D enials cost hospitals more than the payment at risk. Staff also spend time investigating what happened, gathering documentation, correcting information, communicating with payers, and appealing decisions.
That administrative burden continues to grow. The American Hospital Association estimates that hospitals spent nearly $18 billion in 2025 overturning claims denials and approximately $43 billion trying to collect payments insurers owed for care already delivered.
For revenue cycle leaders, the more useful question is what happens when the same denial keeps coming back.
A recurring denial is more than another account in a work queue. It may be a sign that something earlier in the revenue cycle needs attention.
Working denials is necessary. Revenue cycle teams review payer responses, correct claims when appropriate, assemble appeals, provide requested documentation, and follow accounts through resolution.
Not every denial is preventable. Payer rules, edits, coverage requirements, and payment policies change, and some issues originate outside the hospital’s control.
But when the same type of denial continues to recur, resolving each account individually can leave the underlying issue untouched. The organization may become more efficient at managing the downstream symptom without addressing its cause.
That concern is showing up in current industry conversations. In a recent Becker’s discussion of significant revenue cycle risks, leaders pointed to organizations adding staff, vendors, technology, and work queues to manage problems rather than correcting the processes creating them.
Earlier this year, revenue cycle leaders interviewed by Becker’s described using denial mapping to connect payer denial codes to operational ownership and direct resources toward areas such as authorization, eligibility, and documentation.
Recurring patterns deserve a different response than isolated events.
A denial queue tells a team what needs attention today. Denial trends can tell leaders what needs to change tomorrow.
That means looking beyond individual accounts for patterns by:
Categorization matters as much as volume. A claim rejected by the clearinghouse or payer front end for a missing or invalid data element never entered adjudication, and it points to a different fix than a denial issued after review.
Among true denials, technical denials, such as eligibility, coordination of benefits, missing information, or timely filing, often trace back to registration, billing, or workflow gaps that the hospital can correct. Clinical denials, such as authorization and medical necessity, often involve payer judgment and may require clinical documentation, utilization management, or physician involvement to resolve.
Treating these as one category can hide where the real problem lies.
Volume matters, but so does financial impact. A frequent low-dollar denial and a less frequent high-dollar denial may call for very different priorities.
The value of the analysis is not another dashboard. It is understanding whether a pattern points to an operational issue the hospital can address, payer behavior that needs to be monitored or challenged, or some combination of the two.
HFMA makes a similar distinction in its denial-management education: denial data becomes more useful when organizations identify root causes, separate systemic problems from one-off payer behavior, and turn those findings into operational priorities.
Once a meaningful pattern emerges, the next step is to trace it back to where the issue began.
Patient access and authorization. A denial may originate with eligibility information, coordination of benefits, an authorization requirement, or a mismatch between what was authorized and what ultimately occurred.
Clinical documentation, coding, and charge. Documentation may not support the service or level of care billed, while coding or charge-capture issues can result in incorrect or missing claim information. Recurring revenue code/HCPCS mismatches, National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) edits, or Medically Unlikely Edits (MUEs) may point to issues with coding, units of service, modifiers, chargemaster setup, or charge flow.
Payer-specific requirements. A process that works consistently for most payers may fail with one plan due to a specific edit, policy, documentation requirement, or a changing interpretation.
Workflow handoffs. The issue may not belong neatly to one department. Information can be correct in one part of the process, but fail to reach the next person or system at the right time.
Provider enrollment and credentialing. New or recently added providers, location changes, or other updates to provider information can become a source of recurring payment issues when enrollment or credentialing information is incomplete, outdated, or not aligned with payer requirements. In rural settings, provider staffing changes can create additional enrollment and credentialing work, while Rural Health Clinics must also account for specific staffing, enrollment, and billing requirements—adding another layer of complexity.
This is why denial prevention often extends beyond the denial-management team. The people working the account may be the first to recognize a pattern, but the corrective action may sit with patient access, HIM, coding, clinical operations, utilization management, IT, managed care, or another part of the organization.
For rural and community hospitals, these problems can be harder to absorb. The National Rural Health Association has highlighted the administrative burden created by prior authorization, payment denials, and delays for organizations that may have fewer staff and less capacity to absorb prolonged payment issues.
Looking upstream should not mean assuming every denial reflects a hospital process failure.
Payer behavior can be part of the pattern. Coverage policies and edits change, documentation requests can expand, and payers may interpret medical necessity differently or introduce new requirements even when the hospital’s underlying process has not changed.
Payer-level trending can help distinguish those issues. If one denial category suddenly increases across several departments but is concentrated with one payer, the response may be very different from a denial occurring across multiple payers because of the same internal workflow.
Appeal outcomes provide another useful signal. If the same denial category is repeatedly overturned, the trend may warrant a closer look at payer policy or processing rather than assuming the issue is entirely internal.
Depending on the cause, action may involve:
Good root cause analysis helps leaders determine where action belongs rather than treating every denial as the same problem.
A useful denial-management view should help hospital leaders move beyond the overall denial rate.
They should be able to answer questions such as:
Resolving today’s inventory does not show whether the underlying problem has changed. If a team adjusts an authorization workflow, documentation process, coding rule, or staff procedure, leaders should be able to see whether the same denial begins occurring less often.
Improvement depends not only on how effectively the hospital handles denials, but also on whether the organization learns from what those denials reveal.
Recurring denials can provide an operational feedback loop. They may reveal where a payer requirement has changed, where staff need clearer information, where a handoff is breaking down, or where a process deserves another look.
Effective follow-up and appeals still matter, but the value of denial management can extend beyond resolving individual accounts. When recurring issues are visible, hospitals have an opportunity to determine whether other areas of the revenue cycle need attention.
That is where experienced revenue cycle support can add value. MEDTEAM works with hospital teams to review account activity, denial trends, payer behavior, and related workflow issues that may be contributing to recurring problems.
Working with the same payers across multiple hospitals can also give MEDTEAM a broader context when a payer policy, edit, or recurring issue appears to affect more than one organization. For hospitals with limited internal resources, that perspective can help distinguish between issues that need immediate account-level action and those that warrant a closer look across the revenue cycle.
Denials will remain part of hospital revenue cycle operations, but recurring denials should not become background noise. When the same issue keeps appearing, the pattern may help leaders distinguish among an isolated account, an evolving payer issue, and a process that needs attention earlier in the revenue cycle.
The work may start with the denial. The greater value comes from understanding what keeps bringing it back.
Learn more about how MEDTEAM helps hospitals identify recurring denial patterns and act on what they reveal.
See how Larkin Health System strengthened visibility into payer performance, reimbursement variances, and recurring payment issues with MEDTEAM: What One Hospital’s Experience Reveals About Payer Performance Visibility
Learn how aging A/R can reveal denial and payment-delay patterns that point to broader process issues: The A/R Backlog Challenge: How Hospitals Can Unlock Cash Hidden in Aging Receivables
“When we call MEDTEAM, it is great that they are always on board working to help us, whatever the need is.” - Chief Nursing Officer
Stay in the loop
Connect with us on social media or give us a call at 1.844.615.1803
