Pros, Cons of End-to-End RCM Platform Adoption

In the pursuit of an end-to-end revenue cycle management (RCM) platform, some providers have adopted technology from a single vendor. While there are several advantages of working with one vendor, a new KLAS report also identifies some drawbacks.

The recent report, “Enterprise Revenue Cycle Management Platforms 2023 Current Provider Experiences on the Platform Adoption Journey,” surveyed deep adopters, or provider organizations with at least three technology solutions from a single revenue cycle vendor. These include a front-office solution, a back-office solution, and another solution from any category within the revenue cycle. The report included 31 respondents, giving providers a glimpse into end-to-end RCM platform adoption.

Providers are up against severe staffing shortages, payer challenges, razor-thin margins, and a changing regulatory environment. Revenue cycle vendors are working on an end-to-end RCM platform to help providers overcome these pressures with the intention of providing a more efficient approach to RCM technology adoption that streamlines workflows and lowers total costs, KLAS explained.

Not many providers have adopted the end-to-end RCM platform approach as of now. However, some of those deep adopters told KLAS that implementing multiple technologies across the revenue cycle from a single vendor enhances integration, streamlines workflows, and strengthens vendor partnerships.

Other advantages, according to the deep adopters interviewed by KLAS, include cost efficiencies and a consolidated tech stack.

However, these deep adopters also identified several disadvantages of using multiple solutions from a single vendor. Those disadvantages include overreliance on that vendor, slow pace of innovation (which leads to functionality gaps), and less competition that could otherwise result in better pricing.

Despite some drawbacks of an almost end-to-end RCM platform, deep adopters were still satisfied with their vendor’s performance overall. All vendors included in the report — Waystar, Experian Health, FinThrive, and TruBridge — ranked within the satisfied category (70.0 to 89.9 points out of 100 points).

KLAS reported that the small group of deep adopters of Waystar RCM products were the most satisfied overall, citing improved functionality and product integration. Specifically, interviewed customers said the “integrated automation streamlines the claims-processing workflow, increases efficiency, and allows for better management of payments, denials, and rejections, along with the ability to monitor trends and payer behaviors.”

Waystar’s deep adopters also praised the vendor’s patient financial engagement solution. Although, the general sentiment revealed challenges with scaling multiple Waystar solutions because of economic reasons, the report stated.

Many deep adopters of Experian Health did so because of the vendor’s EHR integration, while others cited an established vendor partnership, better integration capabilities, and better bundled services and prices. They also said the products are easy to use. However, deep adopters of Experian Health also cited feeling nickel-and-dimed at times.

In the report, deep adopters of FinThrive’s RCM technologies said they value the vendor’s relationship, citing support responsiveness and accommodation of customer needs. Interviewed deep adopters also have the vendor the highest-rated overall product quality, driven by FinThrive’s chargemaster and insurance discovery solutions. But integration was a mixed bag depending on the customer, with dissatisfied respondents wanting better EHR integration.

Finally, TruBridge deep adopters reported better value from platform adoption and appreciated the cost of the technologies. Customers said they received a single bill, which eliminated any nickel-and-diming, KLAS reported. Additionally, deep adopters said the vendor’s value increased with the adoption of additional solutions. Still, several deep adopters interviewed by KLAS weren’t sure of TruBridge’s role in their long-term plans, with many citing the “need for a third-party solution with more user-friendly reporting and actionable insights.”

As an end-to-end RCM solution has pros and cons, so do the vendors providing the technologies. However, KLAS noted that the sample size for each vendor was small, and the findings should not be interpreted as a comprehensive view of satisfaction or adoption. The findings offer a peek at what a possible end-to-end RCM platform can do for provider organizations facing significant financial pressures.