.png)
Most physician practices are not underperforming because of insufficient patient demand. They are underperforming because revenue that should be captured at every stage of the patient encounter — from scheduling through billing — is quietly leaving the business without anyone noticing.
These are not catastrophic failures. They are incremental inefficiencies, each small enough to go unaddressed, that compound over time into a significant gap between what a practice earns and what it should earn. In our experience working with physician-owned practices across specialty healthcare, the gap is almost always larger than the physician expects — and almost always recoverable.
The Billing and Coding Gap
The most common revenue leak in physician practices is also the least visible: systematic undercoding and billing inefficiency.
CPT code selection is frequently conservative by default. Physicians and their coding staff tend to undercode rather than overbill — a reasonable instinct given compliance risk, but one that has a direct and measurable cost. A practice that consistently selects a lower-level evaluation and management code when a higher-level code is clinically supported is leaving money on every single encounter. Across thousands of visits per year, that differential adds up to a number that is meaningful.
Modifier usage is another consistent gap. Modifiers that would allow for full reimbursement on procedures performed on the same day — or that distinguish between distinct clinical services — are frequently omitted, resulting in automatic bundling or denial by payors. Staff are often unaware the modifier exists or uncertain whether it applies, and the path of least resistance is to leave it off.
Documentation quality compounds both problems. When clinical documentation does not support the level of service billed, the code gets downgraded on audit or denied on review. When it does not capture the full complexity of the encounter, the coder cannot bill what the physician actually delivered. The solution is not more compliance training — it is building a documentation workflow that captures the right information at the point of care rather than reconstructing it afterward.
Ancillary Revenue Left on the Table
Most specialty practices have the clinical infrastructure to offer ancillary services — diagnostic testing, therapeutic procedures, monitoring protocols — that are directly relevant to the conditions they treat. A significant number are not capturing this revenue.
In some cases the services are being provided but referred out, sending revenue to a third party that the practice could retain. In others, the services are available but not being systematically offered to patients who would benefit from them. In still others, the practice has not evaluated whether its payor contracts allow for in-office ancillary billing at rates that make it worthwhile.
The analysis required to identify and close this gap is not complex. It is a matter of mapping what the practice delivers, what it refers out, what its patient population needs, and what its payors will reimburse. The practices that have done this work consistently find recoverable revenue they were not aware of.
Follow-Up and Recall Failure
Patient lifetime value in specialty care depends on follow-up. A patient who completes an initial treatment course and does not return for monitoring, maintenance, or the next phase of their care plan represents lost revenue — and often a worse clinical outcome.
Most practices have no systematic process for patient recall. Appointment reminders exist, but proactive outreach to patients who have fallen out of care does not. There is no tracking of which patients are due for follow-up, no workflow for reaching out to them, and no visibility into how many patients have lapsed and what that represents in lost revenue.
The fix is operational, not clinical. A recall protocol, a simple tracking system, and staff accountability for outreach are sufficient to recover a meaningful portion of this lapsed revenue. The practices that implement this consistently see measurable improvement in both retention and revenue per patient within a few months.
Scheduling Inefficiency and Capacity Loss
A practice that is nominally full is not necessarily generating maximum revenue. Scheduling inefficiency — last-minute cancellations without fill, suboptimal appointment slot length, poor sequencing of high-value and low-value encounters — creates capacity loss that never appears on a financial statement but is real nonetheless.
The average physician practice carries more unfilled appointment time than it realizes. When that time is quantified and its revenue equivalent calculated, the number motivates action in a way that abstract discussions of scheduling efficiency do not.
Fixing scheduling inefficiency requires visibility first. How many appointments cancel within 48 hours? What is the fill rate on those slots? What percentage of provider time is genuinely productive? Practices that measure these things find the answers uncomfortable — and then fix them.
Payor Contract Passivity
Most physician practices sign payor contracts at inception and do not revisit them for years. Reimbursement rates that were reasonable at signing erode in real terms as costs increase. Contractual provisions that were acceptable early in a practice's development become constraints as volume and leverage improve.
Payor contracts are negotiable. Most physicians do not negotiate them — not because the leverage doesn't exist, but because the analysis required to identify where rates are below market, and the process for engaging a payor on renegotiation, falls outside the operational bandwidth of a practice focused on clinical delivery.
A systematic review of payor contracts — comparing current rates against market benchmarks and identifying the highest-priority renegotiation targets — is one of the highest-return analytical exercises a practice can undertake. The revenue recovered through a single successful renegotiation can exceed what operational improvements deliver in the same period.
The Visibility Problem That Underlies All of It
What connects all of these revenue leaks is a common root cause: the practice does not have real-time visibility into its own performance.
A physician who does not know their average revenue per encounter by payor, their coding distribution relative to benchmarks, their ancillary capture rate, or their follow-up conversion cannot see where revenue is being lost. The information exists somewhere in their practice management system, but it is not surfaced, analyzed, or acted on.
Barritus Capital's starting point with every practice we work with is building that visibility. Not as a reporting exercise, but as a foundation for action. When a practice can see in real time where revenue is leaving and why, the work of closing those gaps becomes tractable. The decisions that were previously based on intuition get made with data. The results follow.
For physicians and founders who suspect their practice is generating less revenue than it should — and who want to understand the gap before deciding what to do about it — the conversation starts with looking at the numbers together.
If you are a physician, founder, broker, or advisor working with specialty healthcare businesses, Barritus Capital would welcome the opportunity to share our perspective.
