Specialty billing is not an edge case. It’s our whole business.
Revenue cycle management for hospital-based physician groups, ambulatory practices,
dental DSOs, labs, and workers’ compensation providers. Purpose-built software, named account
teams, and thirty years in the specialties the big platforms treat as exceptions.
Replaces “Your All-in-One Revenue Cycle Solution.” Two changes matter. First, it claims
depth rather than breadth — breadth is the axis where Ensemble, R1 and Infinx beat Resolv.
Second, the secondary CTA anchors to proof instead of routing to the contact form, giving the ~90% of
visitors who won’t book a call something to do. Note the removal of “reimagined.”
Q1Q2Q3Q4
The live site uses a stock illustration here. Replacing it with a real Core Analytics view (data
obscured) does two jobs at once: it proves the analytics product exists, and it answers Persona 5’s
question — “one dashboard to see everything” — before they read a word.
Illustration signals “we have nothing to show.”
measured results. Each requires a documented calculation method and a named owner in Client Success
or Finance before publication. Toggle “Clean preview” in the panel at lower right to see
the page as a visitor would.
The single highest-impact addition to the site. Today there is not one number on the Resolv homepage;
Infinx publishes six outcome figures plus $8B+ collected and 4,000+ facilities.
Ship three numbers you can defend rather than six you cannot — a figure a client can
dispute is worse than no figure. Note that two metrics are framed against published industry
benchmarks, which is what makes them legible to a CFO.
Five verticals. Purpose-built software for each.
Not one RCM engine stretched to fit. Each vertical runs on a
platform built for its billing reality — and a team that already knows its payers.
SalientView
Hospital & hospital-based
ED, pathology, radiology, anesthesia and hospitalist groups. Facility and professional splits,
out-of-network exposure, and No Surprises Act IDR.
Explore →
Conexem + CompData
Workers’ comp & PI
State-by-state fee schedules, lien filing, and adversarial adjusters. A first-class business here,
not a footnote.
Explore →
CareTracker + PrognoCis
Ambulatory & group
Multi-site practices navigating complex payer mixes, credentialing backlogs, and prior
authorization drag.
Explore →
PracticeView + Open Dental
Dental practices & DSOs
Multi-location dental groups with distinct payer dynamics, plan maximums, and consolidated
reporting needs.
Explore →
Core Analytics
Laboratory services
Clinical, toxicology and pathology labs facing medical-necessity denials and high-volume,
low-dollar claim economics.
Explore →
The five-vertical grid is the best-structured element on the current homepage, so it stays. Two
additions make it differentiating rather than decorative: each tile now names the platform
that serves it, and each carries a proof point. A five-icon grid of provider types is standard
practice in this category — it only differentiates when the tiles carry evidence.
Three reasons groups leave their billing company for us.
We already know your specialty
Thirty specialties, five verticals, and software built for each one — not a general RCM
engine stretched to fit. Your team knows your payer mix, your fee schedules, and your denial
patterns on day one.
You’ll know who to call, by name
A named account manager and a client-success organization led by a Fellow of HFMA and ACMPE who
has consulted for more than 250 practices. Not a support queue, not a rotating CSM.
We’ll still be here in fifteen years
Resolv is part of Harris Healthcare, a Constellation Software company. Constellation buys
businesses to keep them. Your billing partner won’t be flipped, re-platformed, or absorbed
mid-contract.
The live site answers its most important question with four unfalsifiable bullets: “high-touch
service / proven processes / decision-driving data / industry-leading technology.” Every one
could be copied verbatim onto a competitor’s site and remain true — which is the test any
differentiator has to pass. Each pillar here carries evidence, and the heading is a claim rather than
a question. Pillar 3 leads with the buyer benefit, not the $4B figure — buyers hear
corporate scale as “I’ll be a small account.”
What changed, and how fast.
Emergency medicine group recovered $412K its previous biller had written off
A transition audit surfaced underpaid and improperly adjusted claims across 18 months of
remittance history.
11-location orthopedic group cut A/R days from 61 to 38 in five months
Denial root-cause analysis plus front-end eligibility changes, without replacing the group’s
existing EHR.
Occupational health network lifted collections 19% across four states
Lien management and state fee-schedule discipline applied to a backlog the incumbent had stopped
working.
“We performed an extensive search for a new RCM partner and Resolv was the clear
choice. Resolv is very detail oriented and helped our group discover and recoup a significant
financial discrepancy from our previous billing company.”
This testimonial already exists on the live site, below a video, on an interior page. It is a
competitive-displacement story with a dollar figure attached — and the dollar figure is missing.
Getting that number and naming consent is the single highest-value content task available,
because the asset is already in hand. Headlines lead with the outcome, not the client name, so the
cards work even before logo consent lands.
The six pillars of revenue cycle management
Across every setting we bill for, the same six problems come
up. Our EVP Bassel Salloum breaks down each one — what it is, what the current data says, and
how it breaks differently depending on your specialty.
Denial Management
Prevention over reactive appeals. Most of what drives rising denial rates is fixable upstream.
Pillar 02
Coding & Compliance
AI is assistive, not a replacement. Compliance depends on QA sampling and clear accountability.
Pillar 03
Patient Financial Experience
Clarity, fairness and trust — not simply collecting more from patients.
Pillar 04
Payer Contract Performance
A paid claim is not always a correctly paid claim. Silent underpayments often exceed the denial problem.
Pillar 05
Workforce & Staffing
Not onshore versus offshore. Performance, quality, accountability and continuity.
Pillar 06
Technology & Interoperability
Does the tool change the work, improve the metric, and can the team sustain it?
Internal linking is half of why a page gets indexed and cited, so the framework needs a route from the
homepage rather than living only under Solutions. This module also does positioning work: it is the
first thing on the homepage that demonstrates expertise rather than asserting it, and it gives
the six pillars a permanent home that gets refreshed monthly as the podcast series continues.
We’ll tell you what we’d do differently. Before you commit to anything.
Most groups that come to us aren’t starting from scratch. They’re switching —
because denials are climbing, reporting is opaque, or nobody at their vendor knows what an ED
facility claim is. Send us ninety days of remittance data and we’ll show you where the money
is going.
Serves Persona 4 — the buyer who already has a vendor. That is most of the addressable market,
and no competitor in the mid-market set has built content for it. This should be instrumented
as its own conversion event and is the highest-intent offer on the site. It is also the module most
likely to be cited in sales calls.
Where would you like to start?
Today every CTA on every page routes to
/contact/ — including the “LearnMore” button under Why Resolv, which promises information and delivers a form. Three paths
capture three buying stages instead of one.
The six pillars of revenue cycle management
Across ambulatory practices, hospitals, hospital-based
specialties and urgent care, the same six problems come up. Here is what each one actually is, what
the current data says, how it breaks differently by specialty, and how Resolv works it.
The brief was “incorporate the six pillars so LLMs scrape it and Resolv becomes visible.”
That changes the construction, not just the content. Answer engines retrieve passages, not
pages — so each pillar leads with a single self-contained definitional block that makes sense
with zero surrounding context, followed by cited data and specialty-specific detail. Generic pillar
content will not get cited; hundreds of pages already own the standard framing. The
specialty-by-specialty breakdown is the part nobody else can copy, and it is drawn straight
from the SME review in the show packet.
