logo
A Data-Driven Fix For Orthopedic Practices Losing To Claim Denials

A Data-Driven Fix For Orthopedic Practices Losing To Claim Denials

Forbes5 days ago
Sally Ragab, Founder & CEO @ Neunetix.
Ask any orthopedic group what keeps their CFO up at night, and one answer dominates: denied claims. National surveys show that orthopedics now sees 9% to 11% of all claims rejected. In dollar terms, a 12-surgeon group billing $85 million a year could watch $8 to $10 million slip away before a single appeal is filed.
In a recent article, I explored why the problem is worsening across healthcare. Building on this, a multisite analysis conducted by my company suggests that most leakage is preventable—and faster to plug than many administrators think.
What We Studied
Between April 2024 and March 2025, my company partnered with 12 independent orthopedic practices (across California, Texas, Florida and New York), which collectively submitted 1.26 million claims. We captured every rejection code, payer response time and downstream appeal outcome. Three findings stood out:
1. The overall claim denial rate dropped from 10.4% in the 12 months before the intervention to 6.7% during the six-month intervention period.
2. Preventable denials—such as those caused by missing claim modifiers or lapses in prior authorizations—fell from 64% to 28%.
3. Additionally, the average number of days that claims remained unpaid in accounts receivable decreased from 46 days to 38 days.
To achieve this, all practices followed the same three-step process, which I will outline below. There was no need to hire additional full-time staff or change their electronic health record systems.
Why Orthopedics Gets Hit Harder
1. High-Ticket Procedures: Hip- and knee-replacement bundles average between $30,000 and $32,000. One denial can wipe out the revenue from hundreds of physical therapy sessions—more than a year of visits for the average patient.
2. Modifier Complexity: Orthopedic procedures often involve complex coding and modifier usage, and many of the most frequently flagged CPT codes for CO-4 and PR-22 edits stem from this specialty—especially when modifiers are missing or missequenced.
3. Authorization Churn: Payers continue to ratchet up pre‑service checks. CMS now requires prior authorization for all hospital outpatient cervical spinal‑fusion procedures with disc removal, and insurance policies, like UnitedHealthcare's 2024 commercial policy, list every major arthroscopy CPT code as "prior authorization required." As a result, authorization‑related denials for outpatient claims jumped 16% in the past three years (registration required).
The Three-Step Denial-Prevention Playbook
Run a scrape and review electronic claims and payment files (known as ANSI 835/837 files) to identify which billing modifiers are most commonly linked to denials. In our cohort, simple left/right side coding errors (using -RT for right or -LT for left) accounted for 21% of preventable rejections. A one-hour meeting with the coding team to flag and prevent these errors led to a 2.3% point drop in the denial rate within just one month.
Add a simple yes/no binary check to the scheduling system so that surgeries can't be booked unless a valid prior authorization ID is included. Clinics that enforced this safeguard reduced their authorization-related denials from 3.7% to 0.9% in just 90 days.
A simple predictive model, trained on about 150,000 past claims, was used to flag new claims that were at high risk of denial. Only claims with a risk score of 0.70 or higher were sent to coders for review—everything else moved through automatically. This reduced the average coder workload by 41%, allowing staff to focus more on higher-value appeals.
Financial Impact
Across the 12 practices, net collections rose $6.4 million in the first six months—roughly $0.75 million per practice—while denial-related write-offs fell 52%. The average site reached cash-flow breakeven on the project in 51 days. Those numbers align with industry surveys, indicating that 65% of orthopedic denials are preventable and that 30% are never reworked at all.
Quick Wins Orthopedic Leaders Can Implement Today
As a summary, a focused audit of common billing modifier errors—followed by a short retraining session for coding staff—can lead to a 1.5 to 3 percentage-point drop in overall denials. This typically requires no more than two weeks.
Next, adding a mandatory prior authorization field to the surgical scheduling system ensures that procedures can't be booked without a valid authorization ID. Clinics that adopted this safeguard saw authorization-related denials fall by 1 to 2.5 percentage points, with rollout taking about 30 days, including staff training.
Finally, integrating a simple AI-based risk scoring tool into the claims submission process can further reduce denials by 2 to 4 percentage points. The tool should flag only the highest-risk claims for manual review, cutting coder workload by about 40% and letting teams focus on appeals and other high-value tasks. In my experience, most practices can launch this model within 60 days.
Collectively, these steps can push denial rates below the 7.66% improper payment benchmark CMS reports for 2024.
Why Act Now
• Payer scrutiny is rising. The "State of Claims 2024" report notes a steady climb in authorization-related denials across all specialties, with orthopedics singled out for high-cost implant cases.
• Providers feel the pinch. In Experian's 2024 survey, 73% said denials are rising and 67% said payments are taking longer to arrive.
• CMS audits are looming. Improper payment probes increasingly target spinal and total-joint bundles; denial records factor into audit risk scores.
The Bottom Line
Denied claims shouldn't simply be a cost of doing business—they're a solvable data problem. Our field data proves that taking steps like a disciplined five-day audit, a hard scheduling gate and a modest machine-learning layer can slash orthopedic denial rates by one-third and return millions to the bottom line within a quarter.
Your implants are cutting-edge—your denial-defense strategy should be too.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Best Brokers For Saving On Capital Gains Taxes
The Best Brokers For Saving On Capital Gains Taxes

