🇺🇸United States

Slow or Misaligned Contracting Extends Accounts Receivable and Time to Cash

1 verified sources

Definition

HFMA explicitly highlights payer contract issues such as accounts receivable aged >90 days and claim denials as topics that need to be included in negotiations.[3] When hospitals do not negotiate clear, enforceable payment terms and clean-claim definitions, they experience chronic payment delays and inflated A/R days.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: Each additional day in A/R can represent millions of dollars in cash tied up for large systems; if inadequate contract terms add 5–10 A/R days on a $1B portfolio, $13M–$27M in cash can be trapped at a 5–10% discount rate equivalent.
  • Frequency: Daily
  • Root Cause: Contracts lack strict payment timelines, clear appeal and recoupment processes, and aligned definitions of clean claims; payers exploit ambiguities to slow payments and increase denials, especially where providers lack strong data to challenge them.[3]

Why This Matters

This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Hospitals.

Affected Stakeholders

CFO / Treasury, Director of Patient Financial Services, A/R and Collections Teams, Managed Care Contracting

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

$10M–$30M in unrecovered commercial denials due to wrong categorization and missed appeals • $13M-$27M in trapped cash on $1B portfolio for every 5-10 additional A/R days; 0.5-1% cost of capital loss; refinancing pressure on lines of credit • $13M–$27M cash tied up per $1B portfolio (5–10 additional A/R days) due to unclear contract payment terms

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

A/R Manager maintains separate spreadsheet for Medicare/Medicaid payment rules; manually reconciles aging against CMS timelines; calls Medicare contractors to verify claim status • A/R Manager manually pulls payer contracts from shared drive; creates pivot tables comparing payment terms by payer; calls payers to verify payment deadlines; tracks aging manually in Excel by payer contract • Budget Analyst maintains parallel Workers Comp fee schedule in Excel; manually reviews denied claims to identify if denial is due to contract language (bundling restrictions) vs. coding error; quarterly spreadsheet comparison with payer contract amendments

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Incorrect or Incomplete Fee Schedule Loading Causes Systematic Underpayments

Commonly cited ranges are 1–3% of net patient revenue lost to contract and fee-schedule configuration errors for hospitals and large practices; for a $500M net revenue system this is ~$5M–$15M per year.

Adverse Contract Language (Lesser‑Of Clauses, Chargemaster Caps) Depresses Reimbursement

Negotiation and consulting analyses commonly show 2–5% of contract value left on the table due to unfavorable rate and language terms; on a $200M payer book this is ~$4M–$10M per year.

Failure to Align Negotiated Terms With Operational Reality Drives Denials and Down‑Coding

Denials and down‑coding tied to contract and policy issues routinely represent several percent of net patient revenue; industry benchmarking places potentially avoidable denials at 3–5% of net revenue, often in the tens of millions annually for a mid‑size health system.

Inefficient Contract Negotiation Cycles Drive High Labor and Consulting Costs

For systems negotiating dozens of major contracts, incremental legal/consulting and internal FTE costs can reach hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars annually when cycles are prolonged by poor preparation.

Administrative Burden From Poorly Negotiated Terms Inflates Back-End Processing Costs

Hospitals report that administrative complexity from payer requirements can consume 3–10% of revenue cycle operating expense; for a department with $20M in annual cost, this is ~$0.6M–$2M potentially tied to avoidable contract-driven complexity.

Poor Quality in Contract Build Requires Rework and Retroactive Adjustments

Rework of claims can cost $25–$30 per claim in staff time; systemic contract build errors affecting tens of thousands of claims per year can incur hundreds of thousands in avoidable labor and delay costs.

Request Deep Analysis

🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence