Most financial leaders I speak with believe they have a solid handle on healthcare recoveries.
They can tell you how much they recovered last year. They can point to dashboards. They can show you upward-sloping trend lines.
And yet, when we look closely—not at reported performance, but at recoverable opportunity—the story almost always changes.
Across the industry, health payers routinely leave at least 20% of recoverable dollars unrealized. And on the opportunities they do identify, many fail to maximize outcomes by another 20–30%.
Rounding errors happen, but this is a structural blind spot. The reason it persists is a misunderstanding of where financial leakage actually occurs.
The first mistake: confusing activity with capture
Financial dashboards tend to reward visibility. If something is easy to measure, it gets attention. If it’s hard to see, it fades into the background. Recoveries suffer from this dynamic.
Most organizations track what they pursue, not what they miss. That distinction matters more than it sounds. When you measure performance only on identified cases, results can look strong. This is true even if most recoverable opportunity never enters the system.
In practice, finance teams often optimize within a constrained universe instead of questioning whether the universe is complete. That’s where the first 20% disappears.
The 20% identification gap no one budgets for
Based on decades of experience, retrospective analyses, and back-sweep comparisons, I've seen a consistent pattern. Roughly one in five recoverable opportunities is never identified at all. Why?
It’s because identification depends on:
- Timely signals
- Complete data
- Operational prioritization
- Experience recognizing non-obvious patterns
Many recoverable events don’t announce themselves clearly. They hide inside ordinary claims flows, incomplete eligibility data, or delayed documentation.
If your systems and workflows are designed primarily for processing rather than interrogation, those opportunities pass quietly through. Once they’re gone, they don’t show up on any report. On paper, they never existed.
The second mistake: assuming identification equals performance
Even when organizations do identify recoverable cases, a second, more subtle problem often emerges. They yield far less than what’s available.
This is especially common in subrogation, where financial leaders often treat partial recovery as full performance. It isn’t. A recovered dollar is not the same as a maximized dollar. And this is where another 20–30% of value often disappears.
Percent of lien: a metric that misleads more than it informs
One of the most commonly cited recovery metrics is percent of lien recovered. On the surface, it sounds reasonable. In practice, it’s dangerously easy to manipulate, intentionally or not.
A lien represents what was paid, not what was recoverable. For example, if a case has a $100,000 lien with only $50,000 in available recovery sources, then a 50% recovery may actually represent full performance. Conversely, a vendor can claim a 90% recovery rate by reporting only favorable cases and excluding harder ones. Unless you understand the full pool of cases, the available sources of recovery, and the denominator being used, percent-of-lien figures are almost meaningless.
Financial leaders should treat them with the same skepticism they’d apply to adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) without reconciliation.
Why legal expertise is a financial variable in healthcare recoveries
Healthcare recoveries are often framed as a data problem or a workflow problem. In reality, they’re also a legal problem. And legal expertise is one of the most underappreciated financial levers in healthcare operations.
After all, navigating complex liability scenarios, negotiating with plaintiff attorneys, and identifying secondary or tertiary recovery sources aren’t algorithmic tasks. They require judgment built over the years.
That’s why outcomes vary widely based on who works the case and how early they engage. This is also why recoveries tend to follow a power-law distribution.
The 80/20 reality of healthcare recoveries
In most recovery portfolios, 20% of files account for roughly 80% of recovered dollars. The remaining 80% of files make up a long tail of smaller, faster-resolving cases.
This matters for financial planning because it means a small number of high-dollar cases disproportionately drive ROI. Those cases are also the most complex, time-intensive, and legally nuanced.
If your operating model is optimized for throughput rather than depth, you will underperform where it matters most. Rather than volume, focus on selective intensity.
Time is a balance sheet variable
Another blind spot for financial leaders is timing.
Subrogation, in particular, behaves less like fine wine and more like cheese—it does not improve with age. The closer you are to the date of injury or accident, the greater your leverage—legally, financially, and relationally.
Early involvement allows you to:
- Put parties on notice
- Influence settlement structures
- Identify additional recovery sources
- Avoid adversarial postures
Late involvement positions you for either no attention or a costly fight. By the time a payer appears at the courthouse steps, leverage has evaporated and so has value. Timing doesn’t show up on income statements, but it shows up unmistakably in results.
