Most private practice owners assume their third-party biller is working hard on their behalf. In reality, many RCM vendors optimize for their own efficiency — chasing high-probability, low-effort claims while quietly writing off difficult denials, aged AR, and complex payer disputes. The result is a practice that appears to be billing correctly while leaving tens of thousands of dollars on the table each year. This whitepaper gives you the specific metrics, reporting requests, and interrogation tactics you need to know whether your biller is genuinely maximizing your collections — and what to do if they are not.
⚠️
Why This Matters at Transaction Time
When Mihama prepares a practice for sale, AR quality and revenue cycle health are among the first things institutional buyers scrutinize. A biller who has systematically written off collectible AR or failed to pursue denials creates a paper trail that directly suppresses your EBITDA — and therefore your valuation. Billing problems that have compounded for years do not disappear; they show up in your trailing twelve-month financials exactly when a buyer is underwriting your enterprise value. Addressing RCM accountability before you go to market is not optional — it is financially material.
The KPIs Your Biller Should Be Hitting
Before you can evaluate your biller's performance, you need objective benchmarks. These are the industry-standard metrics for a well-run physical therapy or outpatient rehabilitation practice. If your biller cannot produce reports against these numbers, that itself is a red flag.
Net Collection Rate
≥ 96%
The single most important RCM metric. Measures actual dollars collected vs. adjusted (net) charges after contractual write-offs. Below 94% signals systemic leakage. Below 90% is a serious problem requiring immediate investigation.
Denial Rate (First-Pass)
≤ 5%
Percentage of claims denied on first submission. A best-in-class practice achieves 3–5%. Rates above 8–10% indicate upstream coding, eligibility, or authorization failures — not a payer problem, a process problem.
Days in AR (Net)
≤ 35
Average days from date of service to payment. PT/OT practices should target 30–35 days. Above 45 days signals slow follow-up or payer mix issues. Above 60 days often indicates abandoned claims aging silently toward write-off.
AR > 90 Days (% of Total AR)
≤ 15%
The percentage of your total outstanding AR that is older than 90 days. Above 20% is a warning sign. Above 25–30% typically means your biller has stopped actively pursuing a significant portion of your earned revenue.
Denial Overturn Rate
≥ 65%
Of denied claims that are appealed, what percentage are overturned in your favor? A passive biller writes off denials. An active biller appeals them and wins. Below 50% overturns on appealed claims indicates weak appeal quality or selective appeal filing.
Clean Claim Rate
≥ 95%
Percentage of claims submitted without errors that require follow-up before payment. A clean claim rate below 90% means your biller's front-end processes — eligibility checks, authorization, coding review — are introducing preventable errors.
Eight Specific Ways to Audit Your Biller's Real Performance
The following tactics go beyond reviewing a monthly summary PDF. Each tactic is designed to surface specific behaviors that distinguish active, aggressive collection from passive claim processing.
Most billers will provide a summary AR aging report when asked. The summary is nearly useless. What you need is the aging report broken out by individual payer — so you can see exactly which insurance companies have claims sitting beyond 60 and 90 days.
A well-run biller works every bucket. A passive biller processes the 0–30 day claims (which pay themselves) and allows the 60–90+ day claims to age toward their contractual timely filing deadline, at which point write-off becomes the path of least resistance.
- Request aging broken down by payer, by date of service, and by current follow-up status
- Ask for a list of every claim over 60 days with documentation of the last outreach action taken
- Compare the 90+ day bucket as a percentage of total AR to the prior three months — is it growing?
- Ask specifically: which payers have claims in the 90+ day bucket, and what is the biller's plan for each?
⚠ Watch For
If your biller cannot produce claim-level detail for the 90+ day bucket — only aging totals — they are not actively managing that AR. They are watching it age.
The 90+ day bucket is where passive billers hide their underperformance. Each claim in that bucket represents revenue your practice earned clinically that has not yet been collected. Payers are not obligated to chase you — you must chase them.
Timely filing limits vary by payer: Medicare is generally 12 months from date of service for initial claims, with separate windows for appeals. Commercial plans vary widely — many fall in the 90–365 day range from date of service, with some large carriers (BCBS, UHC, Aetna) allowing up to a full year, while smaller regional plans may impose tighter 90–180 day windows. A biller who does not aggressively work aged claims is not just underperforming — they may be allowing collectible revenue to expire.
✅ Action Item
In your next monthly review, ask for a printed aging report by payer. Identify every payer with claims in the 61–90 and 90+ columns. For each, ask: "What is the last action taken on these claims, and when?" If the biller cannot answer claim-by-claim, that is your answer.
Denials are not a billing failure — they are a normal part of the revenue cycle. What separates a high-performing biller from a passive one is what happens after the denial. Every denial should be logged, categorized by reason code, assigned to a specific staff member for follow-up, and tracked through resolution.
Request from your biller a denial log that includes: denial reason code, date received, action taken, date of appeal or resubmission, and resolution outcome. If they cannot produce this log, the denials are being processed — not managed.