Watch or listen: a tour of all six pillars
Bassel Salloum walks through each of the six pillars — what clients
are actually asking for, what the current data says, and where the fixable problems sit upstream.
Every pillar below is on this page in full text, so you can read it or watch it.
- 00:451. Denial Management — prevention over reactive appeals
- 04:102. Coding & Compliance — AI is assistive, not a replacement
- 07:353. Patient Financial Experience — clarity, communication, fairness
- 11:004. Payer Contract Performance — a paid claim is not a correctly paid claim
- 14:255. Workforce & Staffing — governance, not geography
- 17:506. Technology & Interoperability — outcomes, not feature lists
- 21:15Next episode: going deep on denials
Show segment lengths (0:10 intro, 2:30–3:00 conversation, 0:15 wrap, 0:15 segue per pillar) and
must be reset from the final cut, since actual conversation time will run longer than the scripted
minimum. Each chapter should deep-link into the video at that offset.
The episode is going on this page, so the page has to be the readable version of it. Two payoffs.
First, a chaptered video with matching on-page text is one of the strongest retrieval structures
available — the crawler gets text, the viewer gets video, and each pillar has its own
addressable anchor and timestamp. Second, it removes the failure mode already live on the Hospital
page, where the founder-continuity story is locked inside a YouTube embed that no crawler can read.
Marked up with
VideoObject and six Clip entries so each pillar isindependently indexable.
Denial Management
Denial management is the practice of preventing, analyzing and recovering denied healthcare
claims. It is no longer back-end accounts receivable work. Effective denial management
requires analytics, prevention, escalation and cross-functional accountability across
registration, authorization, documentation, coding, payer policy monitoring and contract
performance.
There are four denial types worth distinguishing: front-end denials (eligibility,
authorization, registration, missing information), clinical denials (medical necessity,
documentation, level of care), technical denials (timely filing, payer edits, claim
formatting, modifiers), and contractual denials (underpayments, bundling, incorrect fee
schedule application).
“Denial rates are trending sharply upward — 41% of providers now report 10%+
denial rates, up from 30% in 2022, with industry benchmarking data putting initial denial rates
near 12%. The real story is prevention: most of what’s driving the increase is fixable
upstream — eligibility, authorization, documentation, coding and payer rules — not just
faster appeals.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
Clients don’t just want denials worked faster. They want to know why denial rates
are increasing, what share is avoidable, and what can be corrected upstream. Payer automation
and AI-driven edits are accelerating payer decisioning, which raises the bar on provider-side
documentation, authorization and prevention workflows.
Why trending matters more than appeals
A denial that looks isolated at the account level becomes actionable when trended across payer,
CPT, location, provider or client. That trending is where prevention comes from. The most mature
denial programs don’t simply appeal better — they stop repeat denials by tying trends
back to registration, authorization, documentation, coding, payer policy and contract
performance.
How denials break differently by specialty
| Specialty | Dominant denial pattern |
|---|---|
| Emergency medicine | Medical necessity, downcoding, payer policy edits, and no prior patient relationship to support authorization |
| Hospitalist medicine | Inpatient versus observation status, and level-of-care denials |
| Urgent care | Eligibility, payer-specific coverage rules, and modifier patterns |
| Ambulatory | Prior authorization, referral gaps, and modifier usage |
| Hospital | Clinical validation, DRG downgrades, discharge status, and authorization |
What the data says
What Resolv does
Denial root-cause analysis by payer, code and location; upstream
fixes in eligibility and authorization; appeal management with escalation criteria; and
prevention reporting your team can act on.
Note the Kodiak attribution: “Kodiak Solutions benchmarking data, as reported via
HFMA” — not “HFMA says.” The show packet flags this correction
explicitly, and it matters more on a web page than on air, because a miscited figure is what gets
scraped, repeated and eventually challenged. Precise attribution is also what makes a page
quotable by an answer engine rather than skipped as unsourced.
Coding & Compliance
Coding and compliance in revenue cycle management is the assignment of accurate diagnosis and
procedure codes, supported by documentation that holds up under payer and regulatory audit.
AI-assisted coding can improve speed, consistency and prioritization — but compliance
depends on human oversight, QA controls and clear accountability for who owns the final code
assignment. AI is assistive, not a replacement for coding expertise.
Any AI-assisted coding workflow needs four things to be defensible: QA sampling,
escalation criteria, audit logs, and a named owner of the final code.
“AI-assisted coding is a real win for speed and consistency, but it’s not a
replacement for coding expertise or compliance oversight. Responsible innovation means QA
sampling, exception tracking, and clear accountability for who owns the final code.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
Clients are genuinely interested in AI-assisted coding, but they are concerned about audit
exposure and payer scrutiny — and specifically about whether AI output is being properly
QA’d rather than simply trusted. The right response is not to sell the automation harder;
it is to explain the governance around it.
Where the audit risk concentrates
E&M leveling variance by provider. Missing documentation for time-based coding. Modifier 25
and 59 risk. Telehealth place-of-service and modifier rules. Emergency medicine downcoding.
Hospitalist documentation gaps tied to medical necessity.
Current regulatory attention
The HHS Office of Inspector General’s 2026 Work Plan includes active items covering
Medicare Part B psychotherapy services (including services furnished via telehealth) and
Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment diagnosis-code reviews — alongside ordinary payer audit
and civil recovery exposure.
What the data says
past two years. Low compensation and burnout were the top two turnover drivers.
of 2,526 health information professionals; see also American Medical Association,
“Addressing another health care shortage: medical coders.” norc.org
Advantage risk-adjustment diagnosis-code reviews.
What Resolv does
Certified coders by specialty, QA sampling with published
thresholds, coder override and exception tracking, documentation improvement feedback to
providers, and audit-ready logs.
Patient Financial Experience
Patient financial experience covers every financial interaction a patient has with a provider
— estimates, billing, payment options and financial assistance. The goal is not simply
to collect more from patients. It is a clearer, earlier and more compassionate financial
conversation that improves collections while protecting the patient relationship.
Patient collections are shifting upstream: pre-visit estimation, consent workflows, and self-pay
segmentation that determines who needs an estimate, financial counseling, a payment plan, charity
screening, or early outreach.
“This isn’t about collecting more from patients — it’s about
clarity, communication and fairness. Accurate estimates, patient-friendly billing, and financial
assistance that’s easy to find, especially with 2026 CMS price transparency updates raising
the bar.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
Patients surprised by balances after insurance. Front-desk teams uncomfortable discussing
money. Estimates that only help if they are accurate and clearly explained. Inconsistent payment
plan workflows. Balances that age quickly because outreach starts late. Digital tools that fail
on bad demographic or mobile data.
How this changes by specialty
| Specialty | Where the friction sits |
|---|---|
| Urgent care | Collecting copays and balances before the visit is complete |
| Ambulatory | Pre-visit eligibility and estimate workflows |
| Hospital | Price transparency compliance, financial counseling, charity care, balance-after-insurance education |
| Emergency medicine | Requires extra sensitivity — patients often did not choose the setting or the provider group |
What the data says
10th and 90th percentile allowed amounts in machine-readable files. Enforcement begins
April 1, 2026.
— Hospital Price Transparency Policy Changes. cms.gov
What Resolv does
Pre-visit estimation and eligibility, self-pay segmentation,
patient-friendly statements, payment plan design, financial assistance screening, and patient
communication workflows.
