Days in AR Reporting
Days in AR is decomposed by payer, service line, and aging bucket, since a blended figure conceals which relationships and services actually drive the problem.
Custom Software
Revenue Cycle Analytics Platform Development
Denial trend reporting is where most revenue cycle analytics stops, and it is the least useful place to stop. Knowing that authorization denials rose last quarter tells you nothing actionable until the data separates which payers, which service lines, and which specific requirement was missed, because those three answers point to entirely different fixes.
Revenue cycle generates enormous transactional data and remarkably little insight, largely because reporting mirrors the billing system’s structure rather than the decisions leadership needs to make. Taction Software builds revenue cycle analytics platform capability that decomposes performance to the level where someone can act on it.
Tell Us Your Requirements
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
Trusted Partners
Trusted by Industry Leaders Worldwide
Recognition
Awards & Recognitions
What Is a Revenue Cycle Analytics Platform
A revenue cycle analytics platform consolidates data from practice management, billing, clearinghouse, and payer remittance sources to report on financial performance: days in accounts receivable, clean claim and first-pass rates, denial volume and cause, cash collection velocity, cost to collect, and payer-level performance comparison. It answers why revenue behaves as it does rather than only reporting that it did. The work is mostly reconciliation, since the numbers live across systems that count differently. Our work sits within our broader healthcare software development practice.
Clean Claim Rate
First-pass rate measures claims accepted without rework, which is the leading indicator that predicts denial volume weeks before denials appear.
Denial Cause Analysis
Denial decomposition separates payer, service line, and specific reason, drawing on our reduce claim denials work for remediation patterns.
Cash Velocity
Collection timing tracks how quickly payment follows service, which matters to operations independently of whether total collection is eventually achieved.
Cost to Collect
Cost measurement compares collection expense against yield, which identifies where pursuing balances costs more than the balances are worth.
Payer Performance
Payer comparison shows behavior differences across contracts, supporting the contracting conversations that follow from measured performance.
Core Revenue Cycle Analytics Services
Our revenue cycle analytics platform services cover data integration, measure construction, denial analysis, payer reporting, and delivery. The engineering reality is that most effort goes into reconciliation rather than analytics, because practice management, clearinghouse, and remittance data count claims, dates, and adjustments differently and produce contradictory totals until reconciled deliberately. Engagements typically open by comparing three existing reports that should agree and establishing why they do not.
01
Source Reconciliation
Reconciliation across billing, clearinghouse, and remittance sources establishes one set of numbers, built on our healthcare data warehouse practice.
02
Measure Definition
Definitions are documented for every measure, since revenue cycle terms like days in AR are calculated differently across organizations and vendors.
03
Denial Analytics
Cause analysis goes to the specific denial reason and remediation owner, connecting with our AI claim denials prevention work.
04
Payer Segmentation
Payer-level reporting separates contract performance, since aggregate figures hide the specific relationships causing most of the difficulty.
05
Cost to Collect Modeling
Cost modeling allocates collection expense, drawing on our accounts receivable management practice for collection workflow context.
06
Reporting Delivery
Dashboard delivery uses our Microsoft Power BI work or your existing reporting platform rather than introducing a second tool.
Benefits of a Revenue Cycle Analytics Platform
The benefits concentrate in actionable denial insight, reconciled numbers, and payer visibility. Most organizations have revenue cycle reports that disagree with each other, which produces meetings about whose number is right rather than about what to do. We publish no figures on collection improvement, denial reduction, or AR days, because those depend entirely on payer mix, service lines, and current performance.
Actionable Denial Detail
Cause-level analysis identifies the specific requirement being missed, which is where remediation happens rather than at category level.
Reconciled Numbers
Single source reporting ends the disagreement between billing, finance, and operations figures that currently precedes every discussion.
Earlier Problem Detection
Clean claim rate predicts denial volume before denials arrive, giving weeks of warning that trailing denial reports cannot provide.
Payer Accountability
Payer comparison supports contracting discussions, connecting with our healthcare contract management work where terms are negotiated.
Better Collection Decisions
Cost to collect identifies balances where pursuit costs more than recovery, which is a policy decision requiring real numbers.
Service Line Visibility
Segmented reporting shows which services carry revenue cycle difficulty, informing both operational fixes and contracting priorities.
Our Revenue Cycle Analytics Process
We deliver revenue cycle analytics platform projects in gated phases so revenue cycle, finance, and IT stakeholders approve direction before engineering cost accumulates. Discovery begins by comparing existing reports that should agree, since establishing why they differ identifies the reconciliation work the project actually requires. Measure definitions are agreed with finance before build, because revenue cycle terminology varies enough that the same label describes different calculations.
Discovery and Report Comparison
Discovery compares existing reports that should agree, since the reasons they differ define the reconciliation scope more accurately than requirements gathering does.
Definition Agreement
Measure definitions are agreed with finance, since days in AR and clean claim rate are calculated differently across organizations and vendors.
Source Integration
Integration spans practice management, clearinghouse, and remittance data, each of which represents the same claim differently.
Denial Taxonomy
Denial categorization is built to remediation owner rather than payer reason code alone, since codes group causes that different teams must fix.
Cost Model Agreement
Allocation for cost to collect is agreed with finance, since the assumptions determine whether the resulting figures are accepted.
