Claim Aging by Payer
The RemittanceWhich claims are past the interval you set for that payer.
A thirty-sixty-ninety report is the same report in every practice in the country, so working it means reading every line and remembering which payers are simply slow. The one thing that would sort the list — what each payer actually does — is the one thing the report does not hold.
Every practice system ages receivables into thirty, sixty and ninety day buckets, and those buckets are the same everywhere — which is why they cannot tell a claim at forty days with a payer who settles at fifty from one with a payer who settles at twenty. This uses the interval you set, per payer, and sorts by how far past it each claim is.
About this tool
Claim Aging by Payer: what it solves
This is the same question the Recall Due List asks about a patient, pointed at money, and it uses the same date arithmetic rather than a second copy of it: who is past the interval we set, and how far past. The interval belongs to the practice and it is set per payer, because it came from watching that payer settle. There are no universal buckets on the page on purpose — putting them beside your own intervals would quietly teach a reader that the universal ones are the real measure. A denied claim stays in the total and is flagged rather than netted away, because denied money has not arrived and has not been written off, and a denial quietly removed from an aging report is how a practice discovers a year later that nobody appealed anything. A claim whose date cannot be read sorts to the end rather than to either extreme, and says so. It predicts no payment, scores no payer, suggests no interval, and never decides to write anything off.
The interval is per payer, because it came from watching that payer
Every payer settles at its own pace. You know this. Your biller knows it in their bones — they know which one to chase at three weeks and which one is simply slow and always has been.
That knowledge is the asset, and it is nowhere. It is not in the practice management system, not in the clearinghouse, and not in any report either produces. It lives in a person, and it walks out of the building when they take a week off.
This holds it. One interval per payer, set by you, from what you have watched. Then it applies that interval to every claim and sorts by how far past it is, furthest first.
There are no universal aging buckets on this page, and that is deliberate
Thirty, sixty, ninety. Every aging report you have ever seen.
Put those beside your own intervals and something quiet happens: the universal ones start reading as the real measure, and yours start reading as a preference. A claim at thirty-five days looks fine in a thirty-day bucket regardless of the fact that this particular payer has never once taken more than three weeks.
So the buckets are not here. The measure is your interval, per payer, and nothing on the page invites you to compare it to a number from somewhere else.
A denied claim stays in the total
This is the one that costs practices the most, and it is an accounting habit rather than a decision.
Denied money has not arrived. It has also not been written off. It is in a third state — appealable, outstanding, and entirely real — and netting it out of an aging report makes the report tidier while making it useless.
What happens next is predictable. The denial leaves the report, nobody sees it again, nobody appeals it, and a year later somebody works out what was left on the table.
Denials stay in the total here and are flagged. They are visible, they are counted, and they age like everything else.
An unreadable date sorts to the end and says so
Not to the top, where it would look like the most urgent thing on the page. Not to the bottom, where it would look settled.
To the end, named, with the reason. A claim whose date cannot be read is a data problem rather than a collections problem, and it needs a different action from either extreme.
What it replaces
The aging report from the practice system, which buckets by universal intervals, nets denials away, and does not know which payers you are worried about. Or the check that happens when cash flow gets tight, which is later than it should be by definition.
You set an interval per payer once. Each run is the outstanding list.
Who it is for
Medical, dental and behavioral health billing — anywhere claims go out to several payers with genuinely different settlement behavior and somebody has to decide what to chase today.
What it will not do
It predicts no payment. It does not estimate when a claim will settle, and it does not assign a likelihood to anything.
It scores no payer. No reliability rating, no grade, no ranking. It applies the interval you set and reports what is past it.
It suggests no interval. Yours comes from what you have watched. That watching is the expertise this tool exists to hold, and inventing a number would replace it with a guess.
It never decides to write anything off. That is a real decision with real consequences and it belongs to a person.
Nothing you type is sent anywhere. The arithmetic runs in your browser. Claim data is protected information, and none of it leaves the machine you typed it on. Close the tab and it is gone.
Yours would be built the same way.
This one runs on made-up data. The version built for your business runs on yours, and you own it outright. Builds start at $2,500. That is a floor, not a quote. What yours costs is agreed before any work begins. The first conversation is free.