Forbes

time14 minutes ago

  • Forbes

The Best Brokers For Saving On Capital Gains Taxes

Y ou make money in the market but tell the IRS you're losing money. Yes, this works—for a while . Direct indexing with loss harvesting looks like a bonanza, for both providers and customers. Is it? Short answer: Yes, but. Yes, you can do nicely with this scheme, more than covering the fees charged. The two buts: (1) Before getting in, think about what's going to happen on the way out. Below I will present a cautionary tale about the resulting mess. (2) Take any vendor's projection of tax savings with a grain of salt. Providers evidently see gold here. In recent years Vanguard, BlackRock, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan, Stanley have bought their way into the business. Wealthfront, a Palo Alto, California robo-adviser, has made a great success democratizing automated loss harvesting and aims to go public in the near future. Frec, a newer San Francisco firm and something of a Wealthfront knock-off, has shaken up the business with an insanely low-cost offering. Direct indexing means owning the S&P 500 or another index not via a fund but via individual stock positions. Instead of putting $100,000 into the Vanguard S&P 500 exchange-traded fund you buy 42.4 shares of Nvidia, 13.7 shares of Microsoft, 0.33 shares of Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies and so on. Or rather, a computer does the buying. Periodically the computer plucks out losers to sell for a capital loss, replacing them temporarily with substitute stocks that behave similarly (Merck for Pfizer, perhaps). After 30 days have passed, the original position can be restored without creating a loss-killing wash sale. You sit on the winners for as long as you can. We are, of course, talking about money in taxable accounts. There is no point to direct indexing inside an IRA or 401(k). A direct indexing account typically has between 200 and 400 stocks. You don't need more than that to do a decent job of tracking an index with 500 stocks in it. Parametric Portfolio Associates was a pioneer in this business, originally offering the tax dodge to wealthy clients paying for custom portfolio management. Its direct-indexing skills (and the large footprint of Morgan Stanley, which picked up the company when it acquired Eaton Vance) explain Parametric's $400 billion of assets under management. The prevalence of fractional shares and the automation of financial advice mean that little people can now get in on the action, with as little $5,000. What kind of capital losses do you get? That will depend on the direction and the volatility of the market. Over a decade, Wealthfront reports, capital losses have averaged 2.6% to 3.3% per year for its clients, but there is a great deal of year-to-year variation. People who put money in at the beginning of 2022 got a gusher of losses in the ensuing crash, but then they would have been better off waiting for a year and doing without the tax goodie. Remember that your aim with loss harvesting is not to have losses. It's to have gains but report losses. Suppose you have a plump capital loss to put onto your tax return. How much good does that do you? This is a function of your tax bracket and your other investing activity. Capital losses can absorb any amount of capital gains and, beyond that, can be written off against up to $3,000 a year of ordinary income like salaries. Unused losses can be carried forward indefinitely but expire with the taxpayer's death. It is reasonable to expect that the tax benefits will, in the early years of a direct indexing account, more than pay for the fees, which are usually in the range of 0.1% to 0.4% a year. But at some point, perhaps after five years of a mostly bullish market, or later if stocks go sideways, you will have nothing but gain positions. Note that someone who bought in 2015 would not have derived much tax benefit from the crash of 2022 because even at its low point that year the market was twice as high as in 2015. This matter of loss exhaustion brings me to the first caveat about fancified indexing. What are you planning to do when it's time to move on? To illustrate, I will cite the case of a Forbes reader that I will identify as Mr. X. X signed up for a separately managed account with a financial advisor who was using direct-indexing software. Recently, with most of the potential losses captured, he quit the advisor and deposited the stock at a discount broker. He asked me: Now what should I do? X is sitting on an interesting pile of shares. He owns Nvidia at a $12 entry point, and should let that position ride. So, too, with gains in Taiwan Semiconductor, Broadcom and Microsoft. But he's got 140 positions that are now underwater or showing small gains. It would be nice to declutter. Some of these clunkers will be easy to dispose of. Pepsico, Nike, Pfizer—no problem. But what about PT Bank Raykat or Airports of Thailand? These American Depositary Receipts trade over the counter, which is to say, not on Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange. On Yahoo Finance I recently saw the airport ADR with an average daily trading volume of 993 