Harbor Gastroenterology Group
Six providers · May 2026 · All practice details and values are invented.
The practice remains productive, but cash conversion and overhead moved in the wrong direction. Net collection rate fell 2.7 points while Days in A/R rose by eight days. Scheduling efficiency improved, so the immediate question is not whether the group can see more patients. It is whether delayed collections and higher operating cost are absorbing the benefit of better schedule use.
Scorecard
| Measure | Current | Prior | Illustrative range | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days in A/R | 49 days | 41 days | 30 to 46 days | Watch |
| Net collection rate | 92.4% | 95.1% | 93.5% to 98.0% | Critical |
| Third-next-available | 21 days | 16 days | 10 to 22 days | Watch |
| Scheduling efficiency | 83% | 79% | 73% to 88% | Stable |
| Operating expense ratio | 71% | 67% | 60% to 72% | Watch |
| Revenue per provider | $72,000 | $74,500 | $60,000 to $90,000 | Stable |
Ranges are internally authored, industry-informed estimates for demonstration. They are not live peer data or licensed survey medians.
What changed
- Days in A/R rose from 41 to 49 days.
- Net collection rate fell from 95.1% to 92.4%.
- Operating expense ratio increased four points.
- Scheduling efficiency improved four points while access widened by five days.
Why it matters
The practice may be doing more scheduling work without converting that activity into cash quickly enough. If the pattern persists, it can narrow physician compensation and reduce room for hiring or investment even when the schedule looks busy.
Likely drivers to test
- Hypothesis: one or more payer work queues are aging faster than last month.
- Hypothesis: recent staffing or overtime expense is lifting overhead.
- Hypothesis: improved schedule use is concentrated in lower-reimbursement visit mix.
Recommended actions
- 1. Review the ten largest balances entering the 91+ day A/R bucket and group them by payer and claim status.
- 2. Reconcile the four-point expense increase to payroll, overtime, and one-time purchases before changing staffing.
- 3. Compare schedule utilization with collected revenue by site for the same period.
What not to chase yet
Do not add provider capacity based on the wider access measure alone. Scheduling efficiency improved, and the available practice-level data cannot show whether demand, templates, room constraints, or visit mix caused the delay.
What to watch next
- Days in A/R and net collection rate together
- Operating expense ratio after one-time costs are removed
- Third-next-available beside scheduling efficiency
Prior-period follow-up
Last month leadership planned to reduce unused template time. Scheduling efficiency improved from 79% to 83%, which suggests progress. Access still widened, so the next review should test whether appointment-type rules or site-level availability are limiting usable capacity.