What if the biggest opportunity in medical billing isn’t getting denials overturned—but making fewer denials necessary?
“Accurate data and the right technology can help identify
problems upstream, reduce manual intervention and give revenue cycle teams a
better opportunity to prevent avoidable denials before claims are submitted.”
— Mindy
Fortson, Chief Operating Officer, Experian Health
The Most Expensive Work in Your Clinic Might Be Work That
Should Never Have Existed
It is Monday morning.
Your front-desk coordinator is answering three phone calls.
A patient has arrived early. Another patient has forgotten an insurance card.
The physician is already running behind.
Someone checks the patient in. Someone else updates the
chart. An appointment gets moved. A detail gets missed.
Nobody is careless. Nobody is sitting around doing nothing.
Everyone is busy doing the work.
Three weeks later, a claim comes back denied because a
required authorization was not obtained.
Now the biller has a new assignment.
Investigate the denial. Find the original encounter. Contact
the payer. Determine whether the problem can be corrected. Request
documentation. Submit an appeal if appropriate. Track the outcome.
The physician may be asked for additional information. The
front desk may need to reconstruct what happened. The practice manager may get
involved.
One missed step has become five new tasks.
And here is the question nobody may have time to ask:
Why are we spending so much time fixing a problem that
might have been prevented before the appointment?
This is where medical billing conversations often go wrong.
We discuss faster claim submission, smarter denial
management, more powerful dashboards, and increasingly sophisticated AI.
Those things can be useful.
But what if we are getting exceptionally good at correcting
problems that our own workflows keep creating?
A faster billing department can process more work. A better
denial-management system can organize more denials. An AI agent can chase more
missing information.
But if the same preventable mistakes keep entering the
system, we may simply be building a faster machine for producing administrative
rework.
Automating unnecessary work is still unnecessary work.
That is the uncomfortable question for physicians and
independent clinic owners: Are we improving the revenue cycle, or are we
becoming more efficient at managing its avoidable failures?
The Contrarian View: Your Billing Team May Be Treating
Someone Else's Symptoms
Medical billing is often blamed when reimbursement is
delayed.
Sometimes, the billing team really is the source of the
problem. A claim may be coded incorrectly, submitted with incomplete
information, or left in a work queue too long.
But many problems originate elsewhere.
A demographic detail may be wrong at registration. Insurance
coverage may not have been verified appropriately. A required authorization may
not have been secured. Documentation may not support the submitted claim. A
handoff may fail because nobody owns the next step.
The biller often discovers the problem only after it has
traveled through several systems.
The person who discovers an error is not necessarily the
person—or process—that created it.
Think about that the next time someone suggests solving
every billing problem by hiring another biller.
More capacity may be necessary. But before increasing
capacity, investigate whether the practice is asking its existing staff to
repeatedly compensate for the same broken process.
A useful distinction:
- Correction
repairs a specific error.
- Prevention
changes the conditions that allow the error to recur.
- Automation
performs or supports a task.
- Intelligence
helps determine whether that task is necessary, what information it
requires, and when intervention is appropriate.
These are different things.
A clinic needs all four at different times. The mistake is
assuming that automation alone will solve a problem rooted in process design or
data quality.
A Small Clinic Does Not Need a Hospital-Sized Solution
Imagine a three-physician practice with one biller, two
front-desk employees, and a practice manager who also handles staffing,
scheduling, and compliance.
The practice experiences recurring claim rejections.
A consultant recommends an advanced analytics platform, a
dedicated denial-management department, and a custom AI deployment.
The recommendations may sound impressive. They may even make
sense for a large health system.
But the clinic owner has a more immediate question:
Who is going to implement all of this while we are trying to
see patients and get paid?
This is where operational advice loses credibility. It
identifies a real problem but prescribes a solution that ignores the resources
of the people expected to use it.
A solution that is theoretically excellent but
operationally impossible is not a practical solution.
For a smaller practice, the first steps may be much simpler:
- Review
the claim-validation features already available in the EHR or practice
management system.
- Identify
the five most common recurring billing problems.