Payer Contract Performance
Payer contract performance is the monitoring of what a provider is actually paid against what
the contract says they should be paid. A paid claim is not always a correctly paid claim.
Underpayments arise from incorrect fee schedule application, bundling edits, payer policy changes,
MAC-based reductions and gaps in contract language — and they frequently go unworked because
teams prioritize outright denials.
These are distinct problems requiring distinct workflows: denials, underpayments,
contractual adjustments, payer policy changes and contract language issues
are often grouped together operationally but escalate along different paths.
“A paid claim is not always a correctly paid claim. Clients need visibility into
what they’re actually being paid versus what the contract says — silent underpayments
and downcoding are often a bigger problem than denials, and most teams don’t have the data to
catch it.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
Contract performance is discussed at the executive level, but the real issue is operational:
most clients simply don’t know whether they are being paid correctly. Teams assume payment
is correct because the claim “paid.” Small underpayments go unworked. Contracts get
signed but never operationalized into monitoring. Payer policy changes quietly reduce payment.
And when renegotiation time comes, there is no clean historical data to argue from.
How this shows up by specialty
| Specialty | Common underpayment pattern |
|---|---|
| Emergency medicine | Payer downcoding and out-of-network policy changes |
| Hospitalist medicine | Observation versus inpatient reimbursement differences |
| Urgent care | Payer-specific fee schedules and carve-outs |
| Ambulatory | Procedure-level underpayments and modifier-related changes |
| Hospital | DRG downgrades, carve-outs, implants, payer-specific contract interpretation |
How you detect it
payment activity on the remittance is how silent underpayment becomes visible. Without that
comparison, a partially-paid claim looks identical to a correctly-paid one.
external publication.
What Resolv does
Expected-versus-actual payment variance monitoring, underpayment
identification and recovery, payer behavior trending over time, contract review before signing
or renewal, and benchmarking by specialty and region to support renegotiation.
The show packet is explicit that Resolv’s contract intelligence capability must not be framed
as a guaranteed bottom-line win, because there are no validated case studies behind that claim yet.
This section therefore promises visibility and diagnosis, not a dollar outcome. Worth
holding that line in copy review — it is the difference between a claim that survives
diligence and one that doesn’t.
Workforce & Staffing
Revenue cycle workforce strategy is the design of the team, technology and governance model
that processes claims. The future RCM workforce isn’t smaller because of automation
— it’s more specialized. Teams manage exceptions, interpret data, communicate with
clients and understand payer behavior, while technology takes repetitive work off their plates.
The question that matters is not onshore versus offshore. It is performance, quality,
accountability, continuity and transparency — a governance and oversight conversation
rather than a geography one. Staffing models available include internal teams, outsourced support,
offshore capacity, automation, and hybrid structures.
“This isn’t onshore versus offshore — it’s performance, quality,
accountability and continuity. Technology takes the repetitive work off people’s plates so
experienced staff can focus on exceptions and escalations.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
A coding backlog opens up when a specialist leaves. A/R follow-up slips because of staffing
gaps. Denial inventory grows because appeals need experienced people. And clients get frustrated
when turnover changes their point of contact — which is a continuity problem, not a
headcount one.
Where human expertise stays essential
Even in a heavily automated operation, three areas remain judgment work: exception
management, payer escalation, and root cause resolution. Designing for that
— rather than designing to minimize headcount — is what makes an operating model
sustainable when experienced talent is limited and expensive.
Retention economics
The cost of replacing experienced revenue cycle staff generally exceeds the cost of investing
in culture, training and career paths. That calculation is why workforce design belongs in an
RCM conversation at all.
What the data says
practices planned for 2026. Eligibility checks, claim status, denials workflows and prior
authorization were named as the leading automation targets.
cost-cutting moves for medical practices in 2026.” mgma.com
What Resolv does
Specialty-trained teams with published QA controls, a named account
manager for continuity, documented escalation paths, and transparent productivity and quality
reporting regardless of where work is performed.
Technology & Interoperability
Revenue cycle technology and interoperability concern how billing systems exchange data with
EHRs, payers and clearinghouses — and whether the tools actually change the work.
Technology should be evaluated by operational outcomes, not feature lists: what problem does the
tool solve, what workflow changes are required, and how will success be measured.
Integration friction shows up predictably: incomplete data feeds, reporting gaps, no write-back
capability, manual workarounds after go-live, unbudgeted implementation cost, and technology that
creates new workflows without retiring old ones.
“The only question that matters is whether a tool changes the work, improves the
metric, and whether the team can actually sustain it. Evaluate by outcomes, not feature
lists.”
Bassel Salloum, EVP, Resolv Healthcare
The problem clients actually describe
Clients are overwhelmed by technology promises — feature hype, AI claims, dashboards,
integrations and EHR limitations — and need a practical way to cut through it. Vendors
overpromise integration ease. EHR data is inconsistent or hard to extract. Dashboards don’t
match operational reality. Implementation burden lands on already-stretched teams. ROI gets
claimed before baseline metrics are even defined.
The metrics that validate a vendor claim
First-pass acceptance rate. Denial rate. Net collection rate. Days in A/R. Cash acceleration.
Work queue reduction. Cost to collect. Staff productivity. Patient payment conversion.
Underpayment recovery. Ask for these against a defined baseline rather than accepting a feature
list.
Vendor selection red flags
Feature hype in place of workflow detail. Vendor lock-in. Hidden implementation cost. Bundled
solutions that create liability rather than simplification.
What the data says
with full API build-out required by January 1, 2027. A 2026 proposed rule would extend similar
requirements to drug prior authorization.
(CMS-0057-F); 2026 Interoperability Standards and Prior Authorization for Drugs Proposed Rule
(CMS-0062-P). cms.gov
What Resolv does
Integration with your existing EHR and practice management system
via HL7, X12, FHIR or API — so your staff keep working where they already work —
plus baseline measurement before go-live so ROI is provable rather than asserted.
How each pillar breaks differently by specialty
The pillars are universal. The failure modes are not. This is
the table to read if you want to know whether a billing partner actually understands your setting.
| Pillar | Emergency medicine | Hospitalist | Urgent care | Ambulatory | Hospital |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denial Management | Medical necessity, downcoding, payer policy edits, no prior patient relationship | Inpatient vs. observation status, level-of-care denials | Eligibility, payer coverage rules, modifier patterns | Prior authorization, referral gaps, modifier usage | Clinical validation, DRG downgrades, discharge status, authorization |
| Coding & Compliance | Downcoding exposure, E&M leveling variance | Documentation gaps tied to medical necessity | Telehealth place-of-service and modifier rules | Modifier 25 / 59 risk, time-based coding documentation | Clinical validation and DRG assignment integrity |
| Patient Financial Experience | Extra sensitivity — patient did not choose the setting or group | Balance-after-insurance education | Collecting copays before visit completion | Pre-visit eligibility and estimate workflows | Price transparency, financial counseling, charity care |
| Payer Contract Performance | Payer downcoding, out-of-network policy changes | Observation vs. inpatient reimbursement differences | Payer-specific fee schedules and carve-outs | Procedure-level underpayments, modifier-related changes | DRG downgrades, carve-outs, implants, contract interpretation |
| Workforce & Staffing | Appeal capacity for high-volume medical necessity denials | Continuity across rotating provider documentation | Front-desk turnover and training load | Coding specialist coverage across sub-specialties | Scale and governance across multiple service lines |
| Technology & Interoperability | Facility and professional data feeds from the hospital EHR | Census and status data integration | Eligibility at point of service | Write-back to the practice management system | Multi-entity reporting and consolidated analytics |
across Resolv’s book of business — not an external publication. Worth a final review pass
before publication, since this table is the part of the page most likely to be quoted.
