Closing the Ambition-Execution Gap: C-Suite Perspectives on Reaching Mid-Revenue Cycle AI Maturity
You can access the full report on our website here.
Health systems are falling behind their own payers in the revenue cycle. Payers are increasingly using AI and automation to process, review, and deny claims at a scale and speed legacy mid-cycle infrastructure was never built to match. A recent benchmarking report put final denial rates above 14%, amounting to $48.4 billion in lost revenue and a more than 25% increase over 2024. Each time payers refine their algorithms, reactive systems give up more, and those losses compound. For most, managing the mid-cycle reactively has become a strategic risk rather than an operational inconvenience.
The findings from 81 senior revenue cycle leaders across U.S. health systems, contextualized by 5 in-depth interviews with C-suite executives, point to real ambition. 62% of leaders expect to move their MRCM strategy upstream toward prevention, but the obstacle is capacity. Most systems lack infrastructure, alignment, and financial flexibility to act, and that gap between ambition and execution is where this report focuses.
Why It Matters:
Mid-cycle problems rarely stay fixed. New providers, new service lines, and shifting payer behavior mean reactive systems lose ground. With 73% of systems not quantifying what inefficiencies cost, leaders make expensive, hard-to-reverse decisions on an optimistic read of their operations. This report shows how organizations position MRCM, what they measure, and where the ambition-execution gap runs deepest. For any leader protecting margin as payers automate, that picture is essential.
Three Key Conclusions:
AI acts as scaffolding for existing architecture, not a substitute for one.
Systems that build revenue integrity infrastructure and identify inefficiencies before layering AI realize and sustain value over time. Those that deploy AI first miss the compounding returns of an already optimized mid-cycle.
A durable ROI assessment separates lift from value.
Capturing the value of AI investment requires measuring long-term performance gains over traditional metrics like revenue lift. Systems that conflate the two underinvest in mid-cycle AI and underestimate the cost of persistent gaps.
Outsourcing trades operational burden for strategic distance.
Offloading mid-cycle functions shapes visibility, alignment, and AI readiness in ways leaders rarely anticipate. Increasingly, systems are reclaiming strategic ownership while maintaining external execution.
The Bottom Line:
A reactive posture cannot keep up with payers automating their side of the revenue cycle. Leading systems measure where inefficiencies concentrate, build a durable revenue integrity foundation, and then apply AI to the problems staff cannot solve alone. Acting now positions them to prevent denials, recover earned revenue, and keep pace before losses grow unrecoverable.