[3] RESEARCH · WHITE PAPER 2026.01 SUPERSCRIPT.NYC
A DATA-DRIVEN ANALYSIS · 20 SPECIALTIES · 1.9M CLAIMS · 35 PRACTICES

The State of
Patient Collections.

We analyzed 1.9 million patient-owed claims to understand what's actually happening with collections as practices adopt more tools to capture patient revenue.

6-MONTH COLLECTION RATE · CY 2025
0.0%
The data reveals where collection works, where it breaks down, and what drives the difference.
CLAIMS ANALYZED
1,900,805
UNIQUE PATIENTS
687,663
SPECIALTIES
20
STATES
44
[1] THE HEADLINE N=1,900,805 · 6-MO WINDOW

Where the uncollected
dollars are.

Deductibles are 25% of the insured claims that go unpaid but 56% of the uncollected dollars. Copays are the mirror image: 49% of the unpaid claims, 25% of the dollars. Of the $88.1M in insured cost-share liability, $15.7M goes uncollected, and the problem sits in a small number of high-balance deductible claims rather than spread evenly across the book.

CHART 1A
Uncollected by claim volume
EACH SQUARE = 1% OF UNCOLLECTED CLAIMS
CHART 1B
Uncollected by dollars
EACH SQUARE = 1% OF UNCOLLECTED DOLLARS
Deductibles are 25% of unpaid insured claims but 56% of uncollected dollars.
CHART 2
Collection rates by cost-share type
6-MO RATE · PRACTICE AVG (UNWEIGHTED) VS DOLLAR-WEIGHTED
"By practice" treats each practice equally regardless of size. "By dollars" weights each practice by how much patient liability it carries. Copay is the only type where the weighting matters much: 88% by practice against 89% by dollars, because the largest practices are copay-heavy and collect copays well. Deductible and coinsurance land within a point either way, so the spread in those categories is not a size effect.
CHART 3
Practice-level collection rate distribution
EACH DOT = 1 PRACTICE · IQR 66.0%–87.5%
No single number captures the full picture. The best practice collects 98%; the worst, 31%.
CHART 3B
The spread narrows for copay, widens for coinsurance
EACH DOT = 1 PRACTICE · IQR: COPAY 84–95% · DED 70–91% · COINS 62–87%
CHART 4
Collection rates across 35 practices with wide-ranging department counts
AGGREGATE RATE (DOT) · DEPARTMENT RANGE (BAR) · CY 2025
Multi-department practices show wide intrapractice variance. The largest multi-site network (333 depts) ranges 26–100%. Single-department practices show only the aggregate dot. Departments with >$10K liability and ≥25% collection rate included.
MetricValue
Claims analyzed (N)1,900,805
6-month collection rate70.3%
Practice-level range30.6% – 97.9%
Practice-level median77.5%
Practice-level IQR (P25–P75)66.0% – 87.5%
Median collectable per claim$30
Mean collectable per claim$68
[2] THE 60-DAY WINDOW N=1,900,805 · LOG TIME AXIS

After day 60,
the curve flattens.

For every dollar a patient owes, the collection curve answers: when? The answer is front-loaded. The average practice has already collected 20% by the time the first bill posts. 62% within 30 days. 68% within 60. From day 61 to day 180, the marginal return is under 7 cents on the dollar. The shape holds across all 35 practices.

CHART 5 · CENTERPIECE
The collection curve
CUMULATIVE % COLLECTED · DAYS FROM FIRST LIABILITY POSTING
Practice-average rates measured from first patient-liability posting date. Denominator is TRANSFERIN (cost-share liability). Each practice weighted equally regardless of size. All active departments, CY 2025.
The average practice collects 68 cents in the first 60 days, then only 5 in the next 60, and 4 over the rest of the year.
CHART 6
Balance size is the strongest predictor of collection speed
CUMULATIVE RATE BY BALANCE BUCKET · 6-MO WINDOW
Under $50: 90% at six months. Over $1,000: 36%. The gap opens immediately: by day 14, small balances are at 73% while $1,000+ claims have reached only 25%.
[3] BALANCE & COST-SHARE BALANCE SIZE · COST-SHARE TYPE

What patients owe determines
whether they pay.

Copays collect at 89%. Deductibles at 78%. Coinsurance at 73%. Balance size compounds the effect: the $0–$50 bucket collects at 90%, while $1,000+ claims collect at 35%. Copays hold near 90% up to $75, then fall steadily. Claims over $1,000 are 0.4% of volume and lose almost two-thirds of their value.