- CO-97, CO-4, CO-11 (bundling, modifier, diagnosis): often reversible with corrected claims
- CO-50, CO-167 (medical necessity): require clinical documentation and formal appeal
- PR-1, PR-2 (patient deductible/coinsurance): should trigger patient billing, not write-off
- CO-29 (timely filing): investigate whether this denial was preventable
The most revealing question you can ask is: "What percentage of denials do you appeal, and what is your overturn rate?" A biller who cannot answer this question with data is not tracking it. A biller whose overturn rate is below 50% on appealed claims is likely filing weak, formulaic appeals rather than building a proper clinical and administrative record.
Also ask: are there categories of denials your biller is simply writing off without appeal? Many billers set internal thresholds — claims under $75, for example — that are automatically adjusted rather than worked. You should know if such a policy exists in your contract and whether you agreed to it.
✅ Action Item
Ask for the denial log from the past 90 days. For every CO-50 or CO-167 (medical necessity) denial, confirm whether a formal appeal was filed with supporting documentation. If medical necessity denials are being written off without appeal, you are leaving material revenue behind.
Write-offs are the mechanism by which a passive biller conceals its failure to collect. There are legitimate write-off categories: contractual adjustments (the difference between billed charges and contracted rates) and genuine bad debt (patient balances exhausted through proper billing). These are not the write-offs to investigate.
What you need to scrutinize are non-contractual write-offs — amounts written off that do not correspond to a contract adjustment or a properly worked patient balance. These include write-offs coded as "adjustment," "courtesy," "timely filing," or "unable to collect" without documented evidence of appropriate effort.
- Request a monthly write-off report categorized by write-off reason code
- Isolate all non-contractual write-offs and ask for claim-level justification on each
- Confirm your biller agreement specifies that write-offs above a dollar threshold require your approval
- Compare monthly write-off volumes over 12 months — a rising non-contractual write-off trend is a serious warning sign
Many billing contracts allow the biller broad discretion to write off claims below certain thresholds without owner notification. If your agreement includes such a provision, the biller may be routinely writing off $30–$80 claims that were denied and not worked — a volume that, across hundreds of visits per month, can add up to thousands of dollars annually.
Every dollar written off as "timely filing expired" is a preventable revenue loss — it means the claim was not submitted, resubmitted, or appealed within the payer's filing window. If you see timely filing write-offs, your biller had the claim and did not act on it in time.
⚠ Watch For
"Timely filing" write-offs are perhaps the most damning evidence of biller negligence. They mean the claim was not worked before the window closed — a failure entirely within the biller's control.
An aggregate net collection rate of 95% can mask a 78% collection rate on a specific commercial payer that represents 20% of your volume. Passive billers exploit the fact that most practice owners only see summary numbers. A payer-level collection rate breakdown exposes exactly where leakage is occurring.
Request a report showing, for each of your top 10 payers by claim volume: total billed, contractual adjustments, net collectible, actual collected, and resulting net collection rate. Run this for the trailing six months.
If a specific commercial carrier shows a net collection rate materially below your overall average, ask your biller to explain it specifically. Is this payer denying at higher rates? Are prior auth requirements creating claim failures? Is follow-up being deprioritized because of the payer's complex dispute process?
Any payer with a net collection rate below 90% warrants a root cause analysis. The biller should be able to produce a claim-level breakdown showing exactly why revenue is being left behind — not a general statement that "this payer is difficult."
✅ Action Item
Ask for a payer-by-payer collection rate report for the trailing six months. Rank your payers by collection rate, lowest to highest. Any payer below 92% gets a formal explanation meeting — with data, not talking points.
A significant source of preventable denial is prior authorization failure — claims denied because authorization was not obtained, was obtained incorrectly, or was not renewed when visit limits were approached. These denials are often coded as "authorization required" (CO-15) or "not authorized" (CO-197). The upstream failure almost always lives in the front-end workflow.
Ask your biller: what is your process for flagging patients who are approaching their authorized visit limit? Who is responsible for requesting extensions? What is your denial rate for CO-15 and CO-197 codes, and has it changed over the past six months?
Similarly, eligibility verification failures — where a claim is denied because the patient's coverage was inactive on the date of service — represent a process breakdown that should not be occurring. Real-time eligibility checks at the time of scheduling and again at check-in are standard practice. If your biller is not performing these checks systematically, you are absorbing preventable denials.
Every CO-15 and eligibility-related denial is a biller's process problem, not a payer problem. Track these by code and volume. A rising trend in authorization denials over 60–90 days without an explanation and corrective action is unacceptable.
✅ Action Item
Pull denial counts by reason code for the past 90 days. Isolate CO-15, CO-197, and any eligibility-related codes. If these represent more than 2–3% of total claims, your biller has a front-end process problem that is costing you money — and they may not have told you.
Many RCM vendors are genuinely excellent at insurance billing but treat patient balance collection as an afterthought. As deductibles have risen across most commercial plans, patient responsibility can constitute 20–30% of practice revenue in commercially-dominated practices — though this varies materially by payer mix, with Medicare-heavy practices seeing lower patient responsibility shares. A biller who processes insurance effectively but allows patient balances to age uncollected is leaving a significant revenue stream unmanaged.
