If 80% of your visits are coded level 3, someone is leaving money on the table.
When 80% of your visits are coded level 3, the math is not coding — it is lost revenue. Add in missed ancillary charges and self-pay collection gaps and it gets worse. The free 15-minute assessment gives you a read on all three.
15 minutes. Custom financial scorecard for your practice.
At a glance
Is This Right for You?
This is for urgent care practice owners who:
Want ongoing financial oversight? Our Fractional CFO service for urgent care practices may be a better fit.
What We Analyze
Where Urgent Care Centers Lose Revenue
We trace every dollar from claim submission to bank deposit in your urgent care practice.
E/M Coding Distribution
- •Visit level distribution analysis vs acuity benchmarks
- •Provider-level coding pattern review
- •MDM documentation sufficiency audit
- •Under-coding and over-coding identification
Ancillary Charge Capture
- •Lab and radiology order-to-claim matching
- •Procedure charge capture audit (laceration repair, splinting, I&D)
- •Injection and medication administration billing review
Workers Comp Billing Process
- •Initial visit documentation compliance
- •Follow-up visit coding and authorization tracking
- •Employer and payer notification compliance
- •Return-to-work documentation billing
Self-Pay Collection Process
- •Point-of-service collection rate analysis
- •Financial policy effectiveness review
- •Sliding scale and prompt-pay discount impact
- •Aged self-pay balance recovery
Results
What Urgent Care Centers Recover
| Finding | Typical Outcome |
|---|---|
| Revenue recovered | $260,000 from coding corrections and charge capture |
| Self-pay collections | 34% to 58% collection rate, adding $71,000 annually |
| Staffing optimization | $103,000 saved through volume-based scheduling |
Case Study
Real results from a practice like yours
2-site urgent care operation, open 7 days, averaging 45 patients per day per site. Combined revenue was $3.4M but profit had dropped from 16% to 9% over two years despite stable patient volumes. The owner suspected staffing costs but could not pinpoint the problem.
What we found:
- •E/M coding was 78% level 3. Benchmarking suggested the acuity mix should be closer to 55% level 3 and 25% level 4. Under-coding was costing $168K per year
- •On-site labs were ordered on 60% of visits but only billed on 44%. Charge capture failure was losing $92K annually
- •Self-pay patients (19% of volume) were being collected at 34% vs the 60%+ target, a gap worth $78K per year
- •Staffing was not volume-adjusted. Both sites were fully staffed during 3-hour daily windows that averaged only 4 patients per hour, costing $103K in excess labor
The results
$260,000 from coding corrections and charge capture
Revenue recovered
34% to 58% collection rate, adding $71,000 annually
Self-pay collections
$103,000 saved through volume-based scheduling
Staffing optimization
“We were leaving $260K on the table in coding and charge capture alone. The billing team was not incompetent — they were just overwhelmed and nobody was auditing the output.”
— Practice Owner, Midwest
Common Questions About Revenue Cycle Analysis for Urgent Care Centers
Find out where your urgent care practice revenue goes.
Take the free financial assessment. 15 minutes. No obligation.