Overview — the 60-second read
Standing alerts
Owner's analysis — written by the build
What changed since last build
Findings — machine-detected, every build
Outlier register
Prior months
Money
Where every earned dollar went — YTD
Date-of-service basis, practice-wide (filters do not apply). Charges appear here only to anchor the waterfall.
How cohorts pay — payment velocity
Cumulative collections by months since service, each line one service month. Mature cohorts define the trajectory; young cohorts ride it upward.
Net collection rate — mature months
Collections ÷ (charges − contractual write-off), by service month. Adjusted variant removes status-denied/rejected balances and the flagged legacy claim from the denominator.
Who pays you — payer mix
Collections composition on the current basis and filters. Patient money shown as its own slice — it is real cash, not a payer.
Payer report card
Graded and ranked: each payer scored on Rate (mix-controlled % of Medicare, 50% weight), Speed (median days to pay, 25%), and Clean (admin write-offs as % of their collections, 25%) — the small letters are those three, in that order. Importance (collections + new-patient share) is deliberately kept out of the grade: how well they treat you and how much you need them are different questions. Tap any row for the full card. † $/wRVU includes patient share — realized allowed amount. Thresholds — Rate: A ≥110% of Medicare · B ≥95 · C ≥85 · D ≥75 · F below. Speed: A ≤14d · B ≤21 · C ≤30 · D ≤45 · F beyond. Clean: A <0.5% · B <1 · C <2 · D <4 · F ≥4%. Grades require ≥15 sessions; ~ marks a rate graded from the approximate (case-mix-blended) figure.
Rate quality — $/wRVU vs Medicare
Mix-controlled: each payer compared to what traditional Medicare pays you for the same codes, session-weighted — the honest rate test. Yellow line = Medicare parity (100%). Raw $/wRVU shown for context only; it blends case mix and can mislead.
Two personalities — E&M vs procedure rates
Each payer's rate measured separately inside visit codes and inside procedure codes, mix-controlled against Medicare within each class. A payer that underpays clinic work but pays procedures well is tolerable; one that underpays the procedures is the real contract problem.
The rate matrix — $/session, top codes × top payers
Worth keeping? — exit analysis
Medicare Advantage vs traditional
Money stuck — accounts receivable
Snapshot, aged from date of service. Practice-wide; provider and location filters do not apply.
Payer scorecard
One row per payer: what they pay, how fast, and what they cost you. Sorted by collections.
Cash on the way — forecast
Open insurance A/R converted to expected cash by when it should land, from each payer's observed payment timing at each claim's current age.
A/R over time
One point per monthly build. This chart earns its keep as history accrues.
Money given away — administrative write-offs
Non-contractual write-offs only. Owed and not collected. Preventable. Transfers to patient responsibility are not counted here.
By reason, over time
Production share
Providers
E&M coding levels
Distribution of billed visit levels per provider vs the practice mix. A distribution with no spread — everything one level — is the pattern payer audit algorithms screen for, regardless of direction; it is also where undercoding hides.
Panels & downstream — first-touch attribution
A patient belongs to the provider who performed their first E&M visit here. A rule, not the ModMed flag — directional until the roster report exists.
Visit mix — office vs procedure
Claim-level: any claim with an E&M line is an office visit (even with a same-day procedure); procedure lines without E&M are procedure visits. Number above each bar = fluoro-guided encounters that month. Provider filter applies.
Visits by provider — month to month
Same claim-level classification, one panel per provider on a shared scale. Solid = office visits, teal = procedure visits.
How each provider earns
Collections mix by service line, date-of-service basis.
Procedure yield
Collected per session, add-ons collapsed, date of service. Legacy outlier claim excluded. Rows under 5 sessions suppressed.
Reimbursement per unit of work — $/wRVU
Collections ÷ work RVU per code: which procedures pay well or poorly for the effort they take. Ranked against the practice procedure median. Payer filter applies.
Same procedure, different building — site of service
$/session per code per location. Office (non-facility) rates run higher by design — they must cover practice-funded supplies, staff, and fluoro; ASC/hospital professional fees are lower because the facility bills its own fee. Spreads here are structure, not errors — use them for case-siting contribution decisions, not as underpayment signals.
What each payer pays — per code
Contract performance by code. Pick a code; payers under 5 sessions suppressed.
Site economics
Each location as its own business unit. Collections posted-basis; $/encounter date-of-service.
Who sends the work
Tracked referral volume by referring provider, from open-claim feeds. Coverage-limited; read as directional.
Referrer quality — conversion funnel
Pipeline — new vs established patients
New = 99202–99205 on the claim. The leading indicator: new-patient volume moves months before collections do.
Projections — labeled, dashed, and humble
Nothing on this tab is reconciled or promised. Two layers: earned pipeline (work already done, in adjudication) and run-rate projection (work not yet performed).
2026 full-year projection
The business — profit & loss
QuickBooks, cash basis, reconciled to the accountant's own totals each build. Operating view excludes rental and interest income.