What’s inside: output checking · connections to your systems
The question this file answersWhich of our payers are quietly paying below contract — and would we know before the year-end review?
Fits: providers where every encounter generates coding and billing work.
Typical pattern, not a measured office — the healthcare playbook publishes no volume for remittance matching, and we supply none. A remit arrives; someone compares it with the claim and a rate sheet kept in a drawer or a spreadsheet. Underpayments surface in arrears, if a payer audit happens at all.
At the weekly payer review, the billing lead looks at a short list of payer-and-code pairs paying below contract, each with the evidence attached, instead of a rate sheet and a hunch. Routine posting has already happened; the argument with the payer is still the lead's.
Typical, not a measured client result. Every figure here comes from the playbook source named below.
claim, remittance, contract on one screen — a variant of the coding and denials file; no published figure for contract matching
Before: someone compares each remit to the claim and a rate sheet in a drawer. After: the three documents meet on one screen and only the variances wait for a person. The percentage stays on the coding file.
Remittance-to-contract matching has no published benchmark. The 35–55% coding range (AHIMA, McKinsey, 2023) describes claim coding and is left on the parent file. Not a cash guarantee.
Nothing replaces your billing platform — Waystar, Change Healthcare, Availity, whichever it is. Our coding-and-denials build gains a third document, the contract:
Contract interpretation. Appeals. Deciding which underpayment is worth the fight.
Not a cash guarantee.
Loading contracted rates per payer, per code and per effective date is the real work; until it is done the build can match claim to remit but not to contract. Payer remittance files vary, and paper remits are read less reliably. The parent file's coding range is about coding admin, not recovered cash — deciding whether a variance is a fight or a write-off stays with a person.
The path: free 60-second estimate → free 20-minute review → paid audit of this one process (€1.5–3K, typically two weeks) → pilot with your people in the loop (€10–20K, weeks, not quarters). No transformation programme. Prices are public, on the services page →
Scoped in the audit — the playbook has no estimate for this exact desk.
That depends on your volumes and wage costs — this page will not invent the number. The free 60-second estimate runs that calculation from your answers, with every multiplier sourced.
Not a named Aperanda client. Process file · Healthcare.
Short process file. Same build as its parent file; the playbook has no separate volume or benchmark for this desk.