Ask for your patient AR aging separately from your insurance AR. How much sits in the 0–30, 31–60, 61–90, and 90+ day buckets? What is the biller's outreach sequence for patient balances — statement timing, number of statements, phone outreach, and escalation protocol?
A well-run practice should have a patient balance collection workflow that includes at minimum: a statement within 30 days of insurance payment, a follow-up statement at 60 days, phone outreach at 90 days, and a defined escalation or write-off protocol with your approval. Many passive billers send two statements and quietly move the balance to bad debt — at which point collection is largely lost.
Additionally, verify that your biller is collecting patient copays and estimated out-of-pocket at the time of service. Point-of-service collection dramatically reduces patient AR and bad debt. If your biller has not recommended or implemented a point-of-service collection protocol, ask why.
A compliant biller in 2026 must also have workflows in place to support your obligations under the No Surprises Act (NSA). Under federal rules, practices are required to provide Good Faith Estimates (GFEs) to self-pay and uninsured patients prior to scheduled services. A biller without a defined GFE workflow is creating compliance exposure for your practice. Verify that your biller has a process to generate, document, and track GFEs — and a protocol for handling NSA dispute resolution when a final bill materially exceeds the estimate.
✅ Action Item
Ask for the patient AR aging report separately. Calculate the 90+ day patient balance as a percentage of total patient AR. If it exceeds 20%, your patient collection process is broken — either on your front desk or in your biller's workflow.
A third-party biller manages dozens or hundreds of practices across similar specialties and geographies. This gives them a unique vantage point — they know, in aggregate, what collection rates, denial rates, and days in AR look like for a PT practice of your size, payer mix, and geography. Any biller unwilling to benchmark your practice against anonymized peers is protecting themselves, not you.
Ask directly: "Where does our practice rank relative to your other PT clients on net collection rate and days in AR?" A high-performing biller can answer this question and will use the comparison to identify where you have room to improve — and take accountability for it.
If your biller refuses to provide benchmarking, cannot compare your results to industry standards, or deflects to "every practice is different," interpret this carefully. While practices do vary, the fundamentals of RCM performance are consistent enough that any experienced billing company should be able to tell you whether your results are above, at, or below average for your specialty.
Additionally, ask your biller for a quarterly business review — a structured meeting in which they present your KPIs, explain trends, identify root causes of any underperformance, and present a specific action plan. If your biller has never offered a QBR, you are not being treated as a partner. You are being treated as an account.
⚠ Watch For
A biller who cannot or will not present your KPIs in a structured quarterly review format, with trend data and explanations, is managing claims — not managing your revenue cycle. That distinction matters enormously.
The structure of your billing contract may be working against you. Most third-party billers charge a percentage of collections — typically 4–8% of net collected revenue for PT practices. On the surface, this aligns incentives: the biller earns more when you collect more. In practice, this structure incentivizes volume of claims processed, not depth of AR recovery.
A biller earns the same 6% on a $200 claim they processed in 15 minutes as they do on a $200 claim they spent two hours appealing through a complex payer dispute process. The rational response for an under-resourced billing company is to process easy claims and deprioritize difficult ones.
- Confirm whether your contract specifies any minimum performance standards (net collection rate, days in AR, denial rate)
- Identify whether there are exclusions — claim types, payers, or balances under a threshold — that your biller does not work
- Understand whether your biller earns their percentage on billed charges, gross collections, or net collections (net is the correct basis)
- Confirm write-off authority: what amounts can they write off without your approval?
Some billing companies offer performance-tiered contracts in which their percentage fee increases if they exceed certain net collection rate thresholds. This is the right structure. If your biller is not willing to tie any portion of their compensation to demonstrable performance outcomes, ask yourself why.
Also confirm your data access rights. You own your billing data. Your contract should give you the ability to pull any report, at any time, without going through a biller-intermediated request process. If your biller controls the reporting and you cannot access the underlying claim data directly, you are being managed — not serviced.
✅ Action Item
Pull your billing contract and look for: write-off authority thresholds, claim exclusions, performance standards, and your data access rights. Any gap in these areas is a negotiating point — or a reason to evaluate alternatives.
Warning Signs That Your Biller Is Passive — Not Aggressive
The following signals should prompt immediate investigation. None of these individually constitutes proof of negligence, but each represents a pattern inconsistent with active revenue cycle management.
🚩 Your AR > 90 days is growing month over month
Aged AR does not grow when a biller is actively working it. Growth in the 90+ bucket means claims are being added faster than they are being resolved — a clear sign that follow-up is not keeping pace with denial and aging volume. This is the single most reliable indicator of passive billing behavior.
🚩 Write-offs appear regularly without explanation
Legitimate contractual adjustments should be predictable and consistent month over month. Unexplained spikes in "adjustment" or "bad debt" write-offs — especially correlated with aging AR — indicate that the biller is closing out aged claims rather than pursuing them. Ask for claim-level detail on every non-contractual write-off.
