Vice President of Sales
Your denial team can spot the pattern, but prevention depends on who owns the fix.
Over my career, I have seen denial reviews explain every dollar at risk and still leave the organization headed toward the same denials next month. In one health system, “missing authorization” stayed at the top of the denial report for six straight months. Every review recovered what it could, but none changed the procedure that could reach the authorization team.
Most reviews cover top denial reasons, dollars by payer, and overturn rates. Those numbers show where revenue is at risk and how well recovery efforts perform. They leave another question unanswered: Who will change the work so the next claim avoids the same problem?
CFOs pay to build the claim, then pay again to recover it. But until someone changes the process, CFOs will keep paying twice.
A denial reason is the beginning of the diagnosis
“Missing authorization” looks like an explanation, but leaves several questions unanswered.
Was authorization never requested?
Did the scheduled procedure change after approval?
Did the approved information fail to reach billing?
Each answer points to a different fix and potentially a different owner. Sending an authorization-denial report to Patient Access does not explain which step failed or who needs to change it.
Some denials stem from payer errors or disputed interpretations and require appeals or payer escalation. A good review will separate those specific denials from process failures the organization can correct. It ends at the point where the process broke, not on the dashboard. Otherwise, the same pattern will appear again on next month’s report.
The denial team cannot own every correction
Sid Mehta’s recent article examined why financial performance depends on the handoffs between teams. When a denial reveals a breakdown between departments, someone specifically needs to own the responsibility and have the authority to correct it. Denial specialists can determine what went wrong, but the fix often requires intervention from someone outside their authority.
Consider what happens when a procedure changes after authorization. The authorization team secured approval for the original procedure, scheduling recorded the change, and billing submitted the claim. The revised procedure never triggered an authorization review. Every team completed its assigned work, yet the claim was still denied. Nobody cut a corner. The process had worked well enough for years, so no team was looking for the step it lacked.
In this situation, I look beyond whether staff verified the authorization and examined how they handled the change:
Who flags a revised procedure?
Who determines whether the authorization needs updating?
How does billing know the review is complete?
The denial team can identify the gap and help design the correction. I strongly believe one person should own the result. A name without authority leaves someone accountable for work they cannot control. When accountability rests with a group, each department completes its assignment, and the problem will often remain unresolved. The owner coordinates the affected teams, resolves competing priorities, and follows through until the evidence shows the revised process is working.
Give the finding somewhere to go
I look for four elements in a working prevention process:
Specific evidence. The affected claims, the failure point, and enough detail for the receiving team to act.
A named owner. One person responsible for the correction, with authority to change the process or escalate across departments.
A defined change and deadline. A revised handoff, system rule, training intervention, or other action tied to the cause.
A follow-up measure. A check on whether the change happened and whether performance improved, with a review date on the calendar.
Technology has the power to make workflows more efficient. Organizational leadership, however, still has to assign responsibility when the work crosses departmental boundaries.
Three questions for your next denial review
Select three recurring, potentially preventable causes from last quarter. For each, ask:
Where did the process fail?
Who owns the correction?
When will we review the results?
Then track the denial rate for those claims, plus payment delays and rework, to see whether the fix moved cash.
At Access Healthcare, we start with the teams and systems a provider already has. We trace recurring denials back to the process gaps, work with the affected teams to define corrective action, establish clear ownership, and then measure the success of the change.
The people closest to a process rarely see its gaps, because the process has always worked well enough. This is why an outside view helps. If you want a second set of eyes on your top three denial causes, we can help you assess where additional expertise, technology, or operational support could reduce repeat denials.
About Access Healthcare
Established in 2011, Access Healthcare remains at the forefront of healthcare management, allowing healthcare organizations to focus on what matters most: their patients. As a global leader, we are recognized as a trusted partner by healthcare organizations, offering a combined AI-embedded, automation, and human expertise revenue cycle management (RCM) operating model to drive visible results at scale.