Selected accounts receivable performance statistics for radiology practices: an analysis of the adjusted collection percentage and days charges in accounts receivable.

OBJECTIVE

To provide comparative data and analysis with respect to accounts receivable management performance criteria.

METHODS

Data from 3 sources were analyzed: the Radiology Business Management Association's (RBMA) 2003 Accounts Receivable Performance Survey; the RBMA's 2003 Accounts Receivable Survey; and Hogan and Sunshine's 2004 Radiology article "Financial Ratios in Diagnostic Radiology Practices: Variability and Trends," the data for which were drawn primarily from the ACR's 1999 Survey of Practices. The RBMA surveyed (via e-mail and postal mail) only its members, with response rates of 15% and 9%, respectively. The ACR's survey response rate was 66%, via postal mail, and was distributed without regard to the RBMA membership status of the practice manager or even whether the practice employed a practice manager. Comparison among the survey results provided information on trends.

RESULTS

Median practice professional component adjusted collection percentage (ACP) deteriorated from 87.3% to 85.1% between the RBMA surveys. Practices limited to global fee billing faired much better when performing their billing in house, as opposed to using a billing service, with mean ACPs of 91.2% and 79.4%, respectively. Days charges in accounts receivable 2004 mean results for professional component billing and global fee billing were nearly identical at 56.11 and 55.54 days, respectively. The 2003 RBMA survey reported 63.74 days for professional component billing and 77.33 days for global fee billing. The improvement from 2003 to 2004 was highly significant for both professional component billing and global fee billing. The 2004 RBMA survey also reflected a rather dramatic improvement in days charges in accounts receivable compared with Hogan and Sunshine's results, which showed a mean of 69 days charges in accounts receivable.

CONCLUSION

The conflicting trends between ACP performance and days charges in accounts receivable performance may be explained by the increasing sophistication of accounts receivable management processes (improving days charges in accounts receivable) and the deterioration in the general economy between survey periods (decreasing ACPs). Additionally, generally better accounts receivable management performance was experienced by practices employing RBMA members (RBMA survey participants) compared with those that may or may not have employed RBMA members (ACR survey participants).