🚩 You receive summary reports, not claim-level data
A summary report showing "96% collection rate" without underlying claim data is not auditable. If your biller cannot or will not provide claim-level aging, denial logs, and payer-specific breakdowns, you are being managed with marketing metrics — not real RCM data. Demand the source data.
🚩 Denial reason codes are repetitive and uncorrected
Seeing the same denial reason codes — CO-4, CO-97, CO-15 — month after month without correction means your biller is not performing root cause analysis. A professional RCM partner identifies recurring denial patterns and fixes the upstream process. Recurring denials are not bad luck; they are a workflow failure.
🚩 Timely filing write-offs appear on your ledger
Timely filing denials (CO-29) mean the biller failed to submit, resubmit, or appeal a claim within the payer's contractual window. This is not a payer problem. The claim was in the biller's possession and was not acted upon in time. Each CO-29 write-off is a provably preventable revenue loss attributable solely to biller inaction.
🚩 You have never had a quarterly business review
A serious billing partner initiates structured performance reviews. If your biller has never presented you with trend-based KPI data, a denial analysis, and a forward-looking action plan — without being asked — they are not invested in your outcomes. They are processing claims and cashing their percentage check.
🚩 Payer-specific collection rate data is unavailable
If your biller cannot break down collection rates by individual payer, they cannot tell you where leakage is happening. This is a data infrastructure problem — and a reporting transparency problem. Either their software does not support it (a red flag about their platform), or they are choosing not to surface it (a red flag about their intent).
🚩 Your biller blames payers for everything
Payers are adversarial by design. A skilled billing team knows this and builds workflows accordingly — pre-authorization, eligibility verification, appeal management, escalation contacts. If your biller's answer to every underperformance question is "that payer is difficult," they are externalizing accountability for problems they are paid to solve.
Monthly Biller Performance Scorecard
Use this scorecard in your monthly meeting with your billing company. Request the data for each metric in advance. Any metric rated "Needs Review" or "Critical" should generate a written explanation and a 30-day corrective action plan.
Metric
Your Result
Benchmark
Status
Net Collection Rate
_____%
≥ 96%
On Track
First-Pass Denial Rate
_____%
≤ 5%
Review
Days in AR (Net)
_____ days
≤ 35 days
On Track
AR > 90 Days (% of Total)
_____%
≤ 15%
Critical
Denial Overturn Rate
_____%
≥ 65%
On Track
Clean Claim Rate
_____%
≥ 95%
On Track
Non-Contractual Write-Offs (Mo.)
$_______
Documented & approved
Review
Timely Filing Write-Offs (Mo.)
$_______
$0 — none acceptable
Critical
Patient AR > 90 Days (% of Pt. AR)
_____%
≤ 20%
On Track
Ten Questions That Separate Serious Billers From Passive Processors
Bring these questions to your next monthly call or meeting. A biller who is genuinely managing your revenue cycle will answer each with confidence and data. A passive biller will deflect, generalize, or promise to "follow up."
1
"Can you show me our net collection rate by individual payer for the trailing six months — and explain any payer below 93%?"
Why it matters: An aggregate net collection rate hides payer-specific underperformance. A biller who can answer this with data is actively monitoring your payer mix. One who cannot has never looked.
2
"What are your top five denial reason codes for our practice this quarter — and what has been done to address the root cause of each?"
Why it matters: A competent biller performs denial root cause analysis as a standard function. Recurring denial codes without corrective action indicate reactive claim processing, not proactive revenue cycle management.
3
"For the claims currently in our 90+ day AR bucket — can you walk me through the last action taken on the top 20 by dollar amount?"
Why it matters: If your biller cannot produce a claim-level activity log for aged AR, those claims are not being actively worked. This is the single most revealing question you can ask about passive billing behavior.
4
"What percentage of denied claims do you appeal, and what is our appeal overturn rate for the past 12 months?"
Why it matters: If your biller appeals fewer than 80–90% of workable denials, or cannot tell you the overturn rate, appeals are being selectively filed or not tracked. Each unworked denial is revenue surrendered.
5
"Have we had any timely filing write-offs in the past six months? If yes, how many, for what total dollar amount, and what caused them?"
Why it matters: There is no defensible explanation for a timely filing write-off. Every CO-29 write-off is direct evidence that a claim was not submitted or appealed within the required window — a preventable, biller-caused revenue loss.
6
"What is the dollar amount and category breakdown of every non-contractual write-off posted in the past 90 days?"
Why it matters: Legitimate contractual adjustments are predictable. Non-contractual write-offs should be rare, documented, and owner-approved. A biller resistant to producing this data is likely using write-offs to close out claims rather than collect them.
7
"How does our net collection rate and days in AR compare to your other PT clients of similar size and payer mix?"
Why it matters: An experienced billing company knows how their clients compare. Unwillingness to benchmark your practice against peers is a transparency problem. Peer comparison is the fastest way to identify whether your results are average, below average, or substandard.
8
"What is your escalation path when a claim is denied three times or more by the same payer — and can you show me an example of where that process resulted in payment?"
