.

Weekly review

Thirty minutes.

Three questions:

What went wrong?

Why?

How do we stop it happening again?


The future of medical billing

I don't think the future is humans versus machines.

That's the wrong argument.

The future is probably:

better information + automation + human judgment.

AI can help analyze patterns.

Automation can handle repetitive work.

Software can surface exceptions.

But physicians still make clinical decisions.

People still oversee important workflows.

Patients still need empathy.

And someone still needs to ask:

"Does this make sense?"

That question may be the most valuable piece of technology in healthcare.

It is called judgment.


A future worth building

Imagine a practice where:

A potential eligibility problem is identified before the visit.

A documentation gap is surfaced before claim submission.

A recurring payer pattern is detected automatically.

A likely claim problem is flagged before it becomes a denial.

A staff member spends five minutes reviewing an exception instead of an hour repairing it.

A physician receives useful feedback rather than another generic warning.

The system learns from previous outcomes.

And the owner can see where revenue is being lost without opening 11 different spreadsheets.

That is not science fiction.

Pieces of that future already exist.

The opportunity is connecting them intelligently.


What I believe

I believe healthcare has spent too much time asking:

"How do we work harder?"

We should ask:

"Why does this work exist?"

I believe physicians should spend more time practicing medicine and less time translating medicine into administrative language.

I believe independent practices deserve technology designed for their realities, not technology designed around enterprise assumptions.

I believe billing should become less mysterious.

I believe AI should reduce administrative friction rather than create another layer of it.

And I believe the best healthcare technology will eventually become almost invisible.

If it works, you don't think about it.

You simply notice that your day is easier.


And that's why Megan White's story matters

Megan White entered Ascension St. Joseph Hospital as a premature baby.

She returned decades later as a nurse.

Dr. Stephen Ragatz saw both versions of her.

The fragile newborn.

The experienced professional.

Same hospital.

Different chapter.

That is the beautiful thing about healthcare.

We rarely know where a patient's story will go.

A patient today may become a nurse tomorrow.

A frightened parent may become an advocate.

A survivor may become a researcher.

A former patient may become a physician.

The encounter is only one chapter.

The patient is the whole story.

And our systems should be designed accordingly.

That includes our revenue cycle.

Because if the administrative infrastructure becomes so complicated that physicians spend more time fighting the system than caring for people, we've lost sight of the point.

The goal isn't more claims.

More codes.

More dashboards.

More staff.

More software.

The goal is better healthcare.

And sometimes, the best way to improve healthcare is to remove the friction that keeps good people from doing their best work.


Final Thoughts: Stop repairing what you could prevent

Maybe the biggest mistake in revenue-cycle management is that we have become comfortable with repair.

We accept denials.

We accept corrections.

We accept appeals.

We accept payer calls.

We accept administrative waste.

We accept that physicians will spend evenings finishing documentation.

We accept that staff will chase money that has already been earned.

We call it "the way healthcare works."

I'm not convinced.

Healthcare is complicated. That doesn't mean healthcare has to be unnecessarily complicated.

Megan White's story reminds us that healthcare is ultimately about continuity.

One generation cares for the next.

One patient becomes a caregiver.

One clinical encounter can influence an entire life.

Our operational systems should support that continuity rather than compete with it.

The future of medical billing is not more bureaucracy.

It is better information.

It is smarter workflows.

It is fewer preventable problems.

And most importantly:

It is giving physicians back the attention they never should have had to surrender in the first place.


Get Involved: Your Practice Has a Story Too

Here's the provocative question I'd like to leave you with:

What is the most ridiculous recurring billing problem your practice has learned to tolerate because everyone assumes "that's just healthcare"?

Maybe it's a denial.

Maybe it's an authorization.

Maybe it's a payer rule.

Maybe it's a documentation problem.

Maybe it's a spreadsheet someone built five years ago that has somehow become mission-critical.

Tell me about it.

Leave a comment.

Your experience may help another physician recognize a problem they've been quietly tolerating too.

And if this perspective resonates, share or repost this article with another physician, practice owner, medical director, or healthcare operator.

The goal isn't to complain about the system.

It is to understand it well enough to improve it.

Ask the uncomfortable question.

Share what you've learned.

Help build a healthcare system where technology removes friction instead of creating more of it.


Continue the Conversation

Healthcare improves when people in the field share what actually works.

I write about medicine, medical billing, healthcare operations, medical technology, entrepreneurship, and practical innovation from the perspective of a physician and healthcare entrepreneur.

For additional perspectives and practical strategies, explore:

Visit Dr. Cham's website
Listen on Spotify
Watch on YouTube
Follow on X
Follow on Facebook

Knowledge creates leverage. The next improvement in your practice may begin with one better question.


Free Resource

Want a practical starting point?

Visit the Featured section of my LinkedIn profile for a free resource. No signup required.

Use it to explore practical approaches to revenue-cycle management, medical billing, documentation, and reducing administrative friction in independent practice.

And if this article made you rethink billing even a little:

Consider reposting it.

A physician somewhere is probably dealing with the same problem.

Your repost might be the thing that makes them question it.


About the Author

Dr. Daniel Cham is a physician, medical consultant, healthcare entrepreneur, and founder of OnnX, an AI-powered medical billing SaaS focused on helping small and medium-sized medical practices reduce administrative friction and improve revenue-cycle performance.

His work sits at the intersection of clinical medicine, healthcare management, medical technology, revenue-cycle strategy, and practice operations.

Dr. Cham focuses on practical solutions that help physicians and healthcare organizations navigate increasingly complex administrative environments while keeping the focus where it belongs: patient care.

Connect with Dr. Daniel Cham on LinkedIn


Disclaimer

This article is intended solely for general educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute medical, legal, coding, compliance, financial, or reimbursement advice. Healthcare regulations, payer policies, contracts, and coding requirements can vary by situation and change over time. Readers should consult appropriately qualified professionals for guidance regarding their particular circumstances.


Three Current References

Megan White's remarkable journey from a 29-week, 2-pound-8-ounce premature infant to a NICU nurse at the same Milwaukee hospital provides the human story at the center of this article.
Read Megan White's story

MGMA's latest data illustrates the continuing administrative burden surrounding prior authorization and the difficulty practices are having obtaining faster payer responses.

Read MGMA’s Latest Data

Recent CMS payment and coding developments demonstrate why physician practices need adaptable revenue-cycle workflows rather than static processes.
Review CMS Physician Fee Schedule resources


Final takeaway: Megan White's story isn't really about a premature baby who became a nurse. It is about what happens when healthcare succeeds so completely that the patient eventually becomes part of the next generation of care.

That's the standard we should want from every part of healthcare—including the systems that finance it.

Don't just work the denial. Find the reason it exists.

Don't just add another tool. Remove a layer of friction.

Don't just optimize the claim. Build a practice where fewer claims need rescuing.

 

#Healthcare #MedicalBilling #RevenueCycleManagement #RCM #Physicians #PhysicianPractice #PrivatePractice #HealthcareInnovation #HealthTech #MedicalTechnology #HealthcareEntrepreneurship #MedicalCoding #ClinicalDocumentation #PracticeManagement #HealthcareLeadership #IndependentPractice #PhysicianEntrepreneur #HealthcareAI #DigitalHealth #PatientCare #HealthcareOperations #RevenueCycle #MedicalPractice #HealthcareTransformation #OnnX

 

Tennessee “Tenny” Maya: The 95-Day NICU Journey That Should Change How Physicians Think About Medical Billing

A 95-day NICU journey, a tiny survivor, and the uncomfortable truth about the administrative systems that determine whether physicians can k...