- Hold a
30-minute weekly review with the people closest to the workflow.
- Use
the Five Whys technique to investigate one recurring problem.
- Track
a few meaningful metrics instead of maintaining a dashboard that resembles
an aircraft cockpit.
- Assign
one person responsibility for each corrective action.
No new department required.
No elaborate AI architecture required.
No 47-tab spreadsheet that only one employee understands.
The objective is not to make small clinics imitate large
hospitals.
It is to give small clinics the right level of operational
intelligence for their own needs.
Small teams do not need fewer insights. They need fewer
distractions between insight and action.
The Numbers: Denials Are a Warning Signal, Not a Complete
Diagnosis
Experian Health's 2026 State of Claims survey, published
October 28, 2026, provides a timely snapshot of industry concerns.
The survey of 204 healthcare professionals responsible for
financial, billing, or claims management decisions found that:
- 75%
reported that claim denials were increasing.
- 40%
said denial rates exceeded 10% of claims.
- 65%
reported that submitting clean claims had become more difficult.
- 64%
said reimbursement timelines were getting longer.
- 89%
identified reducing denials as a priority.
These are survey results, not a census of all U.S.
practices. They should not be interpreted as the expected performance of every
specialty or independent clinic.
Still, they reveal a troubling pattern: providers are
investing attention in denial reduction while reporting growing complexity in
the processes that produce claims.
The wrong response is to see these numbers and immediately
conclude that every practice needs a new AI product.
The better response is to ask what is driving the problem in
your own organization.
Are claims failing because of missing information? Are payer
requirements changing? Are authorization workflows unreliable? Are coding
issues recurring? Are staff spending too much time navigating portals and
checking status?
The numbers identify pressure. Your own operational data
must identify the cause.
An industry benchmark tells you where to look. It does
not tell you what is broken in your clinic.
Prior authorization: A deadline is not the same as a
completed process
In a September 2026 poll, the Medical Group Management
Association reported that 44% of responding medical group leaders said prior
authorization turnaround had become slower in 2026 compared with 2025. Only
7% reported faster turnaround; 40% said it was about the same, and 9% were
unsure.
The poll had 178 applicable responses. The findings describe
respondents' reported experiences, not every payer or practice.
The deeper lesson is that the payer's decision time is only
one part of the administrative journey.
Staff may still need to determine whether authorization is
required, identify the correct submission channel, assemble supporting
documentation, check status, respond to requests, and manage appeals.
A shorter clock does not automatically eliminate those
tasks.
Measuring the time a payer takes to decide is not the
same as measuring the total time a clinic spends getting an answer.
Administrative automation: Opportunity does not equal
return on investment
The 2024 CAQH Index estimated a $20 billion opportunity
to simplify healthcare administration through greater use of automated
transactions. It also estimated that automation helped the industry avoid $222
billion in administrative costs in 2023, using its own methodology.
These figures cover healthcare administration broadly. They
are not a promise that a particular billing product will save a particular
clinic a certain amount.
The practical question is not whether automation has value.
It clearly can.
The question is whether a specific intervention solves a
documented problem at a cost the practice can justify.
A technology investment should be measured against the work
it eliminates, the errors it prevents, the time it returns to staff, and the
risks it introduces.
Otherwise, a projected return on investment is just optimism
wearing a spreadsheet.
Recent News: Healthcare Is Automating, but the Upstream
Problem Remains
Three current developments are relevant to the future of
medical billing.
1. Providers are looking to AI to address denials
Experian Health's October 28 survey found that 84% of
respondents believed AI could improve claims management in some capacity.
Nearly two-thirds said they definitely or probably planned to invest in AI for
claims and denial management.
That interest is understandable. Staff are dealing with
complex payer rules, recurring corrections, and increasingly demanding
workflows.
But AI should not be treated as a universal remedy.
If inaccurate information enters a system, AI may detect
it, explain it, or move it downstream more efficiently. Prevention requires a
process that captures the right information at the right time.
The opportunity is to combine useful automation with better
source data, appropriate validation, and clear ownership.