Why it matters: A passive biller writes off after the second denial. An active biller has a defined escalation workflow — redetermination, peer-to-peer, state insurance commission complaint — and can document examples where it worked.
9
"What is our patient AR aging, and what is your outreach sequence for patient balances that go beyond 60 days?"
Why it matters: Patient balances represent a growing share of practice revenue, particularly for commercially-insured patients where patient responsibility can reach 20–30% of net revenue depending on payer mix. Ask specifically what happens at 30, 60, and 90 days for an unpaid patient balance.
10
"Can we schedule a formal quarterly business review where you present our KPI trends, denial root cause analysis, and a specific action plan for the next 90 days?"
Why it matters: If your biller agrees immediately and has a template for this, they are a professional RCM partner. If they seem surprised by the request, or suggest a monthly call already serves this purpose, you are being managed — not advised. The QBR request itself is the diagnostic.
Your First 30 Days: A Concrete Action Checklist
Reading this guide is step one. The following checklist gives you a sequenced, prioritized set of actions to take in the next 30 days. Work through them in order — each week builds on the last.
■ Week 1 — Pull the Data
Request your AR aging report broken out by individual payer
Not a summary. Ask for claim-level aging showing every payer with balances in the 0–30, 31–60, 61–90, and 90+ columns. This single report will tell you more about your biller's performance than any conversation.
Pull your denial log for the past 90 days
Ask for a denial report with reason codes, claim amounts, dates, and resolution status. Count how many denials in each reason code bucket have been appealed vs. written off.
Request a non-contractual write-off report for the trailing 6 months
Isolate write-offs that are not standard contractual adjustments. Any "timely filing," "unable to collect," or "adjustment" write-off without documented appeal activity is a red flag requiring explanation.
Pull your patient AR aging separately from insurance AR
Most billing software can separate these. You need to see what percentage of your patient responsibility balances are sitting beyond 60 and 90 days — and what the biller's outreach protocol has been.
■ Week 2 — Analyze Against Benchmarks
Calculate your net collection rate by payer
Formula: (Actual Collections) ÷ (Billed Charges − Contractual Adjustments) × 100. Run this for each of your top 8–10 payers. Any payer below 93% needs a specific explanation.
Calculate your days in AR
Formula: (Total AR) ÷ (Average Daily Charges). Average daily charges = last 90 days of gross charges ÷ 90. If your result exceeds 40 days, follow up with your biller on what is sitting in the 31–90 day buckets.
Identify your top 3 denial reason codes and check for repeat occurrences
If the same CO codes appear month after month, the biller is not performing root cause analysis. Recurring denials are a process failure, not a payer problem. Document this for your next review call.
■ Week 3 — Have the Conversation
Schedule a formal review call with your biller and bring data
Bring the reports you pulled. Ask the ten questions from Part 5 of this guide. Document the biller's answers — specifically note any question they cannot answer with data vs. talking points.
Pull your billing contract and review write-off authority, exclusions, and performance standards
Confirm what amounts the biller can write off without your approval, which claim types they are not contractually obligated to work, and whether any performance guarantees exist. Most contracts have none — this is negotiable.
Confirm your credentialing status for every active provider
Ask your biller or office manager to produce a credentialing matrix — every provider, every payer, with effective dates and re-credentialing deadlines. Any gap is a potential source of current or future denials.
■ Week 4 — Decide and Act
Score your biller against the Part 4 scorecard and make a decision
If three or more metrics are in "Critical" or "Needs Review" and your biller could not explain them with data, you have your answer. The cost of staying with an underperforming biller compounds annually — and shows up in your EBITDA at transaction time.
If staying: negotiate a written performance addendum
Require minimum net collection rate (≥95%), maximum days in AR (≤40), monthly reporting with claim-level detail, and written approval authority for all non-contractual write-offs above a defined threshold. Get it in writing.
If switching: initiate your RFP process and plan your transition
See Parts 7 and 8 of this guide for the RFP framework and transition timeline. Allow 60–90 days for a full transition. Do not terminate your current biller until your replacement is credentialed and ready to submit claims.
Part 7 — In-House vs. Outsourced
Should You Bring Billing In-House? An Honest Assessment
When a third-party biller is underperforming, some practice owners consider bringing billing in-house. For most private PT and OT practices under $5M in revenue, this is the wrong move — but the calculus changes at scale. Here is an objective comparison.
📈
Full visibility and control. You own the workflow, the reporting, and the escalation process. No intermediary between you and your claim data.
📈
Faster denial turnaround. An in-house biller who knows your clinical documentation and providers can often resolve denials faster than an offshore or outsourced team working hundreds of accounts.
📈
Direct payer relationships. Your staff can build direct contacts at payer provider relations departments — a meaningful advantage for complex or repeated disputes.
📈
Eliminates percentage fee. A 6% fee on $2M in collections is $120,000/year. At sufficient volume, internal staffing costs less — though the break-even is higher than most owners assume.
