Percentage of collections
A share of what is collected on the claims the vendor works.
- Works when
- You want the fee tied to results and volume is modest.
- Watch for
- It grows with you, and quietly becomes the largest line item as you add locations.
We scope per practice, so we will not put a headline figure here and make you unpick it later. What we will do is explain exactly what moves the price, for us and for anyone else you are comparing.
Every quote you collect will use one of these. Knowing which one, before you look at the figure, is what makes two quotes comparable.
A share of what is collected on the claims the vendor works.
A fixed fee against a written scope, reviewed when the scope changes.
You pay for hours or for named people working your queue.
Bring rough answers to these and the first call ends with a scope you can price.
Submission only, or submission plus denial rework, appeals and A/R? The backlog is where the hours go, and it is the biggest difference between two quotes that look similar.
Locations, providers, claim volume and call volume. More sites do not scale linearly. Coordination across them is its own work.
Some payers are materially more work per claim. Any vendor quoting without asking about your mix has not priced your actual work.
A clean current A/R is a different engagement from a large aged backlog. The backlog is finite work and we price it as such.
We work in whichever practice software you run. The first weeks include learning your setup and workflows, and we price that openly rather than hide it.
Before comparing vendors against each other, compare the total against your current fully-loaded in-house cost. The last line is usually the largest and almost never appears in the spreadsheet.
Open the calculatorOne location or one workstream first, with metrics agreed in writing, so you judge the work before you widen it.
Starting narrow is the point: if it is not working you can leave cheaply. A vendor needing a long lock-in first is managing their risk with yours.
The backlog is finite, labor-heavy work, so it is scoped separately rather than bundled in and under-served.
Because a number without your payer mix, location count and scope would be a guess, and you would have to re-do the exercise anyway. What we can do is tell you the model before the number, so you can compare us against other vendors like for like.
We scope per practice and will tell you which model applies before quoting. For multi-location groups a flat monthly fee is usually the better structure, because percentage-of-collections pricing quietly becomes your largest line item as you grow.
It is scoped separately, because it is finite, labor-heavy work with a different shape from ongoing claims. We would rather price it honestly than bundle it in and under-serve it.
We prefer starting narrow (one location or one workstream) with agreed metrics, precisely so you can leave cheaply if it is not working. A vendor requiring a long lock-in before you have seen the work is managing their risk with yours.
Tell us which locations you run and which system you're on. We'll show you exactly what we'd take over first.
Book a call