2. Prior authorization requirements are evolving
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 2024
Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule includes provisions
intended to improve electronic information exchange and make certain prior
authorization processes more transparent.
Many operational provisions generally began in 2026, while
API implementation requirements for impacted payers generally begin in 2027.
Exact requirements and compliance dates vary by payer category and provision.
The rule creates opportunities for better electronic
workflows, but clinics should not assume that every payer, plan, or service
follows the same requirements.
A practice should verify its current obligations, ask
vendors about relevant functionality, and maintain a clear process for
exceptions.
3. More electronic exchange will not automatically mean
better data
Interoperability is important. Systems need to exchange
relevant information without forcing staff to repeatedly re-enter the same
details.
But moving information electronically does not guarantee
that it is accurate.
A wrong insurance identifier can move between systems just
as efficiently as a correct one. An outdated workflow can remain outdated even
when it is automated.
A connected system can distribute an error faster than an
unconnected system.
That is not an argument against interoperability. It is an
argument for pairing interoperability with data validation, process ownership,
and feedback loops.
The future should not be defined by how many systems can
communicate. It should be defined by whether those systems help the right
information reach the right person before the mistake becomes expensive.
Three Expert Perspectives: Different Angles, One
Practical Lesson
Rather than inventing quotations or implying that experts
endorse a particular product, the following perspectives interpret published
survey findings and regulatory guidance.
Perspective 1: Mindy Fortson, Chief Operating Officer at
Experian Health
Fortson's comments accompanying the 2026 State of Claims
survey emphasized accurate data and appropriate technology as ways to identify
problems upstream and reduce manual intervention.
What clinic owners can take from this: Before
purchasing another denial-management tool, investigate which recurring errors
could be identified before claim submission.
Review existing validation features. Check whether staff can
see and resolve the warnings. Establish who owns exceptions.
An alert without an assigned action is merely a more
sophisticated way of displaying a problem.
Perspective 2: The CMS interoperability framework
CMS's interoperability and prior authorization rule aims to
improve data exchange and streamline specified administrative processes.
What clinic owners can take from this: Treat
authorization as a process with a beginning, a decision, and a verifiable
outcome—not simply a request that someone submitted.
Record the relevant request, status, decision, and
conditions. Establish what evidence is required before a service proceeds under
the practice's applicable policies and payer requirements.
Requested is not approved. Approved is not necessarily the
end of every coverage and claim requirement.
Perspective 3: MGMA's practice-management findings
MGMA's 2026 poll suggests that the authorization burden can
persist even when formal decision timelines are defined.
What clinic owners can take from this: Measure the
entire workflow, including preparation, submission, status checks, additional
documentation, and follow-up.
If staff spend more time checking status than preparing the
request, the problem may not be the initial submission process.
If requests are repeatedly delayed because documentation is
incomplete, a better preparation checklist may be more useful than another
status-tracking dashboard.
The three perspectives lead to a shared conclusion:
The best intervention is the one that addresses the
actual bottleneck—not the one with the most impressive feature list.
Myth Busters: Five Popular Ideas Worth Questioning
Myth 1: More software means fewer denials
Not automatically.
A new product may offer valuable capabilities, but its
impact depends on workflow fit, data quality, configuration, integration,
training, and ongoing oversight.
Reframe: Do not ask, “What software should we buy?”
Ask, “Which recurring failure should this software prevent?”
Myth 2: Billing owns the entire revenue cycle
Billing may discover the problem, but it may not control
registration, eligibility, authorization, documentation, or the handoff that
caused it.
Reframe: The revenue cycle is a chain of
responsibilities. The last person to touch the claim cannot be accountable for
every weakness in the chain.
Myth 3: AI will eliminate administrative errors
AI can help identify patterns, flag missing fields, and
automate repetitive tasks. It can also miss issues or produce incorrect
recommendations.
Reframe: AI should reduce preventable work while
preserving appropriate verification—not turn unverified assumptions into
automated decisions.