⚠️
High break-even point. A credentialed, experienced medical biller commands $55,000–$75,000+ annually as of 2026, plus benefits, payroll tax, PTO, and management overhead. For practices under $2–3M in collections, outsourcing typically costs less all-in.
⚠️
Single point of failure. When your in-house biller leaves, gets sick, or takes vacation, billing continuity is at risk. Outsourced firms provide redundancy by design.
⚠️
Technology costs. Clearinghouse fees, billing software licensing, payer enrollment maintenance, and ERA/EFT setup are absorbed by outsourced billers. In-house, they are yours.
⚠️
Compliance burden. Your team must stay current on payer policy updates, CPT/ICD code changes effective annually, and CMS rule changes. Outsourced firms invest in this infrastructure continuously. For a small practice, this is a real ongoing cost.
⚠️
Due diligence optics. Institutional buyers may view in-house billing as a key-person risk — especially if the biller is a family member or long-tenured single employee. A reputable outsourced RCM firm with documented KPIs is often more defensible at transaction time.
💡
The General Rule of Thumb
For practices under $2M in net collections, outsourcing is almost always more cost-effective. Between $2M and $5M, the economics become competitive and depend heavily on volume, payer complexity, and available management bandwidth. Above $5M, an in-house or hybrid model (in-house manager overseeing an outsourced team) often makes sense. Whatever model you choose, the accountability framework in this guide applies equally — you need the same data, the same benchmarks, and the same performance standards regardless of who is doing the billing.
How to Run a Biller RFP: What to Ask, What to Require
If your audit concludes that your biller needs to be replaced, do not simply Google "PT billing companies" and pick the cheapest. The following RFP framework gives you the evaluation criteria that separate professional RCM partners from commodity claim processors.
Evaluation Topic
What to Ask / What to Require
Priority
Specialty Experience
Ask for the number of active PT/OT/SLP clients, average practice size, and states served. PT billing requires familiarity with KX modifier thresholds, targeted medical review limits, MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) compliance, Clinical Quality Measures (CQMs), and Medicare WPS/NGS/CGS LCD policies by jurisdiction. A general medical biller without PT-specific experience is a risk.
Critical
Performance Guarantees
Require a written minimum net collection rate (≥95%) and maximum days in AR (≤40) in the contract. Ask what the remediation process is if they miss these thresholds. Any firm unwilling to put performance standards in writing is telling you something important about their confidence in their own results.
Critical
Reporting Transparency
Require real-time or on-demand access to your claim data — not a PDF summary delivered monthly. Ask specifically: can I pull an AR aging report by payer at any time without requesting it from you? Can I access the denial log directly? Firms using modern RCM platforms (Waystar, AdvancedMD, Kareo, Therapy Brands) can typically support this; older or proprietary systems often cannot.
Critical
Denial Management Process
Ask them to walk you through their denial workflow step by step — from the moment a denial is received to final resolution. Specifically ask: at what dollar threshold, if any, do you write off a denial without appeal? What is your current average overturn rate across your PT client base? A firm that cannot answer these questions in a sales conversation will not answer them in a performance review either.
Critical
Fee Structure
Confirm fee is calculated on net collections (dollars actually received), not gross charges or billed amounts. PT/OT billing fees in 2026 typically range from 4–7% of net collections for practices in the $1M–$5M revenue range, with high-volume practices sometimes negotiating below 4%. Flat-fee-per-claim models exist but are less common and harder to evaluate without claim volume data.
High
Credentialing Services
Confirm whether credentialing is included or billed separately. Many billing companies outsource credentialing to a third party, adding a layer of accountability complexity. Ask who manages re-credentialing deadlines and how you are notified of approaching expirations. A credentialing gap with a major payer can result in months of uncollectable claims — this is a significant risk area.
High
EMR Compatibility
Confirm the biller has direct integration experience with your specific EMR (WebPT, Clinicient, TherapyNotes, Jane, Prompt, OptimisPT, etc.). A biller working outside your EMR's native billing workflow — relying on manual export/import — introduces transcription error and delays. Ask for references from clients using your exact EMR.
High
References
Ask for three references from PT practices of similar size and payer mix to yours — not hand-picked testimonials, but names and numbers you can call directly. Ask those references specifically: What is their net collection rate? Have there been any unresolved billing disputes? Would they switch billers if they had to make the decision again today?
High
Data Portability & Exit Rights
Confirm in writing that your claim data is yours, that you can export it in full at any time, and that upon termination the biller will provide a complete data export within a defined window (30 days is standard). Some billing contracts contain data hostage provisions — requiring paid "exit fees" or limiting export formats. These are unacceptable and often negotiable.
Standard
Part 9 — Switching Billers
How to Switch Billers Without Disrupting Your Cash Flow
The fear of disruption keeps many practice owners with underperforming billers far longer than they should stay. A properly managed transition takes 60–90 days and, when executed correctly, causes minimal cash flow interruption. Here is the sequenced timeline.
Select Your New Biller and Execute the Contract
Complete your RFP process, check references, and execute the new billing agreement. Confirm all performance standards, reporting requirements, and data access terms are in writing before signing. Do not notify your current biller yet — you need your replacement fully prepared before triggering a transition.