shares and a frightful bid/ask spread of $9.52 to $12. X could sell all the cats and dogs, but would probably get hosed on the OTC shares. Apart from their sometimes larcenous bid/ask spreads, unlisted shares may not qualify for commission-free trading. Another problem: Odd lots (less than 100 shares), of which X has more than 400, are sometimes hard to trade. This junkpile cries out for all-or-none orders (you don't want a trade to turn an odd lot into an odder one). But combining that restriction with a price limit increases the chance that an order simply won't be executed. X did walk away with a fat loss carryforward, which may come in handy some day, but is likely to spend many hours cleaning up. Here's someone commenting anonymously online on direct indexing: 'I made a big mistake doing it in a Wealthfront account and when I wanted to consolidate holdings with another firm, I had to manually sell 195 securities. Stick to broad index ETFs!' I don't entirely agree with that sentiment. Direct indexing makes sense if you have plans for the end game and if you stick to large U.S. companies. I'll go this far with the Wealthfront critic: You should get your small-stock and foreign exposures via ETFs. Now let's look at the second caveat, which is to understand the value of a capital loss. Wealthfront says that, over the past decade, it has captured $3.5 billion of losses for its customers, 91% of them short-term. (These figures include earlier versions of tax-wise automated investing as well as the more recent direct indexing product.) The losses, it declares, have saved people an estimated $1 billion in taxes. Fine print: The estimate assumes that all of the short-term losses went to use, immediately, against short-term gains. This is unrealistic. Someone with a $100,000 account generating $3,000 of capital losses, and with no capital gains to report, can indeed use the $3,000 against ordinary (that is, high-taxed) income. But someone with a $1 million account generating $30,000 of capital losses is unlikely to be using all that against high-bracket income. It would require having at least $27,000 of short-term capital gains. People do not have short-term capital gains unless they engage in foolish behavior, such as investing in a hedge fund. Rational investors do, however, have long-term gains to report. They get them from employer stock, sales of homes, all-cash takeovers and unwanted capital gain distributions from mutual funds. Realistic assumptions for big-ticket investors: You will be using most of your capital losses, whether short or long, to absorb long-term gains. You may find yourself using a loss long after you harvested it. The top rate on long gains is 23.8% plus whatever your state grabs. Conclusion: Losses are valuable but not as valuable as advertised. Now here are some product reviews. Wealthfront This one is my favorite. It offers a direct-indexed S&P 500 account at a bargain-basement 0.09% annual fee, with a $5,000 minimum. Frec In a price war with Wealthfront, this outfit has the same 0.09% fee for the S&P 500 direct deal, with a $20,000 minimum. It gets a runner-up status because it's newer and smaller. It oversees $350 million to Wealthfront's $80 billion. Frec has some interesting variations on the theme, including a Sharia-compliant index portfolio at 0.35%. Fidelity Its direct-indexing product uses 250 or so stocks to mimic the Fidelity Large-Cap Index (similar but not identical to the S&P 500). The annual fee is 0.4%, with a $5,000 minimum. When the harvesting wears out you can transfer the collection of stocks to a no-fee brokerage account. Forty basis points is a lot. But using this service could make sense if you have other money at Fidelity, which oversees (in custody or management) $15 trillion. It has a powerful brokerage platform and the oldest and biggest broker-affiliated donor-advised charity fund. Exit plan: Offload your long-term winners onto the charity, which will take them, fractional shares included, with a few mouse clicks. Schwab Charles Schwab has a 0.4% direct indexing product (minimum, $100,000) and a charity fund similar to Fidelity's. Vanguard This firm invented retail-level indexing and is known for its low costs. Four years ago it spent an undisclosed sum of money (your money, if you are a Vanguard customer; it's a mutual corporation) to acquire direct indexer Just Invest Systems. So, what's on offer? I can't find an answer on the Vanguard website, which has only a vague description of direct indexing aimed at financial advisors. The company did not respond to a press inquiry. A few weeks ago former shareholders of Just Invest sued Vanguard, claiming they were double-crossed on a performance payout. Could be a while before we see a competitive offering from the indexing king. More from Forbes Forbes Is Your Broker Gouging You? Use This Guide To The Best Buys In Money Markets By William Baldwin Forbes How To Boost Your Cash Yield At Fidelity, Vanguard, Chase And Schwab By William Baldwin Forbes How To Use Gold And Other Hard Assets To Hedge Against Inflation By William Baldwin Forbes Inside Private Equity's $29 Trillion Retirement Savings Grab By Hank Tucker