Myth 4: A submitted claim is a completed task
Submission is a milestone, not proof of successful
reimbursement.
The claim may be rejected, denied, underpaid, or left
unresolved.
Reframe: Define completion by the verified outcome,
not by the click that initiated the process.
Myth 5: More metrics mean better management
A dashboard with 50 indicators can make a practice feel
informed while leaving staff unsure what to do next.
Reframe: The purpose of a metric is not to fill a
dashboard. It is to improve a decision.
Follow the Claim, Not Just the Denial
One of the most useful changes a clinic can make is to
organize its review around the chronological claim lifecycle.
Instead of treating every error code as an isolated event,
trace the process from the original encounter to the final financial outcome.
Step 1: Registration
The patient's information is collected.
Ask whether the intake process captures the information the
practice needs, whether exceptions are handled consistently, and whether
someone owns missing details.
A small omission can become a downstream problem.
Practical action: Review the registration checklist
and identify the information gaps that repeatedly cause corrections.
Step 2: Eligibility and benefits
Coverage information is checked, but eligibility is not a
guarantee of payment for a particular service.
Practical action: Define when verification occurs,
what staff should confirm, and how exceptions are escalated. Make sure the team
understands the limitations of the response it receives.
Step 3: Authorization and referrals
Requirements vary by payer, plan, service, and
circumstances.
Practical action: Maintain current payer-specific
procedures. Record requests and decisions, and ensure the responsible person
can distinguish a submitted request from an approval.
Step 4: Documentation and charge capture
Clinical documentation must accurately reflect the care
provided and support the billing process.
Practical action: Review recurring documentation gaps
with the relevant staff. Determine whether the problem involves unclear
expectations, a poorly designed template, training, or a breakdown in the
handoff.
The answer is not to create more documentation for its own
sake. It is to ensure the right information is available for the right purpose.
Step 5: Coding and claim validation
Coding should reflect the documented service and applicable
requirements. Automated edits can flag certain inconsistencies but cannot
guarantee coverage or payment.
Practical action: Review the claim-validation
functions already available in the practice's systems. Check whether edits are
appropriate for the specialty and payer mix.
Step 6: Clearinghouse acceptance and rejection
A claim may fail technical or administrative checks before
it reaches normal payer adjudication.
Practical action: Ensure staff understand the
distinction between a rejection and a denial. Track unresolved rejections,
assign an owner, and establish a timely correction process.
Step 7: Payer adjudication
The payer evaluates the claim under applicable rules and
circumstances.
Practical action: Record the reason for a denial, its
financial significance, the next action, the responsible person, and the
relevant deadline. Determine whether correction, resubmission, reconsideration,
or appeal is appropriate.
Not every denial is preventable or recoverable.
Step 8: Payment and reconciliation
The practice reviews what was paid, what remains
outstanding, and whether the result matches expectations.
Practical action: Reconcile remittance information,
adjustments, patient responsibility, and unresolved balances according to
established procedures.
The goal is not merely to get claims out the door.
The goal is to make the journey from encounter to
financial resolution more reliable.
A Practical 30-Minute Weekly Review
A small practice does not need a dedicated analytics
department to learn from recurring billing problems.
It can start with a short meeting involving the biller,
front desk, and practice manager, with other staff involved when appropriate.
Minutes 1–5: Choose the problem
Review recent rejections, denials, delays, or repeat
corrections.
Choose one or two issues with meaningful recurrence,
financial impact, urgency, or patient consequences.
Minutes 6–15: Find where the problem began
Use the Five Whys technique.
Suppose a claim was denied because authorization was
missing.
Why? It was not obtained before the service.
Why? The scheduling process did not flag the requirement.
Why? Staff relied on memory rather than a shared checklist.
Why? No one maintained the checklist when requirements
changed.
Why? The practice had not assigned ownership of that
workflow.
This is a hypothetical example. The team must verify the
actual cause rather than assume the explanation.
The important discovery is that the problem may involve a
checklist and an assigned owner—not simply another round of claim correction.