Initiate Payer Credentialing / Re-Credentialing with New Biller
Credentialing is the longest lead-time item in any billing transition. Your new biller needs to be credentialed as your billing agent with every payer before they can submit claims and receive payments. Medicare and Medicaid credentialing can take 60–120 days. Commercial payers vary widely — some process billing agent changes in days, others take 6–8 weeks. Begin this process immediately after contract execution. Claims submitted before credentialing is confirmed may be rejected or delayed.
Export Your Data and Establish Baseline AR Snapshot
Request a complete data export from your current biller — all open claims, AR aging, payment history, denial logs, and patient account balances. This is your baseline. Document the exact total of open AR by payer and age bucket so you can track whether your outgoing biller pursues remaining claims or abandons them after receiving notice. Some billers quietly stop working aged AR once they know they are being replaced.
Provide Formal Notice to Your Current Biller
Review your current contract for the required notice period — typically 30–60 days written notice. Provide notice in writing (email with read receipt, or certified mail) and confirm receipt. At this point, communicate professionally — you may need your outgoing biller's cooperation to transfer data, resolve open claims, and answer payer credentialing questions during the overlap period. Burning the relationship creates practical problems.
Begin Submitting New Claims Through Your New Biller
Once your new biller is credentialed with your primary payers, begin routing all new claims through them. Your outgoing biller continues to work open AR from dates of service prior to the cutover date. Establish a clear cutover date — typically tied to when credentialing is confirmed with your highest-volume payers. Do not split new claims between billers. Pick a clean cutover date and hold to it.
Monitor Legacy AR and Confirm Full Data Transfer
Your outgoing biller is contractually obligated to continue working claims for dates of service during their tenure. Monitor the legacy AR aging weekly — compare against your baseline snapshot to confirm they are still actively pursuing open claims rather than allowing them to age toward write-off. Confirm your full data export has been received, is complete, and has been imported into your new biller's system. Request written confirmation that the transition is complete and no open claims remain with the outgoing biller.
When the Problem Is the Platform, Not the Biller
Before concluding your biller is the sole source of underperformance, consider whether your EMR or billing software is contributing to the problem. Some billing failures originate upstream — in your clinical documentation workflow, your scheduling software, or the integration between your EMR and the billing system.
💻 Integration Quality Problems
What it looks like: Charges drop or duplicate between your EMR and the billing system. Claim submission delays of 24–72 hours after the encounter date. Demographic errors on claims that match what was entered in the EMR.
The cause: A biller working outside your EMR's native billing module — using manual export/import via CSV or HL7 file — introduces a high-risk data handoff. Any error in that export becomes a claim error.
- Ask your biller how charges flow from your EMR to their system — is it a direct API integration or a file export?
- If it is a file export, ask how often errors are caught and corrected before submission
- Consider whether your EMR has a native billing module your biller can work in directly
📋 Documentation Gaps
What it looks like: High rate of CO-50 or CO-167 (medical necessity) denials that the biller cannot overcome on appeal. Payers requesting additional documentation repeatedly for the same CPT codes.
The cause: Medical necessity denials often trace back to documentation that does not adequately support the billed services — a clinical problem, not a billing problem. The biller cannot appeal what the note does not support.
- Have a qualified PT or compliance consultant review a sample of denied notes for documentation adequacy
- Confirm your therapists are documenting functional deficits, goals, and skilled care justification per payer LCD requirements
- Ask your biller what specific documentation language would have supported a successful appeal on recent CO-50 denials
⚠️ Scheduling & Eligibility Gaps
What it looks like: Recurring eligibility-related denials. Claims denied because coverage was inactive on the date of service. High rate of patient balance write-offs due to coverage that was not verified at intake.
The cause: Real-time eligibility verification must happen at scheduling AND at check-in. If your front desk is not running eligibility checks — or your scheduling software is not integrated with an eligibility verification tool — you are accepting patients whose coverage status is unknown.
- Confirm your scheduling system runs real-time eligibility verification at the time of scheduling
- Require front desk staff to re-verify eligibility at check-in, particularly for patients with commercial insurance
- Ask your biller what their protocol is when a claim comes through with no prior eligibility verification on file
📄 Charge Capture Failures
What it looks like: Encounters in the EMR that have no corresponding claim in the billing system. Charge lag of more than 3 business days between encounter and claim submission. Discrepancy between your EMR visit count and your billing claim count for the same period.
The cause: Charge capture failures — visits that were seen clinically but never billed — are among the most invisible revenue leaks in practice management. They do not appear as denials because no claim was ever filed.
- Run a monthly reconciliation: total encounters in your EMR vs. total claims submitted. Any gap requires investigation
- Ask your biller what their process is for identifying unbilled encounters — do they reconcile against the EMR or rely on you to catch this?
- Confirm your EMR has an unsigned note or missing charge report that is reviewed daily
Credentialing: The Billing Problem Your Biller Cannot Fix
Credentialing failures are one of the most common — and most overlooked — sources of billing denials in private PT and OT practices. Unlike process-driven denial problems, credentialing gaps produce denials that no amount of appeal will overcome until the underlying credentialing issue is resolved. Understanding who owns this problem is the first step to fixing it.
