KLAS Report Shares Top Outsourcing Firms for Healthcare Coding Services

As healthcare organizations turn to outsourcing firms for coding services, they value vendors that excel in communication, coding quality, and staff retention, according to a KLAS report.

Outsourcing coding services can help healthcare organizations control coding-related costs and manage responsibilities amid ongoing staffing shortages. The KLAS report highlights different coding firms and how they meet clients’ expectations and needs.

Oxford Global Resources received the top overall performance score of 93.6 on a 100-point scale. This firm typically performs well for larger healthcare organizations. Clients reported that Oxford has knowledgeable account representatives and a strong group of coders. Almost all clients said they were highly satisfied with their partnership with Oxford.

Oxford also received positive client feedback on its proactive planning, communication, and follow-up. Respondents said representatives foster strong client relationships and are highly responsive to outreach. Additionally, coding resources require little oversight, and the firm excels at finding high-quality replacements when coders leave.

Clients with vendors using only onshore coders, like Oxford, were more likely to report that their firm exceeded expectations. Offshore coding can lead to flexible pricing, in the case of AQuity Solutions, but it can also result in challenges such as language barriers and an increased need for coder oversight, AGS Health users said.

Similar to Oxford, Ciox Health received a high performance score (90.0) and worked best for larger healthcare organizations. Respondents said Ciox Health exhibits fast turnaround times, employs high-quality coders, and is good at communicating and listening to client needs. Coder turnover within the firm is usually due to switching out underperforming coders.

AQuity and TruBridge perform well among smaller acute care organizations, the report indicated. AQuity clients reported limited coder turnover and noted that the vendor maintains coverage well and reduces the impact of turnover on client work.

Although there was limited data on TruBridge, the respondents who used the vendor said it was easy to work with. They mentioned the vendor’s fast issue resolution, strong coding knowledge, and willingness to do extra work if needed.

While most vendors received above-average scores for quality of coding, GeBBS Healthcare Solutions and Guidehouse received the lowest ratings for coding quality, though the findings were based on limited data. Most GeBBS users said the coding was acceptable, but several said there were challenges leading to low efficiency and missed timelines. GeBBS clients also said the firm could have better lines of communication for addressing accuracy problems.

The majority of Guidehouse clients said the firm’s coding quality was good, but nobody was highly satisfied. Those who were less satisfied cited a lack of attention to detail, problems with productivity and quality, and quality audits from the vendor that didn’t match their internal audits.

Editor's note: This article was updated on 6/23/23 to note that the coding quality findings for GeBBS and Guidehouse were based on limited data.