CHART 7A
Collection rate drops as balance grows
6-MO AGGREGATE
CHART 7B
Unpaid share quadruples above $1,000
FULLY PAID · PARTIAL · UNPAID
The $1,000+ problem: These claims are 0.4% of volume. Only 40% are fully paid within six months, and 36% collect nothing at all.
CHART 7C
Dollars collected vs uncollected, by balance
6-MONTH HORIZON · BLUE = COLLECTED · RED = UNCOLLECTED
The $1,000+ bucket is 0.4% of claim volume but leaves $14.5M uncollected, the largest amount of any balance band.
CHART 8
Copay collection holds near 90% to $75, then falls steadily
COLLECTION RATE BY COPAY AMOUNT
Copays from $1 to $40 sit flat at 92.3–92.9%. Erosion starts at $41–50 (90.9%) and the decline runs steadily from there: 89.5% at $51–75, 83.9% at $76–100, 82.3% at $101–150, 74.6% above $150. The two steepest steps are into $76–100, down 5.6 points, and into $150+, down 7.7 points.

The $251–$1,000 zone (62–63% collection) is where payment-plan intervention has the highest return: balances large enough to matter, but not so large that patients have already received financial counseling. Collecting any portion of a balance upfront establishes a payment relationship that changes downstream behavior.

[4] THE DEDUCTIBLE SHIFT ALL ACTIVE DEPARTMENTS · 2019–2025

Deductible patterns vary more
by specialty than by year.

Across all practices, deductibles hold a steady 42–48% of cost-share liability, but that aggregate hides real movement at the specialty level. OB/GYN saw deductible share grow 11 percentage points since 2019, while dermatology and gastroenterology moved the other way. Deductible claims are 5x a copay claim by average balance and collect slower at every time horizon. Every January, reset deductibles spike to 64% of cost-share liability, concentrating dollars in the slowest-collecting category. Those January claims still collect at the highest rate of the year.

CHART 9
Deductible share of patient liability, 2019–2025
STACKED TOTAL · ALL ACTIVE DEPARTMENTS
CHART 9B
Three specialties, three different stories
COST-SHARE COMPOSITION · 2019–2025
One practice per profile, cost-share dollars only. Gastroenterology stays deductible-led, 60% down to 56%, with coinsurance taking up the difference (23% to 30%). Dermatology is copay-led and drifting further that way, 48% to 54%. Vascular Surgery started deductible-led and now splits three ways, with copay up 10 points to 36%.
CHART 9C
Deductible share is shifting in some specialties, not others
DEDUCTIBLE % OF COST-SHARE LIABILITY · SAME-STORE PRACTICES · 2019 vs. 2025
Same-store comparison: only the 14 practices with patient-liability data in both 2019 and 2025. Denominator is copay + deductible + coinsurance (excludes Other/Self-pay). OB/GYN moved the most, up 11 percentage points. Neurology and health-system multispecialty each grew about 3. Dermatology and gastroenterology moved in the opposite direction, with copay and coinsurance share growing at the expense of deductible. The aggregate trend masks specialty-level divergence.
CHART 10
Deductibles spike to 64% of cost-share liability every January
COST-SHARE MIX AS % OF MONTHLY TOTAL · JAN 2022 – DEC 2025
January deductible liability is three times December. Q1 concentrates 39% of annual deductible dollars in 25% of the calendar.
CHART 11
January deductible claims actually collect best
MONTHLY DEDUCTIBLE COLLECTION RATE · 2025
Counter-intuitive: deductible claims in January collect at 80%, the best month of the year, while June claims collect at 77%. Early-year awareness of the deductible reset may drive faster payment.
[5] YEAR-OVER-YEAR TRENDS ALL ACTIVE DEPARTMENTS · 2019–2025

Collection rates climbed
9 points, then gave back 4.

The aggregate collection rate rose from 65% in 2019 to 74% in 2023, then fell to 70% by 2025 as larger and lower-collecting practices joined the dataset. Coinsurance saw the largest gain of any cost-share type, rising 36 points from 37% to a 73% peak in 2024. Copay rates held near 90% across all years. Q1 collection runs 5 to 6 points above the rest of the year, but the composition shift concentrates dollars in the slowest-collecting category.

