White Paper: The in-house vs. outsourced billing questions answered

Most labs answer them as one, and that is what makes the decision expensive. Separating them is what makes it reversible.

BY TELCOR WITH KWAMI EDWARDS AND SARAH STEWART

READ THE PAPER →

Very few labs schedule this decision. Planning can lead a lab to it, but more often it is triggered by an event: a collections shortfall that shows up in a board meeting, a backlog someone finally counted, or the resignation of the one person who understood the payer rules. Startup labs meet it earlier and under different pressure, deciding whether billing is something they want to own while they are still trying to get a test to market. In both cases the question gets asked the same way. Keep billing in house, or hand it to a service? That framing is the problem. It bundles three decisions that have different time horizons and very different costs to undo.

THREE DECISIONS, NOT ONE

Who owns the technology sets the automation ceiling, the reporting depth, and the cost of each additional claim. Reversing it means a system replacement, a data migration, and a window where cash is at risk.

Who does the staffing sets how much payer expertise is available per claim and how elastic capacity is. Reversing it costs a hiring cycle or a transition plan.

Who is accountable determines whether anyone can see the numbers behind the numbers. It is cheap to change, but only if visibility was contracted for at the start. The market has already settled the crude version of the question. Ninety-seven percent of healthcare organizations outsource at least one revenue cycle function, and roughly 70% plan to expand what they outsource. But near-universal partial outsourcing is not an argument for an all-or-nothing switch, and an independent lab has far less room than a health system to absorb a bad quarter while finding out.

WHY IT IS BEING ASKED NOW

Four pressures are compounding at once, and each lands harder on a five-person billing team than on a hospital business office with a bench. Medicare has paid roughly $4 billion less for lab services since PAMA cuts began in 2018, and the cuts deferred to 2027 are deferred, not cancelled. The share of providers reporting denial rates above 10% climbed from 30% in 2022 to 41% in 2025. Billing roles turn over at 30 to 40% a year, with replacement commonly costed at $25,000 to $50,000 per biller. And the 2024 clearinghouse outage left 60% of surveyed hospitals needing two weeks to three months to resume normal operations.

Turnover is the one that gets understated, because billing work loses value while it waits. Unworked claims age toward appeal deadlines and timely-filing limits, so a vacancy quietly converts delayed work into permanent write-offs.

WHAT ACTUALLY DECIDES IT

In-house billing, executed well, produces the best economics available to a lab. It keeps the whole collections upside instead of sharing it. Reaching that ceiling takes three things: a billing owner who understands payer policy well enough to translate it into system configuration, a payer mix narrow enough for a small team to master, and technology that absorbs volume instead of converting growth into headcount. Labs that keep billing in-house without the first of those are not running an in-house model. They are running an unmanaged one.

Outsourcing is the clear answer when there is a gap between what the revenue cycle requires and what the lab wants to own: a startup that needs its attention on the science, a lab growing faster than it can hire, a lab that has decided managing a billing team is not a burden it wants to carry, or one that has billed in house long enough to conclude it lacks the expertise to maximize its revenue cycle. The structural advantage is specialization. A lab with revenue to support one or two billers needs those people to know everything. A service organizes the other way, so a small lab's handful of claims with a given payer is worked by someone handling hundreds of them.

What a lab gives up is control over method. What it should never give up is visibility. Outsourcing the work is not the same as outsourcing knowledge of the work, and reporting you receive but cannot interrogate is reporting you cannot verify.

THE QUESTION TO ASK BEFORE ANY VENDOR CALL

The most diagnostic question a lab CFO can ask is not about cost or vendors. It is what the billing team actually does all day. Data entry, or calling payers and investigating? Entry-level work, or higher-level thinking? The answer separates two problems that get confused with each other. A team consumed by repetitive entry indicates missing automation, which is a technology finding. A team already doing payer investigation and appeals and still falling behind indicates a capacity or expertise finding. The remedies are different, and labs regularly buy one when they needed the other.

ANSWER THE STAFFING QUESTION FOR TODAY, THE TECHNOLOGY QUESTION FOR THREE YEARS OUT

Weak technology fails in both models. In house, it puts a capable team in a position where it cannot reach the collections it should. Outsourced, it means paying for people to push buttons rather than for the collection opportunity. Automation, not headcount, sets the cost of a claim either way.

Which is why the durable recommendation is to decide the two separately. Decide the staffing question honestly for the lab that exists today. Decide the technology question for the lab that might exist in three years, and decide it on its own merits. Labs that do both keep the option to change their minds. Labs that bundle the decisions usually only get to make it once.

READ THE PAPER →

C O N T R I B U TO R S
Kwami Edwards
Chief Operating Officer, TELCOR
Sarah Stewart
Vice President, Revenue Cycle Services, TELCOR