A clean 6×5 matrix with one specific claim per cell is close to the ideal structure for machine
extraction: unambiguous row and column labels, short factual cells, no prose to parse. It is also the
content no competitor can replicate without the same specialty experience, which is exactly
the position the strategy document argues Resolv should own. Expect this table to be the thing that
gets cited — and to attract inbound links, which is the other half of the visibility problem.
Bassel Salloum
Bassel leads Resolv’s revenue cycle strategy across ambulatory practices, hospitals,
hospital-based specialties and urgent care operations. The six-pillar framework on this page comes
from what he hears from clients directly, and he hosts the guest chair on The Resolv Roundtable
each month.
Open item: full biography
and headshot pending — flagged in the show packet. Both are needed here, since this card is
what makes the framework attributable to a named expert rather than to a company.
Going deep on denials
“Of all six, denials are the one we hear about most. Next episode we’re going all-in
— the real data behind why rates are climbing, the root causes hiding upstream, and what
best-in-class prevention looks like.” — Bassel Salloum
For a model to eventually answer “who explains the six pillars of RCM” with Resolv,
the framework and a named Resolv expert have to co-occur in quotable text on a stable URL. That is why
Bassel is credited in the byline, quoted in every pillar, and given a real author card here —
unsigned content accrues to nobody. Note the Episode 2 hook: the listener call-to-action asks
which pillar to go deep on next, which gives this page a reason to be updated monthly. That recurring
freshness is itself a ranking and retrieval signal, and it is precisely what the site has lacked since
August 2024.
Frequently asked
What are the six pillars of revenue cycle management?
Denial management, coding and compliance, patient financial experience, payer contract
performance, workforce and staffing, and technology and interoperability. Resolv uses this
framework because these are the six problems that recur across ambulatory practices, hospitals,
hospital-based specialties and urgent care operations.
What is a good claim denial rate in 2026?
Industry benchmarking data reported via HFMA puts average initial denial rates near 11.8–12%.
Experian Health’s 2025 State of Claims survey found 41% of providers reporting denial rates
of 10% or higher, up from 30% in 2022. High performers generally operate well below the average,
and the gap is usually explained by upstream prevention rather than faster appeals.
Can AI replace medical coders?
No. AI-assisted coding improves speed, consistency and prioritization, and it reduces repetitive
work — but compliance depends on human oversight. A defensible workflow requires QA sampling,
exception tracking, audit logs and a named owner of the final code assignment. AI is assistive,
not a replacement for coding expertise.
Why is a paid claim not always a correctly paid claim?
Because payment can be reduced without being denied. Incorrect fee schedule application, bundling
edits, downcoding, payer policy changes and MAC-based reductions all produce a claim that shows as
paid but is underpaid. Detecting it requires comparing expected reimbursement against actual
remittance activity — work most teams defer because outright denials take priority.
Is offshore RCM staffing a quality risk?
Geography is not the variable that determines quality. Governance is — training, oversight,
QA controls, productivity transparency and continuity of contact. Those questions apply equally to
internal teams, domestic outsourcing and offshore capacity, and they are the ones worth asking any
RCM partner.
How should I evaluate revenue cycle technology?
By operational outcome against a defined baseline, not by feature list. Ask what problem the tool
solves, what workflow changes it requires, and which metrics will move — first-pass
acceptance rate, denial rate, net collection rate, days in A/R, cost to collect, work queue
reduction, and underpayment recovery. Establish the baseline before go-live so ROI is provable
afterward.
What changes for hospital price transparency in 2026?
Under CMS’s CY 2026 OPPS final rule, hospitals must post the median — not estimated
— allowed amount, plus 10th and 90th percentile allowed amounts, in machine-readable files.
The requirement is effective January 1, 2026, with enforcement beginning April 1, 2026.
These are written as literal user queries with direct, self-contained answers — which is the
format retrieval systems reward. Note that the first sentence of each answer stands alone as a
complete response; the rest is supporting detail. Marked up with
FAQPage schema, thisblock is eligible for both rich results and answer-engine citation. Two of these questions
(“what is a good denial rate,” “can AI replace coders”) have real search
volume and no authoritative mid-market RCM answer currently ranking.
"@type": "DefinedTermSet" "name": "The Six Pillars of Revenue Cycle Management" "hasDefinedTerm": [ 6 × DefinedTerm — one per pillar, each with name + description drawn from the Definition block ] "@type": "FAQPage" "mainEntity": [ 7 × Question / acceptedAnswer ] "@type": "Person" "@id": "#bassel" "name": "Bassel Salloum" "jobTitle": "Executive Vice President" "knowsAbout": [ 7 topics — one per pillar plus RCM ] → referenced as author / creator / actor by every node below "@type": "PodcastEpisode" "partOfSeries": "The Resolv Roundtable" "episodeNumber": 1 "actor": → "#bassel" "@type": "VideoObject" "hasPart": [ 6 × Clip — startOffset / endOffset per pillar, each deep-linking to its own #pillar-N anchor ] "transcript": "/resources/roundtable/episode-1/transcript" "@type": "Article" "author": → "#bassel" "citation": [ Experian Health, Kodiak/HFMA, OIG, CMS, MGMA, NORC/AHIMA ] "@type": "Service" × 6 "provider": "Resolv Healthcare" "areaServed" / "audience": specialty segments per pillar
Which pillar is costing you the most?
Send ninety days of remittance data and we’ll
tell you where it’s concentrated — and you keep the analysis either way.
Your claims are split between the facility and the group. Your biller should understand both.
Since 1996 we’ve billed for emergency medicine,
pathology, radiology, anesthesia and hospitalist groups — the specialties where out-of-network
exposure, facility-professional splits and No Surprises Act arbitration decide whether a claim gets
paid.
The live hospital page offers two co-equal hero CTAs and no primary action, so the visitor makes a
navigation decision before they’ve been given a reason to care. One primary, one secondary. The
headline also replaces “Innovative RCM Solutions for Hospitals and Hospital-Based Providers”
with a sentence about the buyer’s actual billing mechanics — which is what specialty depth
sounds like when it’s real.
Hospital-based billing fails in places general RCM engines never look.
- Facility and professional splits. One encounter, two claims, two payers, two adjudication paths. Mismatches become silent write-offs.
- Out-of-network by default. Your group didn’t choose the patient’s plan. Balance exposure and arbitration are structural, not exceptional.
- No Surprises Act arbitration. IDR has deadlines measured in days and evidentiary requirements most billers never learned.
- Coverage you can’t schedule. You bill what walks through the door, so eligibility work happens after the service, not before.
- Contract asymmetry. Payers negotiate against groups with a fraction of the health system’s leverage.
No Surprises Act & IDR support
We manage independent dispute resolution end to end:
eligibility screening, batching strategy, evidence assembly, offer modelling, and deadline
control. Our clients’ IDR determinations resolve in their favour
71% of the time.
The internal ICP work names IDR support as a specific buying trigger for hospital-based specialty
groups. The live hospital page never mentions IDR or the No Surprises Act — though the blog
carries a “no surprises act” tag, so the expertise exists internally. There is also
no strong SEO incumbent owning hospital-based-specialty IDR content, which makes this
simultaneously the best conversion asset and the best organic-search opportunity on the site.