CHART 12A
Collection rate peaked in 2023, then slipped
ALL ACTIVE DEPARTMENTS · 6-MO AGGREGATE RATE
Aggregate rate climbed from 65% (2019) to 74% (2023), then fell to 70% by 2025 as larger and lower-collecting practices joined the dataset.
CHART 12B
Coinsurance surged 36 points from 2019 to its 2024 peak
6-MO RATE BY COST-SHARE TYPE
Coinsurance collection rose from 37% (2019) to 73% (2024 peak), the largest gain of any cost-share type. Copay held near 90% across all years, peaking at 91% in 2023.
PeriodAvg balanceDeductible share6-mo rate
Q1 2024$75.1857.9%77.0%
Q2–Q4 2024$66.2240.7%71.6%
Q1 2025$74.7957.5%74.5%
Q2–Q4 2025$65.5640.0%68.6%

Q1 outperforms the rest of the year in both years: 77.0% against 71.6% in 2024, and 74.5% against 68.6% in 2025. Both years are fully mature against the 180-day window. Q1 carries the harder book on both counts, a $9 higher average balance and a deductible share of 58% against 40%, and still collects 5 to 6 points better. Patients expect the January charge.

[6] PATIENT BEHAVIOR PAYMENT HISTORY · BALANCE FATIGUE · VISIT PATTERNS

Past behavior predicts
future payment.

Patients who have previously paid all claims collect at 84%. One prior default drops the rate to 63%. The effect compounds: patients with $250+ in cumulative prior unpaid balances collect at just 43% on new claims, a 42-point drop from those with clean histories. Among patients who still owed anything at six months, the top 1% hold 34% of the uncollected balance.

CHART 13
Prior unpaid balances collapse future collection
PATIENTS WITH 3+ CLAIMS · COLLECTION RATE BY CUMULATIVE UNPAID BALANCE
Patients with $250+ in cumulative prior unpaid balances collect at 43%, down from 85% for patients with clean histories. Each balance threshold marks a step down: $1-25 (82%), $26-50 (75%), $51-100 (71%), $101-250 (64%). History computed across all claims ever at the practice.
CHART 14
One prior default drops collection from 84% to 63%
COLLECTION RATE BY ALL-TIME PATIENT PAYMENT HISTORY
Patients who have previously paid all claims collect at 84%. One prior unpaid claim drops the rate to 63%; two or more drops it to 49%. History computed across all claims ever at the practice.
CHART 15
1,743 patients hold a third of the uncollected balance
PARETO DISTRIBUTION · PATIENTS WITH A BALANCE AT SIX MONTHS · CY 2025
The 174,290 patients still owing something at six months, ranked by balance. The top 1% is 1,743 patients holding $12.94M, an average of $7,425 each; the top 10% covers 67% of the $38.4M outstanding. Segment shares are marginal, not cumulative. The published FY24-25 version ranked across every patient including those who owed nothing, so this chart is not directly comparable to it.
CHART 16A
New patients collect 11 points lower
RATE · NEW VS ESTABLISHED
New patients: 63% vs 74% for established. First-visit patients lack payment history and may not have payment methods on file. New = within 30 days of first-ever visit at the practice.
CHART 16B
Collection jumps after the first visit, then flattens
CY 2025 INTRA-WINDOW
Single-visit patients collect at 65.0%. Every return-visit group lands between 70.2% and 71.9%, with 2–3 visits and 7+ visits tied at 71.9% and 4–6 visits slightly below both. The gap is between a first visit and any second one. Visit frequency past that does not move the rate.
[7] SPECIALTY & SETTING 20 SPECIALTIES · 35 PRACTICES

Patient collections pose a bigger challenge
for some specialties, and CPTs.

Dermatology collects at 98%. Gastroenterology, the largest specialty by dollar volume, collects at 67%. Within every category, the spread between individual practices dwarfs the group average.

CHART 17
6-month collection rate by specialty
GREEN ≥85% · YELLOW 70–85% · RED <70%
Dermatology leads at 98%. Sleep Medicine (96%) and Internal Medicine (90%) also collect above average. Orthopedics & Spine (36%) and OB/GYN (55%) lag. Single-practice specialties (n=1) reflect one practice, not a benchmark.
CHART 18
Gastroenterology: largest collection opportunity by dollar volume
Y: 6-MO RATE · X: MEDIAN BALANCE · SIZE: TOTAL $
Bubble size = total collectable. Gastroenterology combines high claims, low rate, and low price awareness.
CHART 19
Collection rate by procedure code
BAR LENGTH = 6-MO COLLECTION RATE · COLOR = RATE TIER
CHART 20
Established visits hold above 81%. New patient visits slide as complexity rises.
E&M OFFICE VISIT COLLECTION RATE BY COMPLEXITY LEVEL · CY 2025
Established visits (99212-99215) collect at 81 to 85%, edging up with complexity. New patient visits fall from 79% at level 2 to 76% at level 5 as the average balance rises from $78 to $83. The gap at the highest level is 9 points, suggesting new patients are sensitive to balance size in ways established patients are not.
[8] WHERE THE MONEY GOES 144,170 CLAIMS SENT TO COLLECTION

Half of uncollected dollars go to
collection agencies.

