AGS Health recently conducted a survey to learn about trends in patient access processing. This article shares the results and includes insights about the findings from Ryan Chapin, executive director of strategic solutions, who oversees patient access for AGS Health.
-
Would you describe your patient access department as decentralized, partially centralized, or centralized?
Response Response Percentage Response Count A Decentralized - All access work is performed at the department/location level by patient facing representatives 16.13% 5 B Partially Centralized - Some aspects of our access work have been centralized, but not all 61.29% 19 C Fully Centralized - All access work is managed by a C single team that supports all departments/locations 22.58% 7 
These responses point to a trend toward centralization. With more than 61% of survey respondents indicating a partially centralized model and approximately 22% reporting their patient access department is fully centralized, it’s evident that many healthcare organizations are moving away from decentralized teams. This shift likely stems from the need for greater accuracy, efficiency and consistency in financial clearance workflows. Centralization reduces the administrative burden on front desk staff, allowing them to focus more on patient engagement rather than being sidetracked by administrative tasks Centralized teams streamline operations, making it easier to uphold consistent practices that are crucial for high-quality financial clearance. Although transitioning to a fully centralized model can be challenging—and may even require more resources—organizations often find that long-term cost savings emerge from decreased duplicate work and reduction in denials. This complexity suggests that while the journey toward centralization may involve upfront investments, the ultimate return on investment makes it a compelling strategy for many healthcare providers.
-
Do you feel your current patient access analytics and reporting capabilities provide the necessary insights to identify trends and make informed decisions?
Response Response Percentage Response Count A Yes. We have a sophisticated analytics and reporting program that provides a clear view of the trends and next steps necessary to optimize our processes. 38.71% 12 B Yes. Existing capabilities meet our current needs, but we are looking for opportunities to improve on analytics and reporting capabilities in the future. 32.26% 10 C No. Our current analytics and reporting systems only provide baseline reporting metrics but lack the C flexibility to drill down into trends and perform root cause analysis. 25.80% 8 D No. We currently lack the necessary analytics and reporting capabilities to monitor performance effectively. 3.23% 1 
With most patient access workflows being time-sensitive processes leading up to a patient’s visit, many healthcare organizations recognize the importance of securing financial clearance timely. There will always be a need for tools that can track eligibility and benefits checks and pending authorizations that enable healthcare organizations to prioritize workflows effectively and allocate resources to meet immediate patient financial clearance needs. The ability to identify at-risk accounts and adjust workforce strategies accordingly is essential for optimizing financial clearance processes. While approximately 39% of respondents feel their reporting capabilities are adequate, there remains a substantial opportunity for improvement, as 55% express a desire for enhanced analytics.
-
What aspects of your current patient access operations have been either partially or fully automated through technology, if any? (select all that apply)
Response Response Percentage Response Count A No automation has been implemented to support patient access to date 19.45% 14 B Patient scheduling 25.00% 18 C Insurance eligibility and benefits verification 9.72% 7 D Prior authorization 20.83% 15 E Patient payment estimation 13.89% 10 F Pre-registration and pre-service collection 11.11% 8 
Of the more than 30 survey respondents, nearly 50% stated that no automation has been implemented to support patient access, which suggests there is a significant opportunity for enhancing automation. I also expect adoption of prior authorization automation to increase significantly over the next five years due to investment in automation technologies by many companies and major EHRs. Overall, especially given the fact that multiple responses were an option to survey participants, these results show there is ample opportunity for improvement across most organizations.
-
What areas of your patient access operations do you feel would benefit most from full or partial automation? (select all that apply)
Response Response Percentage Response Count A Patient scheduling 14.29% 8 B Insurance eligibility and benefits verification 26.78% 15 C Prior authorization 28.57% 16 D Patient payment estimation 16.07% 9 E Pre-registration and pre-service collection 14.29% 8 
I'm not surprised that the survey responses reveal that prior authorization, followed by eligibility and benefits, rank as the top two priorities for automating patient access operations. Prior authorization leads at nearly 29%, and the ongoing challenges faced by healthcare providers in managing prior authorizations are consistently recognized as a major pain point. As payer policies become increasingly complex, the manual effort required for prior authorization grows, emphasizing the need for advancement in this area, particularly for providers struggling with staffing and/or de-centralized delivery models. These responses indicate a strong demand for technological investment in automation to streamline workflows and reduce administrative burdens.
-
What level, if any, does your organization use offshore resources in your current patient access delivery model?
Response Response Percentage Response Count A None. We do not currently use any offshore resources. 51.61% 16 B Partial. Our in-house teams are supported by offshore resources. 16.13% 5 C Most of our patient access operations are supported offshore. 6.45% 2 D N/A. My organization does not allow offshore resources. 25.81% 8 
It is not surprising that the survey results show that more than half of the respondents are not leveraging offshore resources in patient access. Unlike medical coding and accounts receivable (A/R) work, offshoring patient access tasks is relatively new, as it is following the wave of centralization efforts across providers. As non-patient-facing patient access processes continue to become more centralized, they also become advantageous for offshoring, indicating that we will continue to see offshoring trends follow centralization trends, as is occurring with coding and A/R.
An analysis of the survey results highlights significant opportunities for healthcare organizations to enhance their patient access operations through centralization, improved analytics, and increased automation. Contact us to learn more about how we can help optimize your patient access strategies.
Author
