Skip to main content
Call

Hospital reimbursement intelligence

Benchmark reimbursement without confusing a public rate with payment truth

QuickIntell connects aggregate public market evidence with a hospital's private contract and 835 or ERA evidence through an assisted analysis. Each layer answers a different financial question.

Designed for

  • Revenue cycle leadership
  • Finance and revenue integrity
  • Payer contracting teams
  • Hospital RCM partners
  • Medical billing leaders

Evidence model

Four layers of reimbursement truth

Public rates are a market signal. A contract and the adjudicated remit are different evidence layers.

Read the methodology
  1. 01Public evidence

    Public hospital benchmark

    Hospital-reported rate-file observations, normalized into comparable aggregate cohorts.

  2. 02Separate phase

    Public professional or group benchmark

    Transparency in Coverage observations require a distinct provider-group methodology and are not mixed with hospital data.

  3. 03Private analysis

    Signed contract expectation

    The provider contract establishes the expected reimbursement after its terms, modifiers, bundles, and setting rules are applied.

  4. 04Private analysis

    Actual 835 adjudication

    The 835 or ERA shows the allowed, paid, adjusted, and denied outcome that can be compared with contract expectation.

The decision problem

One rate question often contains four different questions

Hospital teams may see a public rate, a contract term, an expected amount in the patient accounting system, and an allowed or paid amount on a remit. A difference between those values is not automatically an error because each was produced under a different scope and methodology.

A useful reimbursement benchmark keeps those layers separate, makes the comparison cohort explicit, and shows the evidence needed to move from market screening to a reviewable financial decision.

From public signal to private analysis

The assisted workflow narrows a broad rate question into a comparable, traceable review scope.

  1. 01

    Define

    Choose the payer, service, setting, market, and decision question.

  2. 02

    Screen

    Review a compatible public aggregate and its coverage evidence.

  3. 03

    Model

    Apply relevant signed-contract terms to the private claim context.

  4. 04

    Reconcile

    Compare expected reimbursement with 835 or ERA adjudication.

  5. 05

    Route

    Send explainable exceptions to the right contracting or RCM owner.

Public benchmark and private analysis serve different jobs

Comparison of public reimbursement benchmarks and private hospital analysis
DimensionPublic benchmarkPrivate assisted analysis
Primary evidenceAggregate hospital rate-file observationsSigned payer contract and adjudicated 835 or ERA
Primary useMarket screening and prioritizationExpected-versus-actual reimbursement review
VisibilityPublic, sanitized, aggregate onlyRestricted to the agreed secure workflow
Can establish underpayment?NoOnly after contract, claim, and remittance validation
OutputPercentile distribution and cohort evidenceReviewable variance context and routing

A focused pilot begins with a question

The first scope can focus on a payer, contract, service family, market, or recurring adjudication pattern. Qualification establishes the secure data workflow before private files are requested.

Useful scoping inputs

  • The business question and decision owner.
  • The payer, contract period, facility scope, and care setting.
  • The relevant service identifiers, modifiers, and bundle logic.
  • The approved source for expected contract calculations.
  • The 835 or ERA evidence used for actual adjudication.
  • The review, correction, appeal, and escalation rules.

Hospital reimbursement benchmarking FAQ

Explore public benchmarks
Does a public negotiated rate show what our hospital should be paid?

No. A public rate-file observation is a market signal. Expected reimbursement depends on the signed contract and claim facts, while the 835 or ERA shows the adjudicated outcome.

Can public reimbursement benchmarks prove underpayment?

No. A benchmark can help prioritize review, but a potential underpayment must be validated against the applicable contract terms, modifiers, bundles, setting, claim facts, and remittance.

What data is collected through the public contact form?

The public contact form is for business contact and qualification information only. Contracts, remits, claims, and PHI should be transferred only after a secure private workflow is established.

Is this designed only for large health systems?

The assisted workflow can be scoped for hospitals and health systems of different sizes. The useful starting point is a defined payer, service, market, or reimbursement question rather than organization size alone.

Start with one payer, contract, or reimbursement question

Request an assisted scoping conversation. The public form collects business contact information only; private files move through an agreed secure workflow after qualification.