SalientView and Core Analytics — on top of the system you already run.
| Your system | Integration method | Who keeps working where |
|---|---|---|
| Epic | HL7 v2 · FHIR R4 · X12 837/835 |
Your staff stay in Epic. We work claims in SalientView. |
| Oracle Health (Cerner) | HL7 v2 · X12 837/835 |
Bi-directional charge and remittance flow |
| Meditech | HL7 v2 · flat-file batch |
Nightly charge capture, same-day remittance posting |
| athenahealth | API · FHIR R4 |
Real-time eligibility and claim status |
| Proprietary / homegrown | X12 · SFTP · custom API |
Scoped during implementation, no platform change required |
The live site’s strongest integration claim is “we’re experienced in many practice
management and laboratory billing solutions,” which tells a technical evaluator nothing and
implies bespoke manual work per client. Infinx names roughly twenty systems and the protocols behind
each. Naming systems and protocols is the cheapest technical-credibility win available —
it requires no new capability, only publishing what already exists. The third column exists to
answer the practice manager’s real fear: “will my staff have to learn new software?”
What the first ninety days actually look like.
Transition risk is the most common reason groups delay a
decision. Here is the sequence, and what happens to your cash flow at each stage.
Discovery & audit
We review 90 days of remittance history and your payer contracts. You get the findings whether or not you sign.
Integration & parallel run
Interfaces built and tested. Your incumbent keeps working current claims — no gap, no cash cliff.
Cutover
New claims route to Resolv. We work your legacy A/R in parallel rather than leaving it behind.
Optimization
Denial root-cause analysis, front-end fixes, and your first full Core Analytics review with your account manager.
“Onboarding complexity and transition risk” is the first stated pain point of Persona 2 in
the ICP work, and the live site is silent on it across all 17 pages. The specific sentence that
matters commercially is “no gap, no cash cliff” — naming the fear directly is
what makes the page credible. Timeline contents require sign-off from Operations.
Want a read on your hospital-based book?
Send ninety days of remittance data. We’ll show
you where the leakage is — and you keep the analysis either way.
We handle your patients’ data. Here is exactly how.
Certifications, data handling, access control, continuity, and
the regulatory work we do on your behalf. If your procurement team needs documentation we
haven’t published, ask and we’ll send it.
The live site has no security page. HIPAA, SOC 2 and HITRUST appear nowhere in navigation or on any
commercial page — only as anchor links inside the privacy policy. For any buyer with a
procurement or IT function (every PE-backed group, every DSO above ten locations, every hospital-based
contract) this is a silent disqualifier: they leave without ever contacting Resolv. Infinx
publishes HITRUST, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and HIPAA in its primary navigation. Low build effort,
high procurement value.
Current certification status
Compliant
Business Associate Agreements executed with every client. Annual workforce training and risk assessment.
Confirm status
Report scope, audit period, and auditor to be stated here. Available under NDA on request.
Confirm status
State certification level and validity dates, or state the compensating controls if not held.
Confirm status
Applicable where Resolv processes patient payments. Scope and SAQ level to be stated.
Data handling
Where PHI lives and what happens to it.
- US-based primary data residency, named region
- AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit
- Documented retention and destruction schedule
- Data portability and return commitment at offboarding
Access control
Who can see your data, and how you verify it.
- Role-based access, least privilege by default
- MFA enforced for all workforce access
- Full audit logging, available to clients on request
- Offshore access policy stated plainly — buyers ask; answer it before they do
Business continuity
What happens when something breaks.
- RTO and RPO stated as numbers, not adjectives
- DR tested on a published cadence
- Trailing 12-month uptime record
- Incident notification commitments in hours
Compliance as a capability
Regulatory navigation we do on your behalf — not a certification list.
- No Surprises Act & IDR — end-to-end arbitration management
- State workers’ comp fee schedules — maintained across 38 states
- Coding audit & compliance review — documentation risk before it becomes a denial
- Payer contract review — terms, escalators, and silent underpayment
Every competitor publishes certifications; certifications are table stakes, not differentiation.
Framing regulatory navigation as a service Resolv sells is the specialty-depth pillar
expressed in compliance language — and it is the only part of this page a competitor
can’t replicate by buying an audit.
One platform. Applications built for each specialty on top of it.
Resolv Core standardizes the work across every vertical.
Specialty applications handle what makes each vertical different. You keep working in your own
system.
The live site presents six separately branded systems in a flat list, behind a navigation parent that
links to
/?page_id=14 — a raw WordPress page ID with no index page behind it. Abuyer reads that list as six acquired billing shops, not a platform. Meanwhile Resolv Core,
ARIA, Coder AI and Core Analytics — named in the internal ICP work as the layer that spans all
verticals — appear nowhere on the public site at all. This page fixes the broken nav path and the
positioning problem in one build.
Four layers, and an honest line between shipped and roadmap.
Standardizes claim workflow, work queues, escalation rules and quality
control across all five verticals, so a denial is worked the same way whether it originates in an
ED group or a dental DSO. This is what makes multi-entity reporting possible downstream.
Consolidated financial reporting across every entity you own. Standard
monthly close package, denial trending by payer and reason code, and drill-down to the individual
claim. Refreshed daily.
State only what runs in production today: which specialties, which code
sets, measured accuracy, and the human review step. Label anything else as roadmap.
Do not publish a capability that can’t survive a demo.
Same discipline. Name the specific workflows automated end to end, the
volume handled, and what still routes to a person. Vague automation claims are worse than none in a
category where buyers now ask hard technical questions.
Resolv’s site currently says nothing about AI, which is a real gap while competitors ship named
agent platforms with public agent catalogs. The failure mode in fixing it is overcorrecting into
claims that collapse in the second sales call. Publish only what is in production, name the
workflow, state the accuracy figure and the human review step, and label roadmap as roadmap.
The status badges here are a deliberate design device: they make honesty look like rigour rather
than weakness. If the AI story is genuinely thin, lead with specialty depth and accountability
instead — that is a stronger position than an overstated platform.
Purpose-built, not repurposed.
SalientView
Facility and professional claim management, out-of-network workflow, and IDR case handling for hospital-based physician groups.
Conexem
State fee-schedule logic, lien lifecycle management, and adjuster correspondence for workers’ comp and personal injury claims.
CompData
Fee schedule and reimbursement reference data maintained across jurisdictions, feeding pricing and appeal decisions.
CareTracker
Practice management and billing for multi-site ambulatory and group practices.
PrognoCis
EHR and practice management for specialty ambulatory practices, including occupational medicine.
PracticeView + Open Dental
Multi-location dental billing and consolidated reporting for practices and DSOs on Open Dental.
Same six systems as the live site, but subordinated to the platform and labelled by the vertical they
serve. The buyer’s question changes from “which of these six things am I buying?” to
“which one is mine?” Be precise about what is genuinely integrated — if
Core is a reporting veneer over six unintegrated systems, buyers will find that in diligence, and the
gap between the website and the demo costs more trust than the vague current site does.
See it against your own numbers.
We’ll run your remittance data through Core
Analytics and walk you through what it surfaces.
Most groups who come to us already have a billing company.