4 Things Soon-To-Be Retired Boomers Need To Know About Long-Term Care
4 Things Soon-To-Be Retired Boomers Need To Know About Long-Term Care

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

4 Things Soon-To-Be Retired Boomers Need To Know About Long-Term Care

It can be an extremely upsetting situation when a family member needs long-term care. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, demand and costs for care are rising as concerns grow over staffing for the industry. Read More: Find Out: If you're a soon-to-be retired boomer, there are some key things you need to know about possibly requiring help with living needs in your later years. Long-Term Care Can Be a Life-Changing Experience According to Rhonda Vry-Bills, CLTC, from Long Term Care Strategies, 'I wish more people would understand or treat an extended care event as a life-changing income event and not a one-time deductible.' Per Vry-Bills, if you need long-term care and it costs around $13,000 per month for an undetermined length of time, it may be a struggle to pay for that out of your retirement income. Per CareScout, the cost of assisted living communities, nursing home care, and homemaker services all rose around 10% in 2024, while the cost of aides for home health care rose about 3%. Discover Next: You May Be Surprised Who Needs Long-Term Care Don't just expect other retirees to need long-term care. Here's a look at the risk for people aged 65 and older from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College: About 20% of retirees will need no long-term care support. Around 20% of retirees are likely to have a severe need. An estimated 25% will have low needs. Approximately 37% will have moderate needs. You May Be Thinking Incorrectly About Who Pays As reported by the New York Times, there's widespread confusion over what Medicare and Medicaid cover and pay for when it comes to long-term care. In general, Medicare covers up to 100 days after a hospitalization for a stay in a skilled nursing facility. Medicaid covers long-term care services for people with low income and assets. 'No one wants to dip into their 401K to pay their cell phone bill and certainly not to pay for a bill for extended care,' Vry-Bills said. 'When retirees do not have the monthly income to pay for home care or facility care, they have no other choice to go to their portfolio.' Vry-Bills added another important consideration is taxes. You may face unexpected taxes when you take out money you intended for retirement purposes to cover long-term care. You Need To Think About Others Stop and think for a moment about who'd be impacted if you needed long-term care. 'When one partner or spouse needs care, their income goes to pay their bill, leaving the community spouse to pay for all of the household expenses and only one income to pay it,' Vry-Bills said. 'Meanwhile, the spouse needing care is invading the portfolio, which is creating taxes, and reducing the overall value of the account, which is designed to generate income for the community spouse.' Vry-Bills said the need for long-term care can also put a strain on adult children who want to support their aging parents. This situation can call for family discussions to decide the best path forward. More From GOBankingRates This article originally appeared on 4 Things Soon-To-Be Retired Boomers Need To Know About Long-Term Care Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Hulk Hogan of WWE fame faced multiple health issues leading up to his death
Hulk Hogan of WWE fame faced multiple health issues leading up to his death

