A new survey by a healthcare technology solutions company has identified that manual follow-up procedures on late payments from insurance companies costs the organization 33% more per claim than previous estimates.
A new survey by a healthcare technology solutions company has identified that manual follow-up procedures on late payments from insurance companies costs the organization 33% more per claim than previous estimates. This despite the availability of automated procedures to follow-up on these billing processes.
Recondo Technology surveyed the claims follow-up procedures implemented by healthcare financial professionals from hospitals, physician groups, and consultant organizations. Traditionally done by back-office staff, previous estimates have found that claims follow-up costs between $2.75 and $3.75 per claim. However, nearly three-fourths of survey participants estimated this number at $4 per claim, which stood at nearly 33% more than what was widely assumed. A small number per claim, but a significant impact nonetheless. Recondo estimates that this tedious process could cost the industry over $3.1 billion more than was previously thought.
Jay Deady, CEO of Recondo, said, “Not only is it costing the industry more than is currently believed to find problems within the healthcare revenue cycle and remediate them, but the vast majority of healthcare organizations are relying on outdated means to automate claims follow-up, outsourcing it, or doing nothing at all.” He suggests using Web-sourced data to remove claims that are in queue to be paid off soon, which can free valuable staff time.
With over half the survey participants saying their organization used manual follow-up processes instead of using technologies that can automate the process, this is certainly a food for thought and an important value proposition for the healthcare financial world.
Lower Diagnostic Error Rates Found Among Hospitalized Patients During Care Transitions
October 21st 2024Examining care transitions in hospitalized patients revealed lower diagnostic error rates compared with traditional methods, highlighting the effectiveness of this approach in identifying diagnostic challenges.
Read More