Credentialing Issue
What Happens to Your Claims
Who Is Responsible
Provider not credentialed with a payer
Claims submitted under an uncredentialed provider are denied outright — often coded as "provider not enrolled" or "services not covered by provider." These denials are not appealable until credentialing is resolved. Revenue from those dates of service may be permanently lost if the credentialing lag is long.
Practice owner / office manager. The biller can assist with paperwork but cannot credential on your behalf — only you can authorize and sign enrollment applications.
Re-credentialing deadline missed
Most payers require re-credentialing every 2–3 years. A missed deadline results in the provider's enrollment lapsing — producing the same denials as an uncredentialed provider, often without warning. Payers do not reliably send advance notice of expiring credentials.
Shared. Your biller or a dedicated credentialing service should track expiration dates and flag them 90+ days in advance. Verify that someone in your practice has ownership of this calendar.
New provider billing before credentialing is complete
A newly hired PT or OT who begins treating patients before their credentialing is complete creates a billing gap. Some payers allow "incident to" or "under supervision" billing as a temporary bridge — but this is payer-specific and not universally available. Claims submitted before credentialing is approved are often denied retroactively.
Practice owner. Credentialing timelines — typically 30–60 days for commercial payers, and 60–120 days for Medicare — must be factored into your hiring plan. New providers should not begin treating insurance patients until credentialing is confirmed or a covered billing arrangement is in place.
Group vs. individual enrollment mismatch
Claims billed under a group NPI when the provider is only individually enrolled — or vice versa — generate denials that appear billing-related but are actually enrollment-related. This is a common source of confusion in multi-provider practices and after entity restructurings.
Biller and practice owner jointly. Your biller should flag this during claim submission. If they are not catching NPI/enrollment mismatches, that is a process failure on their side worth addressing directly.
Practice address or Tax ID change not updated with payers
When a practice moves, changes its legal entity, or changes its Tax ID (common after a sale or restructuring), all payer enrollments must be updated. Claims submitted under old address or Tax ID information are frequently denied or paid to the wrong entity — a problem that can persist for months if not proactively managed.
Practice owner to initiate, biller to execute. Any material change to practice information should trigger an immediate review of all active payer enrollment records. Expect 30–90 day processing times for updates depending on the payer.
📋
Build a Credentialing Matrix and Review It Quarterly
A credentialing matrix is a simple spreadsheet — every provider in your practice, every payer they are enrolled with, the effective date, and the re-credentialing deadline. If you do not have this document, building it is one of the highest-value administrative tasks your practice can complete in the next 30 days. Ask your biller to help compile it. If they resist or cannot produce the underlying enrollment data, that is a transparency problem requiring immediate escalation.
What Billing Underperformance Actually Costs You at Transaction Time
Revenue cycle problems that compound quietly for years do not stay hidden when your practice goes to market. Institutional buyers employ experienced due diligence teams who examine AR aging, write-off patterns, and collection rate trends as part of every quality of earnings analysis.
📈 The Valuation Math: Why RCM Is Not Just an Operational Issue
Consider a PT practice generating $2 million in annual net revenue. If billing underperformance — passive denial management, aged AR write-offs, and uncollected patient balances — is suppressing collections by even 3% annually, the practice is leaving $60,000 in annual revenue uncollected. At a 5x EBITDA multiple, that collection leakage represents $300,000 in lost enterprise value at the closing table.
This is not hypothetical. The compounding effect of mediocre billing performance over three to five years produces a financial history that underwrites a lower valuation — and often generates due diligence findings that justify purchase price reductions or escrow holdbacks. Fixing your billing before you go to market is not remediation. It is value creation.
Annual Revenue Leakage (3% gap)
$60,000
On a $2M net revenue practice — before the valuation multiplier
Lost Enterprise Value at 5x Multiple
$300,000
Direct impact on closing proceeds from uncollected revenue
Compounded Over 3 Years
$900K+
Total cumulative lost collections that suppress your TTM financial history
Due Diligence Risk
Material
Aged AR patterns and write-off trends can trigger purchase price reductions, escrow holdbacks, or retrades
Mihama Acquisitions · Seller Advisory
Your Billing Performance Is a Valuation Issue — Not Just an Operations Issue
Mihama works with physical therapy, occupational therapy, and behavioral health practice owners to prepare their businesses for institutional transactions. A significant component of that preparation is identifying and correcting revenue cycle deficiencies that, left unaddressed, suppress EBITDA and create due diligence exposure. If your third-party biller cannot answer the questions in this guide with data, the conversation about fixing it — or replacing them — should happen before you go to market. Mihama can help you evaluate your RCM performance, identify the financial impact, and position your practice to enter a sale process with clean, defensible financials.
📞
Speak With an Advisor
347-878-2941
Confidential consultation, no retainer required
🌐
Learn More
www.mihamainc.com
Resources, deal experience & seller tools