When internal follow-up fails, the default path is external collections. Half of uncollected patient dollars are written off to third-party agencies, which recover an estimated 25–40% of face value. This is the most expensive dollar a practice collects. The 70.3% rate does not include what agencies recover; it measures only what the practice collects internally.

CHART 24
Where write-off dollars go
CY 2025 · PATIENT ADJUSTMENT TRANSACTIONS
Of the $19.2M sent to external collection agencies, industry benchmarks suggest 25–40% of face value is recovered. At the midpoint (32%), that implies ~$6.1M returned to practices through third-party collections. This recovered amount is not captured in the 70.3% rate, which measures only internal collection.
[9] KEY TAKEAWAYS

What the data
says.

[A] FOR PRACTICE OPERATORS
[1]

The first 60 days are everything.

The average practice collects 68% within the first 60 days of billing. Months three through six add under 7 points. A fifth is collected before the first bill even posts. Deductible and coinsurance claims start at 6 to 7% at billing, making immediate outreach on those categories the highest-return operational change.
[2]

Intervene by balance size, not by days outstanding.

$1,000+ balances are 0.4% of claims. Only 40% are fully paid versus 88% under $50. Payment-plan offers triggered by balance amount at the time of billing, not after 90 days of non-payment, intercept the problem early.
[3]

Build a January playbook.

Deductibles spike to three times December in January. Q1 concentrates 39% of annual deductible dollars in 25% of the calendar. Q1 deductible claims collect at the highest rates of the year (78–80%) when patients expect the charge. Proactive communication before January 1 keeps that advantage.
[4]

Coinsurance is the least collected, least understood cost-share type.

Lowest 6-month collection rate at 73%. A simple "your plan pays X%, you'll owe approximately $Y" message at scheduling closes the price-awareness gap that separates 89% collection from 73%.
[B] FOR INDUSTRY OBSERVERS
[1]

The deductible shift is specialty-dependent.

Aggregate deductible share has held steady at 42–48% since 2019, but the average masks real movement. OB/GYN grew 11 points; neurology and health-system multispecialty grew about 3; dermatology and gastroenterology shifted away from deductible. Benefit design is reshaping the collection challenge differently by specialty.
[2]

Collection rates climbed 9 points since 2019, then gave back 4.

65% to 74% (2023), then down to 70% by 2025. Each cohort of new practices has entered below the existing average, so the aggregate has fallen even as the earlier practices held their gains.
[3]

29.7% of patient liability remains uncollected at six months.

Across 35 practices. The gap is binary, concentrated in the 12% of claims where patients pay nothing.
[4]

Break the balance-fatigue spiral.

Patients with $250+ in cumulative prior unpaid balances collect at 43% on new claims, down from 85% for those with clean histories. The decline is steep and starts early: even $1-25 in prior balance drops the rate to 82%. Payment plans before balances accumulate prevent the spiral from starting.
[10] METHODOLOGY · LIMITATIONS · DATASET FOR REPRODUCIBILITY

How to read
this report.

The dataset

35 Athena tablespaces covering 33 organizations across 44 states. One health system contributes three tablespaces (Tennessee, Utah and Virginia), which are reported separately because they bill and collect separately. 1,900,805 claims with patient liability in CY 2025, as of the 24 August 2026 data pull. The dataset grew nearly 6x since 2019 as practices onboarded. Aggregate metrics use the CY 2025 cross-section; year-over-year trends use all active departments.

CLAIMS WITH PATIENT LIABILITY
1.9M
CY 2025
6-MO COLLECTION RATE
70.3%
ALL PATIENT LIABILITY
PRACTICES
35
44 STATES
SPECIALTIES
20
ATHENA EHR
APPENDIX A
Claims analyzed by year, 2019–2025
PATIENT-LIABLE CLAIMS PER CALENDAR YEAR

Self-pay & uninsured claims

Parts 1 through 8 measure collection on insured patient cost-share: copays, deductibles, and coinsurance assigned by insurance through the TRANSFERIN transaction. Self-pay claims, where the patient owes the full charge with no insurance cost-share assignment, are excluded from those analyses. The two populations differ in balance size (3.4x higher for self-pay), collection workflow (no EOB-driven posting timeline), and patient expectation (no payer-negotiated rate). Combining them would obscure both stories.

Self-pay represents 4.7% of claims but 14.4% of patient liability in CY 2025. Self-pay identification uses the absence of a TRANSFERIN (cost-share assignment) transaction, which may capture patients whose insurance was expected but never posted, not just true uninsured patients. This makes the self-pay population noisier than the insured cohort. What follows is a standalone profile.