They switch because denials are climbing, reporting is opaque,
or nobody at their vendor knows what an ED facility claim is. Start wherever your question actually
sits.
On the live site every CTA routes to
/contact/, so a buyer who is sixty days from adecision has nothing to do but leave. This hub is the answer to that, and it is where four of the
five ICP personas actually convert — which makes it the highest-priority build in the
refresh, not the last one. Each route below is a real page with its own proof, not a marketing
restatement of the homepage.
Finance
I need to build the business case
Benchmarks against published industry data, how our pricing works, and what moves at 90, 180 and
365 days.
For CFOs & practice administrators →
Operations
I need to know this won’t break my week
The implementation timeline, what happens to cash flow at cutover, who you call, and what your
team still owns.
For practice managers & ops leads →
Evaluating vendors
I’m comparing us against my current vendor
Side by side against the status quo, the signs it’s time to move, and a no-obligation review
of ninety days of your remittance data.
For buyers with an incumbent →
Enterprise & PE
I need this to scale across acquisitions
Multi-entity reporting, the acquisition onboarding playbook, standardization across a portfolio,
and diligence-ready security.
For PE and health system executives →
Services only
I don’t want new software. I want this handled.
You keep the system you have. We take the billing. Technology stays optional, and stays a
conversation for later.
Services-first engagements →
Still researching
I’m not ready to talk to anyone yet
Specialty benchmarks, the hospital-based IDR playbook, a denial cost calculator, and the
Roundtable series.
Benchmarks & tools →
The numbers you’d need to build the business case.
Benchmarked against published industry data, not against our
own marketing. If a figure below matters to your decision, ask us to show you the calculation.
The ICP work says this buyer’s question is “can you demonstrably improve my net collection
rate without creating operational chaos?” That is a two-part question and the page answers both
halves: performance against benchmarks, then the pricing and transition mechanics. Note that
every metric is shown against a published third-party benchmark — a number on its own
is a claim, a number against MGMA or HFMA is an argument.
Where our clients sit against the industry
| Metric | Resolv clients | Industry benchmark | Source of benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial denial rate | 5.1% | ~11.8–12% | Kodiak Solutions benchmarking data, reported via HFMA |
| Providers reporting 10%+ denials | Under 8% of our book | 41% of providers | Experian Health, State of Claims 2025 |
| Days in A/R (median) | 34 | ~40 median; <35 best practice | MGMA median; HFMA best-practice target |
| First-pass acceptance | 96.4% | Varies by specialty | — |
| Cost to collect | Reported per engagement | Varies by setting | — |
calculation method and a named owner in Client Success or Finance before publication. Publish three you
can defend rather than five you cannot — a number a client can dispute is worse than no
number.
How RCM pricing works, and how we structure it
Not a rate card. Enough to tell you whether we’re in your
range before you spend an hour on a call.
Percentage of collections
The common model for full-service RCM. Aligns our
revenue to yours, so we’re paid when you’re paid. Rate varies by specialty complexity,
payer mix and volume.
Per-claim or per-encounter
Suits predictable, high-volume, low-variance
work. Easier to budget, less aligned to outcome.
Dedicated capacity or project
For A/R cleanup, coding backlogs, credentialing
catch-up, or an underpayment recovery project with a defined scope.
Are we a fit on size?
We work best with groups of roughly 10 to 200 providers, $5M to $100M in net revenue, across 2 to 20
locations. We also serve smaller practices in high-complexity billing — workers’ comp,
labs, dental — where the specialty depth matters more than the volume.
The live site has no pricing signal of any kind. Vagueness preserves sales control but removes Resolv
from consideration by buyers who budget-qualify before they take a call — and Infinx now publishes
a $5,000/month floor. This page deliberately publishes the model and the fit range
without a rate, which filters disqualified traffic while giving a qualified CFO enough to proceed. The
fit range is lifted directly from the ICP document.
What moves, and when
Baseline established
We document where you actually are before we change anything, so improvement is provable rather than asserted.
Cash acceleration
Clean-claim rate and front-end denial prevention move first. This is where days in A/R starts to compress.
Denial prevention compounds
Root-cause trending feeds back into eligibility, authorization and documentation. Repeat denials stop.
Contract and underpayment work
Expected-versus-actual payment variance surfaces the money nobody was looking for.
You won’t lose a week of cash flow, and you’ll know exactly who to call.
Transition risk is the most common reason a decision stalls.
Here is the sequence, who owns what, and what happens when something goes wrong.
This persona’s stated question is “will this actually make my job easier, or just give me a
new system to manage?” and their first listed pain point is onboarding complexity and transition
risk — which the live site never addresses on any of its seventeen pages. The
“what you keep owning” table below is the most important module on this page,
because the unspoken fear is that outsourcing means losing control and gaining coordination work.
The first ninety days
Discovery & audit
We review 90 days of remittance history and your payer contracts. You get the findings whether or not you sign.
Integration & parallel run
Interfaces built and tested. Your incumbent keeps working current claims. No gap, no cash cliff.
Cutover
New claims route to Resolv. We work your legacy A/R in parallel rather than leaving it behind.
Optimization
Denial root-cause analysis, front-end fixes, and your first full Core Analytics review with your account manager.
recommendation; week counts are illustrative.
Who owns what
Outsourcing should remove work, not redistribute it. This is
the honest split.
| Function | Resolv owns | You keep owning |
|---|---|---|
| Patient registration & demographics | Quality feedback and error trending | Front-desk capture at the point of service |
| Eligibility & prior authorization | Verification, submission, follow-up | Clinical detail we can’t supply |
| Coding | Code assignment, QA sampling, audit logs | Provider documentation |
| Claim submission & scrubbing | End to end | Nothing |
| Denials & appeals | End to end, including escalation | Clinical letters of medical necessity where required |
| Patient balances | Statements, outreach, payment plans | Your financial assistance policy |
| Reporting | Core Analytics, monthly close package | What you do with it |
Your account team
- A named account manager, not a shared inbox
- Average 9 accounts per manager
- 4-hour published response SLA during business hours
- A documented escalation path with names at each level
- Monthly review with your numbers, not a status email
“The Resolv team made the transition happen seamlessly.
Our account managers utilize a personal approach with our accounts.”
You shouldn’t have to explain your specialty to your billing company.
If you’re here, something isn’t working. Send us
ninety days of remittance data and we’ll tell you what we’d do differently — and
you keep the analysis whether or not you move.
Most of the addressable market already has a vendor, and no mid-market competitor has built content
for that buyer — not Infinx, not Coronis, not Med-Metrix. This page is the highest-intent
asset on the site and should be instrumented as its own conversion event. The second-opinion offer is
also the cheapest possible sales qualifier: the data they send tells you whether the deal is real
before anyone spends a call on it.
The signs that usually bring people here
- Denial rate climbing with no root-cause explanation
- Reporting that doesn’t match what you see operationally
- Nobody at your vendor understands your specialty’s billing
- Your point of contact changed again
- Small underpayments never worked because denials take priority
- A/R aging past 60 days with no clear plan
- No IDR support for out-of-network exposure
- You’re managing your billing company instead of your practice
Resolv against the status quo
| What you’re evaluating | Typical incumbent | Resolv |
|---|---|---|
| Specialty knowledge | Generalist team, your specialty is one of many | Purpose-built software and dedicated teams per vertical |
| Point of contact | Support queue or rotating CSM | Named account manager, avg. 9 accounts |
| Reporting | Monthly PDF | Core Analytics, claim-level drill-down, daily refresh |
| Underpayment work | Rarely worked below a dollar threshold | Expected-vs-actual variance monitoring as standard |
| IDR / No Surprises Act | Often unsupported | Managed end to end |
| Your legacy A/R at transition | Frequently abandoned | Worked in parallel during cutover |
| Ownership stability | PE-backed, may be sold mid-contract | Constellation Software — buys to hold |
report, not any named competitor. Keep it that way in copy review — naming vendors invites a
response and dates the page.