Minutes 16–25: Make one change
Update the checklist, clarify a handoff, configure an
appropriate validation feature, or improve task tracking.
Assign one person responsibility for the action and set a
completion date.
Minutes 26–30: Decide how to measure success
Choose a metric linked to the problem. For example, track
the percentage of applicable encounters with authorization documented before
service or the number of repeat authorization-related denials.
Review the result at a future meeting.
Thirty minutes of structured learning can be more
valuable than hours of uncoordinated rework.
The purpose is not to blame staff. It is to make recurring
problems visible and prevent them where possible.
Metrics: Track What Changes Your Next Decision
Start small. A practice may begin with five measures:
- First-pass
acceptance rate: The proportion of claims accepted on the first
submission, using a consistent definition.
- Preventable
rejection rate: The share of claims rejected for issues the practice
could reasonably prevent.
- Denial
rate: The proportion of claims denied, distinguishing initial and
final outcomes where the data allow.
- Accounts
receivable aging: How long balances remain outstanding and why they
are unresolved.
- Rework
burden: Staff time spent correcting errors, checking status, obtaining
missing information, and resubmitting claims.
A commonly discussed first-pass acceptance target is 95% or
higher, but it is not a universal standard. Establish your own baseline and
compare it with appropriate specialty and payer benchmarks.
Do not measure performance without context. Claim volume,
payer mix, contractual terms, and external policy changes can affect results.
Each metric should have a definition, an owner, and a clear
purpose.
If a metric changes but nobody knows what action to take,
the dashboard has reported a fact—not delivered an insight.
Pitfalls: How Good Improvement Projects Become More
Administrative Work
Buying before diagnosing. A product may be impressive
but irrelevant to the actual failure. Identify the problem before choosing the
tool.
Tracking everything. Too many metrics can obscure the
most important signals. Start with the measures that support decisions.
Fixing the claim but not the process. Correct the
immediate error, then investigate whether a repeatable change could prevent
recurrence.
Assuming every denial is preventable. Some problems
involve payer decisions, coverage limitations, contractual disputes, or
circumstances outside the practice's control. Separate controllable causes from
external ones.
Automating without oversight. Rules can be outdated,
systems can be misconfigured, and AI can be wrong. Establish review and
exception handling.
Ignoring staff experience. Front-desk employees and
billers often know where the workflow breaks down. Include them in the
improvement process.
Confusing activity with completion. A request sent is
not necessarily received. A claim submitted is not necessarily paid. A task
marked complete is not necessarily resolved.
The goal is not to make everyone busier at the same task.
It is to reduce the number of tasks that exist only because an earlier step
failed.
Tools and Resources: Use What You Already Have Before
Buying More
Review your existing EHR, practice management system,
clearinghouse, and payer portals.
Depending on your system and contract, useful capabilities
may include eligibility verification, claim validation, electronic submission,
rejection tracking, authorization work queues, remittance processing, and aging
reports.
Before purchasing a new product, ask:
- What
specific problem will it solve?
- Can an
existing system already address the problem?
- What
will implementation, integration, training, and maintenance cost?
- How
will staff know when the automation is wrong?
- Who
will own exceptions and ongoing rule updates?
- What
measurable result would justify the investment?
AI can help identify recurring patterns, flag missing
information, prioritize work, and summarize issues. But its value depends on
the accuracy of the source data, the relevance of its recommendations, and
appropriate human oversight.
Buy technology to solve a problem—not to avoid having to
define one.
Legal, Practical, and Ethical Considerations
Revenue cycle improvement must protect patients and the
practice.
Privacy and security: Billing systems may contain
protected health information. Review access controls, vendor arrangements, data
handling, audit trails, and applicable HIPAA obligations before introducing a
new service.
Accurate coding and documentation: Claims should
reflect the services actually provided and the supporting record. Automation
should not be used to justify unsupported codes or inaccurate documentation.
Payer requirements and deadlines: Authorization,
coverage, filing, and appeal rules vary. Use current, applicable guidance
rather than relying solely on old spreadsheets or informal recollection.