Rollout and Ongoing Support
Rollout expands by reporting area with reconciliation monitoring and continuing support as payer mix and contracts change.
Technology and Compliance
Revenue cycle analytics handles PHI within claims data alongside financial information subject to internal control requirements where figures feed financial reporting. Taction holds ISO 27001 certification and follows HIPAA-aligned engineering practice. The distinction worth maintaining is between operational analytics, which benefit from flexibility, and figures that reach financial statements, which require controlled derivation and change management.
HIPAA-Aligned Engineering
Builds apply encryption, role-based access, and complete audit logging. Our HIPAA compliance software development practice defines these controls.
Operational Versus Financial Reporting
Controlled reporting is separated from exploratory analysis, since figures feeding financial statements require auditable derivation that ad hoc analytics cannot provide.
Measure Definition Governance
Definitions are versioned, since changing a calculation silently makes historical comparison meaningless while appearing to show a trend.
Reconciliation Documentation
Reconciliation logic between sources is documented, since the adjustments explaining why systems disagree are the analysis rather than a preliminary step.
Payer Data Handling
Remittance data carries contract terms that may be confidential, requiring access controls preventing exposure across payer relationships.
Deployment Security
Deployments run on-premise, in your cloud tenancy, or hybrid, with network segmentation and documented penetration testing before release.
Why Choose Taction Software
Taction Software was founded in 2013 and has spent over 12 years building healthcare software, delivering more than 200 healthcare projects from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with ISO 27001 certification. Our relevant discipline is treating reconciliation as the deliverable rather than a preliminary, since organizations with disagreeing reports spend their meetings adjudicating numbers instead of acting on them. Our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field.
01
Reconciliation as Deliverable
We treat source reconciliation as the first real output, since disagreeing reports produce arguments about numbers rather than decisions about operations.
02
Denial Analysis to Owner
We categorize denials by remediation owner rather than payer reason code, since codes group causes that different teams must address separately.
03
Established Healthcare Focus
Founded in 2013, we have concentrated on healthcare rather than treating it as one vertical among several, producing depth in revenue cycle operations.
04
Financial Control Separation
We separate controlled reporting from exploratory analysis, since figures reaching financial statements need auditable derivation.
05
Stack Neutrality
We build on your existing reporting platform, since we make no partnership claims and adding a second tool for one function rarely helps.
06
Certified Security Posture
ISO 27001 certification means security controls are documented and auditable, supporting your vendor risk assessment efficiently.
Pricing
Revenue cycle analytics platform pricing depends on source system count, reconciliation complexity, whether cost to collect modeling is included, and reporting breadth. Reconciliation is the dominant variable, since organizations with several billing systems or acquired practices carry substantially more work than single-system environments. Discovery produces an itemized, fixed-scope estimate with phase-level breakdown. Reporting platform licensing and infrastructure are separate from engineering cost and itemized clearly.
MVP or Single Module
An MVP covering reconciled AR and denial reporting typically runs $40,000 to $80,000.
Full Platform Build
A full platform with payer segmentation, clean claim analysis, and cost to collect typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000.
Enterprise Deployment
Enterprise engagements covering multi-entity reconciliation and controlled financial reporting start at $200,000.
Discovery Phase Scoping
Discovery is a paid, time-boxed phase producing an itemized estimate, architecture plan, and report reconciliation assessment.
Cost Drivers to Expect
Source system count, reconciliation complexity, entity count, and cost modeling scope are the largest variables, identified during discovery.
Ongoing Support Costs
Post-launch payer changes, contract updates, and support are quoted separately as a retainer sized to claim volume.
Get Started
If you are evaluating a revenue cycle analytics platform for AR reporting, denial analysis, payer performance, or cost to collect, the fastest next step is a discovery call with our team. We will compare your existing reports and establish reconciliation scope, then return an itemized, fixed-scope estimate. Contact us to schedule that conversation.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
Revenue cycle and finance leaders evaluating a revenue cycle analytics platform usually ask why existing reports disagree, how denial analysis becomes actionable, and whether their billing system already covers this. The answers below reflect how we scope these projects.
Because practice management, clearinghouse, and remittance systems count claims, dates, and adjustments differently, and each is correct within its own definitions. Reconciling them is genuine analytical work rather than a data quality problem, and it is usually the first thing worth doing.
By going to the specific requirement missed and the team that must fix it. Payer reason codes group causes that belong to registration, authorization, coding, and clinical documentation respectively. Category-level reporting tells you denials rose; owner-level reporting tells someone what to change.
Partially, and within its own boundaries. Billing system reporting covers what that system holds, which excludes clearinghouse rejection detail, remittance adjustment reasons, and cost allocation. The gap is usually in joining sources rather than in any single system’s reporting depth.
An MVP covering reconciled AR and denials runs $40,000 to $80,000. A full platform typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000. Enterprise multi-entity deployments start at $200,000. Reconciliation complexity drives cost most.
It predicts denial volume weeks earlier than denial reports do, since claims requiring rework before submission indicate the same upstream problems that later produce denials. It is the closest thing to a leading indicator revenue cycle has.
Only through controlled, documented derivation. Operational analytics benefit from flexible exploration, while figures reaching financial statements need auditable calculation and change management. We separate the two rather than applying one standard to both.