Group Practices
Multi-provider and multi-site groups, where several payer contracts, several locations and a moving provider roster all have to reconcile to one set of numbers.
Where Groups Lose Revenue
Roster Churn
Providers join, leave and change locations faster than enrollment keeps up, and claims are denied in the gap.Group and Location Errors
A provider enrolled under the wrong group or location produces denials that look like coding problems and get worked as if they were.Process That Differs by Site
Each location runs intake and eligibility its own way, so denial rates vary by site and nobody can see why.Denials Owned by Nobody
At scale, denials fall between site staff and central billing, and age out while each assumes the other has them.Reporting That Will Not Reconcile
Sites report differently, so the group cannot compare locations or providers on the same basis.Re-Credentialing Spread Across Payers
With many providers and many payers, a missed re-credentialing or Medicare revalidation date stops being a risk and becomes a certainty.
What We Run for You
Medical Billing
Charge entry, scrubbing, submission, payment posting and patient statements.Learn MoreCredentialing and Provider Enrollment
Payer enrollment, CAQH, Medicare revalidations and re‑credentialing.Learn MoreDenial Management
Denials worked by reason code, corrected, appealed and tracked.Learn MoreAR Follow-Up and Recovery
Aged AR worked by bucket and payer, with recovery reported back to you.Learn More
How This Works for a Group
Several sites and providers on one engagement, with every payer contract lined up.
The engagement is scoped once, for the group, and the scope names every location and every provider it covers. That list is the reference for everything that follows. When a claim is queried a year later, the scope says whether that provider at that site on that date was ours to bill, and there is no argument about it.
Within the one engagement, the work is standardized across sites. Eligibility is checked the same way before every visit at every location. Charges are entered against the same rules. Denials from every site land in one queue and are worked by reason code and deadline, not by which office noticed them. This is the part groups most often lack, because each location grew its own routine before anyone tried to run them as one.
Where a site holds a genuinely separate contract or a separate reporting requirement, the scope says so and that site is carved out or handled on its own terms. The rule is that the boundary is written down, not that everything must be identical.
The engagement is scoped once, for the group, and the scope names every location and every provider it covers. That list is the reference for everything that follows. When a claim is queried a year later, the scope says whether that provider at that site on that date was ours to bill, and there is no argument about it.
Within the one engagement, the work is standardized across sites. Eligibility is checked the same way before every visit at every location. Charges are entered against the same rules. Denials from every site land in one queue and are worked by reason code and deadline, not by which office noticed them. This is the part groups most often lack, because each location grew its own routine before anyone tried to run them as one.
Where a site holds a genuinely separate contract or a separate reporting requirement, the scope says so and that site is carved out or handled on its own terms. The rule is that the boundary is written down, not that everything must be identical.
A group's roster moves. Providers join, leave, change locations, add a second site, go part-time or change supervising relationships. Each of those events has an enrollment consequence with each payer, and a claim submitted before the enrollment catches up denies, often with a reason code that looks like a coding or eligibility problem and gets worked as one.
Enrollment is therefore tracked per provider, per payer and per location, as a live record rather than a one-time task. A provider added to a new site triggers a check on whether that payer has that provider at that location before the first claim goes out. A provider leaving triggers a termination so the payer's records match the group's. Medicare revalidation and payer re-credentialing dates are held in the same record, so that with many providers and many payers the dates are a calendar rather than a series of surprises.
Group and facility enrollment sit alongside the individuals. A provider correctly credentialed under the wrong group, or a location the payer has never been told about, produces the same denials as a provider who was never enrolled, and is found the same way: by reconciling the payer's record of the group against the group's own.
The reporting package is produced once, on one basis, and then broken down: the group as a whole, then by site, by provider and by payer, using the same definitions at every level. Charges, collections, AR by bucket, denial rate by reason, and the write-offs proposed and approved.
The point of the same basis is comparison. If one site's denial rate is higher than another's, the group can see it, and because the process is standardized the difference points to something real at that site rather than to a difference in how the two sites count. Trends that only show at the group level, a payer that has slowed for every location, are visible in the consolidated view; problems that live at one site are visible in the breakdown.
The cadence, the recipients and the contents are set in the scope. A group with a practice administrator at each site and a finance lead at the center often wants two versions of the same package, and that is arranged rather than improvised.
The front desk. Check-in, collecting at the counter, scheduling decisions and the patient conversation remain with the people in the building. Where the group takes Virtual Assistants as well, the boundary between the assistant's tasks and the desk's is written into that scope.
Clinical documentation and its timeliness. Coding queries go to the provider who signed the note, and the scope names who at each site receives them and routes them.
Decisions. Write-offs are proposed with the reason and approved by whoever the group nominates, centrally or per site. Contract questions go to the group's management. We report what we find and recommend what to do; the group decides.
One Team Across Every Site
Tell us your sites, providers and payer contracts. We will come back with a written scope.
- Multi-Site Billing
- Roster and Enrollment
- Reporting by Site
- Denial Management
- AR Follow-Up and Recovery