Human accountability: Define who reviews
consequential AI recommendations, resolves exceptions, and corrects errors.
Ethical automation: The objective is accurate
reimbursement and reduced administrative friction—not billing more regardless
of clinical appropriateness.
Efficiency is valuable only when it preserves accuracy,
security, fairness, and accountability.
The Business Case: Calculate the Cost of Rework
Do not assume that a new tool will deliver a promised
return.
Start by estimating four things:
- Staff
hours spent on recurring corrections.
- Delays
between service, submission, adjudication, and payment.
- Financial
exposure from underpayment, unresolved claims, and missed deadlines.
- The
full cost of the proposed improvement.
Then estimate what proportion of the problem the practice
can realistically prevent.
Do not assume that every hour saved translates into direct
cash savings. Staff capacity may be redeployed, and some problems may persist.
Likewise, a lower denial rate does not automatically prove higher net
collections.
Measure operational and financial outcomes separately where
possible.
The strongest business case is not a vendor's promise. It
is a measurable improvement in your own practice.
Future Outlook: From Reactive Billing to Upstream
Intelligence
Healthcare is moving toward more electronic exchange,
connected systems, and wider use of AI.
That creates opportunities for independent practices to
access capabilities that once required larger teams and more specialized
infrastructure.
But the most important opportunity may not be making every
existing task faster.
It may be preventing the conditions that create unnecessary
tasks in the first place.
Imagine a workflow that flags missing information before the
encounter is finalized, identifies an authorization requirement before the
scheduled service, detects a recurring documentation gap, and shows where a
handoff repeatedly fails.
Such capabilities could reduce avoidable rework when they
are accurate, well integrated, and supported by clear processes.
They will not eliminate every denial. Coverage disputes,
payer changes, contractual issues, and clinical judgment will remain.
The future should combine better source data, useful
automation, human judgment, and clear accountability.
For a small practice, that future does not have to start
with a sophisticated AI platform. It may start with a better intake question, a
reliable checklist, a clearer handoff, or a weekly review.
First understand the problem. Then improve the process. Then
automate where automation makes sense.
The next leap in healthcare efficiency may come not from
doing more work faster, but from eliminating work that should never have
existed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is revenue cycle management?
Revenue cycle management (RCM) covers the
administrative and financial process from patient registration through claim
submission, adjudication, payment, and follow-up.
Why are medical claims denied?
Reasons can include coverage limitations, missing
information, authorization issues, coding or documentation problems, and filing
deadlines. The appropriate response depends on the specific reason and
circumstances.
Can small clinics reduce denials without hiring more
staff?
Often, they can begin by reviewing recurring problems,
clarifying responsibilities, improving checklists, using existing system
features, and tracking a few meaningful metrics. Additional staffing may still
be necessary in some circumstances.
Does AI eliminate medical billing errors?
No. AI can help detect patterns and automate selected tasks,
but its performance depends on data quality, configuration, integration, and
oversight. It can also produce incorrect results.
What is the difference between a rejected claim and a
denied claim?
A rejection generally means a claim or transaction failed a
technical or administrative check before normal adjudication. A denial
generally means the payer evaluated the claim or service and determined that
payment would not be made in whole or in part under the applicable
circumstances. Follow the relevant payer and clearinghouse definitions.
What should a small clinic measure first?
Consider first-pass acceptance, preventable rejections,
denial rate, accounts receivable aging, and rework burden. Define each measure
consistently and assign an owner.
What is the Five Whys technique?
It is a problem-solving method that repeatedly asks why an
issue occurred to identify an underlying process weakness. Five is a guide, not
a rigid requirement. Some problems have several contributing causes.
Does insurance eligibility verification guarantee
payment?
No. Eligibility information does not guarantee that a
specific service will be covered or paid. Other requirements may apply.
How should a practice evaluate a new billing tool?
Start with a documented problem, estimate the total cost,
assess workflow fit and data requirements, define human oversight, and agree on
measurable outcomes before implementation.
What is the first step a clinic owner can take tomorrow?
Review a small sample of recent denials and rejections.
