In-house billing vs. outsourcing: which is right for my practice?
In-house billing gives you control and lower marginal cost at scale but depends entirely on one or two people; outsourcing trades a percentage of collections (typically 4–9%) for capacity and continuity. The real question isn't either/or — it's which parts of the revenue cycle each option actually does well, because most billing companies focus on clean-claim throughput and quietly ignore the denied and underpaid tail.
What actually matters
- In-house: full control and knowledge of your patients, but fragile — biller turnover or a leave can stall cash flow
- Outsourced: capacity and continuity, but you pay a percentage and lose some visibility, and quality varies widely
- Most billing companies optimize for first-pass claims; the aged, denied, and underpaid tail is where they under-invest because it's labor-intensive
- A hybrid is common: keep front-end and posting in-house, and use specialists for the parts that need scale (denials, underpayments, old A/R)
- Judge any option on net collection rate and the over-90 A/R, not on how fast clean claims go out
Common questions
How much do medical billing companies charge?
Most charge 4–9% of collections, sometimes higher for small or complex practices. Some charge per-claim. Watch what's excluded — many don't work denials or underpayments as part of the base fee.
Where Volari fits: Volari isn't a replacement biller — it works the denied and underpaid tail your team or biller can't get to, and you only pay on what it recovers.
See the revenue you're owed but never collected.
A free assessment shows your real recoverable number from denied and underpaid claims. No risk, paid only on what we recover.