Premium Reports
Revenue Cycle Services 2015

Revenue Cycle Services 2015
Can Firms Help Providers Adapt to the Changing Revenue Cycle Environment?

Authored by: | Read Time: 2 minutes

The current revenue cycle environment is defined by change, whether it be the industry shift to value-based care, providers changing their RCM software solutions, or organizational operations being improved in order to increase efficiency and decrease cost. In this study, providers evaluate how well their firms help them improve collections (cash, A/R); streamline processes; decrease costs; and most importantly, evolve into a future state.

1. PWC DRIVES CLIENT SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING EXPECTED RESULTS

PwC provides revenue cycle experts who understand client needs, work closely with clients to achieve and sustain results, and solicit feedback to ensure needs are met. PwC is innovative and a strong problem solver for the evolving revenue cycle environment. Parallon surpasses other ranked RCO firms in meeting customer expectations. Their operational experience helps them deliver consistent results and prepare clients for changes to the revenue cycle landscape. Accretive Health scores highest among RCO firms for helpfulness with strategic initiatives. However, customers are not seeing anticipated results.

 2. RCO: Consistent outcomes set Parallon apart

Parallon  outperforms other firms with consistency in driving outcomes through efficient yet complex workflows and sophisticated reporting tools. Although Accretive often falls short of expectations despite delivering positive results via effective processes and tools, customers are optimistic about recent leadership changes. Many Conifer clients are not yet achieving desired outcomes, due in part to poor communication and unmet expectations, but they do see the firm progressing and making improvements. Cerner performs above average in RCO areas, but for some a lack of unity between organization goals and Cerner resources drives down their overall performance.  

3. RCT:  All firms positively impact cash flow, cost to collect, and workflow; PwC receives most favorable reviews

PwC leads in performance, delivering consistent engagements and cash-flow impact via improved collections and reduced A/R days. Clients also reference PwC’s strong tools—e.g., policies and procedures, staffing models—which many continue to use. Huron succeeds with their workflow tool that effectively improves processes with solid methodology, but high maintenance expenses detract from their cost-to-collect impact. While Deloitte has a positive impact in many areas, some clients are disappointed with the experience and recommendations of their consultants. Navigant, with preliminary data, delivers a strong performance in process improvement and tools.

4. EBOS: PwC and MediRevv continually exceed customer expectations

PwC, closely followed by MediRevv, is the highest performing firm in this study. While most PwC customers only engage for a few focused areas, they appreciate PwC’s process-oriented playbook. MediRevv’s score is reflective of their strong patient-facing customer service and inclusive pricing. Acquired by Navigant last year, Cymetrix focuses mainly on private insurance and self-pay. The need of some customers to monitor Cymetrix resources has resulted in a drop in performance. Conifer has broad engagements with clients, but instances of uncharacteristically poor customer service and execution have resulted in low performance. 

Want to see full details?

 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2018 KLAS Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.