Choose one recurring issue and trace it to the earliest point where the
practice could have detected or prevented it.
Final Thoughts: Stop Paying for the Same Mistake Twice
Physicians and clinic owners already have enough competing
demands. They should not have to build an enterprise-sized operation just to
identify recurring administrative failures.
Better billing may require better software. Sometimes it
requires more staff. Often, it also requires something less glamorous: clearer
information, reliable handoffs, and a process that learns from its own
mistakes.
The goal is not to eliminate every denial or automate every
task.
The goal is to make fewer preventable mistakes, spend less
time correcting them, and protect the time healthcare teams need for patients.
Find the starting point. Fix one preventable gap. Measure
whether it worked.
Call to Action: Help Rethink Medical Billing
What if the biggest opportunity in medical billing is not
processing claims faster, but preventing avoidable errors before a claim is
created?
Share your perspective in the comments: Where does your
practice lose the most time—registration, eligibility, prior authorization,
documentation, claim submission, or follow-up?
If this perspective resonates, consider reposting the
article to help other physicians and clinic owners question the assumption that
every administrative problem needs another layer of technology.
Let's move the conversation from managing rework to
preventing it.
About the Author
Dr. Daniel Cham is a physician-entrepreneur and
medical technology consultant focused on healthcare management, medical
billing, and practical innovation in clinical operations. He is the founder of OnnX,
an AI-powered medical billing SaaS for small and medium-sized physician-owned
clinics.
His work explores how better data capture, clearer handoffs,
and appropriate automation can help practices reduce avoidable administrative
work and improve revenue cycle operations.
Disclaimer
This article provides general educational information
about healthcare administration and revenue cycle management. It is not legal,
medical, coding, billing, or reimbursement advice for a specific situation.
Requirements vary by payer, contract, jurisdiction, and clinical circumstances.
Consult qualified professionals and authoritative guidance when making
decisions about compliance, claims, coding, authorization, or reimbursement.
Continue the Conversation
Explore practical insights on healthcare operations, medical
technology, innovation, and the realities of running a medical practice.
Connect: LinkedIn | Website | YouTube
Knowledge creates possibilities. Practical insight turns
possibilities into progress. Keep learning, keep questioning, and help shape a
more effective healthcare system.
A free resource is available in the Featured section of
my LinkedIn profile—no sign-up required. Explore it as a practical starting
point for improving your own workflows.
References
1. Medicare
Advantage Organizations Overturned Nearly All Appealed Prior Authorization
Denials for Skilled Nursing Facility Admission, Raising Concerns About Initial
Denials
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General
(2026)
Examines the finding that Medicare Advantage organizations
overturned 95% of appealed prior-authorization denials for skilled nursing
facility admission in the study. This finding applies to the specific category
studied, not all Medicare Advantage denials.
2. Some
Medicare Advantage Organization Denials of Prior Authorization Requests Raise
Concerns About Beneficiary Access to Medically Necessary Care
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General
(2022)
Examines Medicare Advantage prior-authorization denials and
concerns about whether beneficiaries received access to medically necessary
care.
3. Reconsideration
by the Medicare Advantage (Part C) Health Plan
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Provides information about the Medicare Advantage
reconsideration process and related appeal procedures.
Explores the implications of the 95% overturn finding for
patient access, administrative burden, and independent medical practices.
5. Your
Billing Denial Has a Plot Twist: The Problem May Have Started Before the Claim
Existed
Explores how upstream information gaps and broken handoffs
can create downstream billing problems.
6. The
Best Claim Is the One You Never Have to Fix
Examines why preventing avoidable claim errors can be more
valuable than simply correcting them faster.
Hashtags
#MedicalBilling #RevenueCycleManagement
#HealthcareAdministration #MedicalPracticeManagement #PhysicianEntrepreneur
#HealthcareAI #MedicalBillingAutomation #ClaimsManagement #PriorAuthorization
#IndependentPractice #HealthcareInnovation #DataQuality #PracticeEfficiency
#OnnX
No comments:
Post a Comment