Ninety days of remittance data. One honest read.
We’ll show you your denial mix by root cause, where your A/R is actually aging, and what
we’d expect to recover. No obligation, and you keep the analysis. If we’re not a fit,
we’ll say so.
One dashboard across every entity you own. Including the one you close next month.
Inconsistent billing practices across a portfolio, no
consolidated financial visibility, and revenue leakage during acquisitions. Those are the three
problems, and they compound with every deal.
Their stated question is “can you scale with us across 10+ acquisitions and give me one dashboard
to see everything?” The live site does not answer it in any form — no multi-entity language,
no consolidated-reporting claim, no onboarding methodology anywhere on the site. The acquisition
onboarding playbook below is the module that wins this persona, because it converts a vague
scalability claim into a repeatable process with a clock on it.
Consolidated reporting
Core
Analytics rolls every entity into one view, with drill-down to the individual claim. Same definitions
across the portfolio, so the numbers are actually comparable.
One operating model
Resolv
Core standardizes claim workflow, work queues and QA across every site you add — so acquisition
number nine runs like acquisition number one.
Audit-ready
Security
documentation, BAAs and access controls packaged for diligence. See Trust & Security.
The acquisition onboarding playbook
What happens when you close on a new practice.
Revenue diligence
We assess the target’s A/R quality, denial profile and payer contracts before you sign, so you know what you’re buying.
Stabilize
Nothing changes operationally. We stop the bleeding on aged A/R and protect cash continuity through the transition.
Standardize
Onto Resolv Core workflows and your portfolio’s reporting definitions. The new entity appears in your consolidated view.
Benchmark
The new site is measured against the rest of your portfolio, so underperformance is visible rather than averaged away.
methodology; confirm what is actually repeatable today before publishing it as a commitment.
Your billing partner shouldn’t be another
integration risk at exit.
Resolv is part of Harris Healthcare, a Constellation Software company.
Constellation buys businesses to keep them — it does not flip them. In a market where most
mid-market RCM vendors are themselves PE-backed and consolidating, that means your revenue cycle
partner will still be the same company, with the same team, at your exit as at your entry.
Your patients need your attention. Your revenue cycle needs ours.
You don’t have to buy a platform, migrate your data, or
teach your staff a new system. Keep everything you have. We’ll take the billing.
The ICP document is explicit that organizations unwilling to adopt a software platform should
not be disqualified, because there is a viable services-first market — and that
technology should be introduced as a value-add over time. But the rest of this mockup is platform-led:
a Core Analytics dashboard in the homepage hero and a whole Platform section. A practice that just
wants the billing handled sees software it will have to learn. This page is the deliberate counterweight,
and it uses Option B from the messaging framework — the warmest headline in the set,
recommended for the physician-owner and administrator audience.
What we take off your desk
Claims
Coding, scrubbing, submission and follow-up. Every claim worked until it’s paid or exhausted.
Denials
Appeals, escalation, and fixing the upstream cause so the same denial stops recurring.
Patient balances
Statements, outreach, payment plans, and financial assistance screening.
Credentialing
Provider enrollment and payer credentialing, kept current rather than chased.
You keep your system. We work in it.
- No migration. We connect to the EHR and practice management system you already run.
- No new software for your staff. Your team keeps working exactly where they work now.
- No platform commitment. Services are the engagement. Technology is an option you can take later, or never.
- One named person to call. Not a portal, not a ticket queue.
Technology, when it earns its place
Plenty of our clients never adopt our software, and that’s a
perfectly good outcome. When groups do, it’s usually because they’ve hit a specific
wall — multi-site reporting, a coding backlog, or underpayment work that needs data their
current system can’t produce.
We’ll tell you when we think a tool would help. We won’t make it a condition of
working together.
“Plenty of our clients never adopt our software, and that’s a perfectly good
outcome.” That sentence is the whole page. It removes the fear that services are a trojan horse
for a platform sale, which is precisely what a services-first buyer suspects. It also costs Resolv
nothing to say if it is true — confirm with sales that it is before publishing.
We exist so providers can stop worrying about whether they got paid.
Every dollar earned collected. Every claim filed correctly.
Every system talking to the next one. That’s the whole job.
The live mission statement is “to provide healthcare organizations service and software
technology solutions to enhance patient experience, financial performance, and productivity”
— three nouns stacked on three nouns, and true of any competitor. This version is adapted from
the ICP document’s proposal and tightened. The vision statement should be cut entirely: it
contains “best-in-class,” which internal guidance prohibits, and “premiere”
where “premier” is intended.
Four billing companies, thirty years, one specialty thesis.
Resolv formed in 2022 by bringing together four revenue
cycle businesses that had each spent decades in a specific corner of healthcare billing —
Ultimate Billing, First Pacific Corporation, Innovative Healthcare Systems, and Innovative Medical
Management.
That history is the reason we can say we know your
specialty rather than claiming we can learn it. Innovative Healthcare Systems has billed for
hospital-based physician groups continuously since 1996. Each business kept its team when it
joined.
From four established billing businesses
Continuous operation, same core team
Across five verticals
Why who owns us matters to you
Your billing partner shouldn’t outlast its
own ownership.
Resolv is part of Harris Healthcare, a division of Constellation Software. Constellation acquires
businesses to hold them — it does not resell them. In a market where most mid-market RCM
firms are PE-backed and being consolidated around you, that means we won’t be flipped,
re-platformed, or absorbed halfway through your contract.
The stability of a large enterprise. The focus of a specialist.
Employees worldwide
Publicly traded, Toronto headquartered
Business units run for their own markets, not centralized
The live site lists Harris and Constellation under a heading reading “Parent Companies,”
with two logos and one generic sentence each. The scale figures are present but framed as corporate
boilerplate. The reframe leads with the buyer benefit and lets the scale be the evidence —
because buyers hear “$4B company” as “I’ll be a small account,”
the exact fear the ICP work flags. Note the heading is a benefit, not a corporate-structure label.
The people accountable for your results
Paola Turchi
Twenty years in revenue cycle management and more than 250 practices consulted, from specialty
groups to large IDNs. Fellow of HFMA and Fellow Certified Medical Practice Executive. Six Sigma
Green Belt, with a Change Leadership certificate from Cornell. She has presented nationally for
HFMA, MGMA and AAOE, serves on the Texas MGMA board, and was President-Elect of the HFMA South
Texas Chapter for 2025.
If you engage Resolv, this is the
organization accountable for whether it works.
Bassel Salloum
Leads revenue cycle strategy across ambulatory, hospital and hospital-based specialties, and
urgent care. Author of the six-pillar RCM framework and the guest voice of The Resolv Roundtable.
Read the framework.
Open item: full biography
and headshot pending.
Ron Decker
Thirty years serving hospitals in revenue cycle and health IT. Founder and CEO of Innovative
Healthcare Systems before it joined Resolv and Harris in 2021, and still leading the
hospital-based business he built. Host of The Resolv Roundtable.