Why technology alone doesn't close the gap
At this point, many financial leaders question whether AI is an option to increase healthcare recoveries. The answer is: only partially.
Technology can improve identification. It can surface patterns humans miss. It can accelerate intake and triage. But technology cannot replace legal judgment, negotiation strategy, member education, or context-aware decision-making.
When organizations adopt AI-first approaches without experience and operational discipline, they often amplify the wrong signals.
The hidden cost of metric inflation
One of the most damaging forces in this space is metric inflation. Financial leaders are shown numbers that sound impressive, like inflated cost-avoidance figures, unverifiable ROI multiples, and selectively reported success rates. These metrics are misleading at best, and at worst, they can actively distort decision-making.
I’ve seen organizations switch vendors based on paper performance, only to reverse course 18 months later when reality failed to match the numbers.
The cost of that whiplash stretches beyond financial reports into operational performance. Trust erodes, teams disengage, and leadership credibility takes a hit.
What healthcare financial leaders should measure instead
If you want a clearer picture of recovery performance, focus on metrics that are harder to fake:
- Opportunity identification rate: What percentage of recoverable events are entering the system?
- Recovered dollars as a share of available recovery: How much of the realistically recoverable value did we actually capture?
- Time-to-engagement: How quickly does a case move from signal to action?
- Outcome distribution: Are a few wins masking systemic underperformance?
These metrics require more effort to calculate, but they reflect reality. And reality is where financial decisions should live.
Healthcare recoveries are an operational strategy, not a line item
One reason healthcare recoveries underperform is that they’re often treated as a function, not a strategy. They sit somewhere between finance, legal, and operations, owned by everyone and no one.
But the organizations that consistently outperform treat recoveries as a strategic discipline:
- They align incentives with outcomes
- They invest in expertise, not just tooling
- They measure rigorously and revisit assumptions
This mirrors a broader lesson about technology adoption more generally, which I explored in How Healthcare Leaders Can Adopt New Technology Without Disrupting Operations.
When discipline leads, performance follows.
The workforce dimension financial leaders overlook
There’s one more variable that rarely appears in financial models: human attention.
When analysts and operators are buried in low-value tasks, recoveries suffer. This isn’t because of capability, but because of constraints. Rather, teams are restricted by unreasonable workflows that don’t capture their highest and best value.
Automation, when applied thoughtfully, can free experts to focus on the cases that matter most. Workforce strategy and financial strategy are inseparable. You maximize recoveries when your teams work smarter and automate low-value tasks.
Where healthcare spend shows up
Most financial leaders aren’t reckless. They’re rational, and they operate with the information in front of them. The problem is that the most important information remains invisible unless it’s actively pursued.
Healthcare recoveries exist within a much larger financial context. That context is shaped by total health spending and growth across the system.
National health expenditure continues to rise as healthcare spending increases across physician and clinical services. This also includes retail prescription drugs and public health programs.
In 2024, overall health spending increased across both private health insurance and Medicaid. According to CMS National Health Expenditure data and Health Affairs analyses, recent spending growth has been driven largely by increased utilization rather than price changes.
On a per capita health spending basis, average spending continues to climb. Higher enrollee spending, rising out-of-pocket spending, and sustained growth in personal health spending all contribute, especially among older adults.
As healthcare costs take up a larger share of gross domestic product, the shares of total health paid by members, payers, and providers continue to shift. For health systems, even modest improvements in recoveries can have an outsized financial impact on the cost of care for all members.
Recoveries may represent a small portion of total health spending, but in an environment with thin margins and rising scrutiny, they remain one of the few levers leaders can directly control.
The money left on the table doesn’t announce itself. It doesn’t show up as a variance. It simply never arrives. Once the entire picture is clear, it matters less how it happened than what it would take to stop it.
That’s the question worth answering, and the one that separates adequate performance from exceptional financial stewardship.
Machinify helps healthcare payers see the full picture of their claims so that they can reduce the cost of care for all members. Talk to our team to see how our approach helps payers get it right the first time.
The content on this page is subject to our Terms of Use.