Fox News

time44 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Hulk Hogan of WWE fame faced multiple health issues leading up to his death

WWE superstar Hulk Hogan, 71, died on Thursday after a reported cardiac arrest. Although there has been no confirmation of what led to the fatal event, the famed wrestler had allegedly been facing multiple health issues in the months and years before his death. In an appearance on Jake Paul's "IMPAULSIVE" podcast in September 2024, Hogan admitted that he'd had 25 surgeries in the last 10 years. This included 10 back surgeries, procedures on both shoulders, and knee and hip replacements on both sides. Hogan called out the difference between today's fighting rings and the dangerous equipment of the 1970s, which he described as a 22-foot ring with "lumps" and "boards sticking up." "It was horrible," he said. "The equipment and jumping up and dropping the damn leg for 40 years, when I had the largest arms in the world — I should've been using 'The Sleeper.'" "I probably should've quit earlier, but I just loved doing it — and the money was just crazy." Regardless of the physical consequences of his years in the ring, Hogan stated that he has "no regrets." TMZ Sports reported in March 2025 that Hogan had undergone neck surgery to relieve pain, which was a "quick turnaround" that required little recovery time, according to a representative. Earlier this month, Hogan's wife, Sky Daily, squashed rumors on social media that her husband was in a coma following recent surgery, noting in an Instagram post that "his heart is strong, and there was never any lack of oxygen or brain damage." Daily revealed in her post that Hogan had been recovering from a "major four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusin (ACDF), which is an intense surgery with a long and layered healing process." "If you look it up, you'll see what the last six weeks have involved … not just for his spine, but also for his vocal cords, and the eating/breathing tubes that are clamped over during surgery," she wrote in a post. "We've been in and out of the hospital to support that recovery." In an op-ed for Fox News Digital, Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst, shared that although Hogan will not be remembered for his health struggles and surgeries, they certainly were present. Those included "his admitted steroid use in the 1990s, to multiple knee and hip replacement surgeries, to shoulder and multiple back surgeries, and finally a neck fusion operation which, by many accounts, was followed by a downhill slide in his health, culminating in a fatal cardiac arrest," the doctor wrote. Siegel pointed out that Hogan came from a group of professional wrestlers who had a "high incidence" of steroid and drug use, suicide and heart disease. According to a recent University of East Michigan study, wrestlers between 45 and 54 years old were nearly three times more likely to die prematurely than the general U.S. population. "And those numbers increased the older the wrestler was," Siegel added. "Many of these men didn't even make it to their 70s." "Keep in mind the physical strain of having a large, bulky frame being repeatedly slammed, combined with frequent travel and the emotional stresses of being both an athlete and an entertainer." In 1994, Hogan reportedly admitted under oath — during the trial of then-WWF Chairman Vince McMahon, who'd been charged with steroid distribution — that he had used steroids "for over a decade" before he stopped. "Hulk Hogan lived in pain for decades, but it didn't keep him from being a continuing role model for many, including in his later years," Siegel said. "He came to embody physical and spiritual vitality, and that is what he will really be remembered for." Dr. Bradley Serwer, an interventional cardiologist and chief medical officer at VitalSolution in Maryland, noted in an interview with Fox News Digital that without firsthand knowledge of Hogan's medical history, the exact cause of the reported sudden cardiac arrest "remains unknown." "It was reported that he was experiencing good health until he collapsed," Serwer said. "This presentation is quite common for a heart attack with sudden cardiac arrest." The most prevalent cause of sudden cardiac arrest is a heart attack, or ischemic heart disease, the cardiologist shared. "When a heart attack occurs, the heart muscle is deprived of oxygen, resulting in the death of muscle tissue," the doctor detailed. "This condition predisposes the heart to abnormal heart rhythms, such as ventricular fibrillation (Vfib)." Vfib is characterized by "rapid and irregular electrical activity that causes the ventricles [to] quiver and be ineffective," Serwer said. This results in the heart being unable to pump blood to the body, leading to a rapid death. Cardiac arrests that occur outside a hospital have a "significantly low" survival rate of about 10%, according to Serwer. For those who receive cardiac arrest response, like CPR and defibrillation, survival increases by up to 40%.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store