Jeremy Schultz
Rewrite required. The live bio describes 25 years of technology
work almost entirely in public sector, municipal government and non-profit terms, with no
healthcare or RCM specifics. For a CIO evaluating Resolv, that bio undercuts technical
credibility in the exact place it should establish it. Lead with his healthcare RCM
accomplishments, platform ownership, and what he is accountable for on Resolv Core and Core
Analytics.
Paola moves to first position. Her credential set is the strongest client-success proof anywhere on the
site — stronger than anything published by Coronis or Med-Metrix — and she owns the outcome
buyers care most about. On the live site she sits third. An FHFMA/FACMPE byline is also an E-E-A-T
asset the site currently wastes: she should be a named author in the Resource Hub, not just a bio.
Benchmarks, playbooks and tools — most of it ungated.
Original data from our own book of business, and practical
references for the billing environments nobody else documents properly.
Your own domain caps at roughly 15% of citations in a typical AI-generated answer, so the other 85%
has to come from sources you don’t own. Original data is how you buy into that 85%
— a benchmark report gets cited by other people, which is the only durable path to being the
answer. Note also that the live Resource Hub last published on 14 August 2024. A two-year gap reads as
a company in decline, and a second gap after a relaunch would read as a pattern.
Three assets worth building first
The Resolv Specialty Benchmark Report
Aggregated, de-identified performance data from our own book, cut by specialty: denial rates, days
in A/R, first-pass acceptance, and top denial reasons — published against industry
averages.
The Hospital-Based IDR Playbook
No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution end to end: eligibility, batching strategy,
evidence assembly, timelines, failure modes, and realistic win rates.
State-by-State Workers’ Comp Reference
Fee schedule basics, filing deadlines, lien requirements and dispute pathways by state —
maintained, not published once.
Monthly, with the transcript on the page
Episode 1
Series launch: the six pillars of RCM
Bassel Salloum walks through all six pillars — what clients are asking for, what the data
says, and where the fixable problems sit upstream.
Going deep on denials
The real data behind why rates are climbing, the root causes hiding upstream, and what
best-in-class prevention looks like.
Two calculators, both lead-capture assets
Denial cost calculator
Your denial volume and mix against the
$25–$181 per-claim rework range. Output: what denials cost you annually, and what
prevention is worth.
A/R days to cash impact
What compressing days in A/R by 5, 10 or 15
days releases in working capital at your revenue.
One per vertical, minimum
Emergency medicine
group recovered $412K its previous biller had written off.
11-location orthopedic
group cut A/R days from 61 to 38 in five months.
Occupational
health network lifted collections 19% across four states.
Every post signed by a named expert
Mastering payer contract review and negotiation
Existing post — refresh the data, add a named author, link to the new pillar pages.
Improving cash flow through prior authorization
Existing post — same treatment.
What the 2026 price transparency rule actually requires
New — fast-turn regulatory content, the format that rewards speed.
The fifteen existing posts are on genuinely good topics — payer contract negotiation, prior
authorization, denial management, credentialing, billing KPIs. The execution wastes them: every one is
authored by “resolv” with no named expert, no bio, and no internal links. A one-time
refresh sweep is cheaper than writing new content and recovers more value: update the data, add
Paola or Bassel as byline, and link each post to its matching pillar section.
Prior authorization and referral gaps are where your revenue quietly leaks.
Multi-site ambulatory groups lose money in front-end
workflows — eligibility, authorization, referral capture and modifier usage — long
before a claim is ever denied.
These follow the same nine-part structure specified for the Hospital page: vertical problem, the Resolv
difference, outcome-linked services, platform, named integrations, regulatory depth, implementation,
vertical proof, single CTA. Shown here in condensed form to establish the pattern —
the non-negotiable at build time is that each page carries at least one vertical-specific proof
point, which is the thing the live site lacks on every vertical page it has.
Where ambulatory billing breaks
- Prior authorization. Volume, payer variance, and no clean handoff between clinical and billing staff
- Referral gaps. Missing referrals discovered after the service, not before
- Modifier usage. Modifier 25 and 59 risk, and time-based coding documentation
- Credentialing drag. New providers unable to bill while enrollment sits in a queue
- Procedure-level underpayments. Small enough to ignore, frequent enough to matter
CareTracker & PrognoCis
Practice management and billing built for multi-site ambulatory and specialty practices, including occupational medicine.
Or keep what you have
We connect to your existing EHR and practice management system via HL7, X12, FHIR or API. Your staff keep working where they work now.
11-location orthopedic group, five months
Dental payers don’t behave like medical payers. Your biller should know the difference.
Plan maximums, frequency limitations, pre-determinations and
split medical-dental claims. Multi-location groups need all of it consolidated into one view.
Where dental billing breaks
- Plan maximums and frequency limits tracked per patient per year, across locations
- Pre-determination workflow that stalls treatment plans and delays revenue
- Medical-dental crossover claims routed to the wrong payer
- DSO consolidation with inconsistent practices at each acquired site
- Front-desk turnover driving eligibility and collection errors
PracticeView + Open Dental
Billing and consolidated multi-location reporting for practices and DSOs running Open Dental.
One view across every location
Core Analytics rolls all sites into a single report with the same definitions, so underperformance is visible rather than averaged away.
The existing dental “Success Story” blog post has no metrics. Client Success outreach required.
High volume, low dollar, and medical necessity denials that eat the margin.
Lab economics don’t tolerate manual rework. Clinical,
toxicology and pathology labs need denial prevention at the front end, not appeals at the back.
Where lab billing breaks
- Medical necessity and coverage denials on high-volume panels
- Per-claim economics where a $25–$181 rework cost can exceed the claim value
- Ordering-provider data quality arriving incomplete from the referring practice
- Toxicology scrutiny and payer policy volatility
- LIS integration that produces inconsistent or unextractable billing data
Core Analytics
Denial trending by payer, test code and ordering provider — so prevention targets the source rather than the claim.
LIS-aware
Connection to your laboratory information system via HL7 or API, with data-quality feedback to referring practices.
Plus one named lab case study
Fifty states, fifty rule sets, and an adjuster whose job is to pay you less.
Workers’ comp and PI billing is adversarial, lien-driven
and jurisdictional. For us it’s a first-class business with purpose-built software — not
a line item under “other specialties.”
Almost every generalist RCM firm treats workers’ comp as a footnote, and the strongest specialist
competitor, DaisyBill, is software-only. Resolv owns two purpose-built platforms and a
services organization — a combination neither side of that market can match. The state-by-state
reference is also an enormous long-tail search opportunity: “workers comp billing services
[state]” and “workers comp fee schedule [state]” multiplied across fifty
jurisdictions.
Where WC and PI billing breaks
- State fee schedules that differ in structure, not just rate
- Lien filing and perfection with deadlines that forfeit the claim if missed
- Adjuster correspondence and documentation demands designed to delay
- Authorization disputes and independent medical review
- Settlement and reduction negotiation on PI claims
Conexem & CompData
Lien lifecycle management and state fee-schedule reference data maintained across jurisdictions, feeding pricing and appeal decisions.
The combination
Specialists who file and argue the claims, running on software built for the work. Software-only vendors leave the arguing to you.
Coverage count and the occupational health network case study
Mockup controls