APPENDIX E
Self-pay: 5% of claims, 14% of liability
SELF-PAY LIABILITY ($M) · % LABELS = SHARE OF TOTAL
APPENDIX F
Self-pay collection lags insured and is more volatile
6-MO COLLECTION RATE BY YEAR
CY 2025InsuredSelf-pay
Claims1,810,993 (95.3%)89,812 (4.7%)
Patient liability$110.6M (85.6%)$18.6M (14.4%)
6-month collection rate73.0%54.0%
Average balance$61$207
Median balance$27$100
Sent to collections128,175 · $14.3M14,577 · $3.9M
Other write-offs36,877 · $4.8M15,144 · $3.5M
Write-off exposure17.3% of liability40.1% of liability

Self-pay collection has moved between 52% and 63% since 2019 with no trend. Insured cost-share climbed from 67% to 73% over the same period, so the gap widened from 10 points to 19. Self-pay balances average $207 against $61 for insured cost-share, and 40% of self-pay liability ends up written off against 17% of insured. Self-pay carries no EOB to explain the amount, so the two populations behave differently at every stage.

Methodology

Collection rate calculation. Per-claim collectable = TRANSFERIN + CHARGE + TRANSFEROUT + ADJUSTMENT (excluding COLLECT and OTHER adjustment reasons), floored at zero. Per-claim collected = patient PAYMENT (negated), capped at collectable. Collection rate = sum of collected / sum of collectable across all claims in the population. This methodology is applied consistently across every chart in this report.

Time windows. Primary analyses use a 180-day window from claim service date, measured by payment post date. The collection-curve analysis measures cumulative payments at day 0, 3d, 7d, 14d, 30d, 60d, 90d, 120d, and 180d. "Day of service" uses payment postdate ≤ claimservicedate to capture point-of-service collection.

Why exclude COLLECT/OTHER adjustments. COLLECT and OTHER are negative adjustment categories that typically represent write-offs to external collection agencies or administrative write-offs. Including them in the collectable formula would shrink the denominator and inflate collection rates. Excluding them keeps written-off balances in the denominator, meaning the rate reflects what was actually collected from patients relative to total patient liability.

Aggregate vs practice-level rates. Aggregate collection rates are dollar-weighted: total collected divided by total collectable across all claims. When practice-level variation is reported, each practice's rate is calculated independently. The collection curve uses practice-average methodology: each practice's rate at each time window is calculated independently, then averaged across all 35 practices, weighting each practice equally regardless of size. Sample sizes are flagged throughout (N=).

Same-store comparisons. Year-over-year cost-share composition (Chart 9B) uses a same-store cohort: only practices with patient-liability data in both 2019 and 2025. This controls for the effect of new practice onboarding, which would otherwise distort share trends. The denominator for cost-share composition is copay + deductible + coinsurance TRANSFERIN dollars only (excluding Other/Self-pay), so shares sum to 100% across the three categories. Where two practices share a specialty, their shares are averaged.

Limitations

  1. Single-EHR platform. All data is sourced from Athena. Practices on other systems may exhibit different transaction patterns or collection workflows.
  2. Selection bias. The 35 practices elected to work with a patient collections platform; they may differ from non-participating practices in operational maturity.
  3. Small N for subgroup analyses. Many specialty categories (N=1–2 practices); directional only.
  4. No patient demographics. All analyses use de-identified patient claims data. Age, income, insurance tier, and geographic density are unavailable.
  5. Care setting is mixed. The population includes hospital-based professional fees from one health system's physician practices. Those claims collect at 10 to 19% and pull the aggregate down; the office and ambulatory subset collects at 70.5%.
  6. Cost-share allocation. Patient payments are not tagged by cost-share type. Cost-share-specific rates classify claims by dominant TRANSFERIN reason; payments are attributed to the claim, not the specific cost-share category.

Source tables

TableSchemaPurpose
transactionprod_core.base_athenaCharges, payments, transfers, adjustments
claimprod_core.base_athenaService date, patient, department
departmentprod_raw.raw_athenaDepartment specialty (one multi-specialty practice)
providerprod_core.base_athenaSpecialty, taxonomy, type
claims_with_srtprod_edw.entitiesProcedure code, plan type, payer

Key filters: voideddate IS NULL on all transaction queries. transactiontransfertype = 'Patient' isolates the patient financial responsibility bucket. Adjustment transactions with reason COLLECT or OTHER are excluded from the collectable formula to avoid deflating the denominator with write-offs.

REPORT DEBUGGER
⋮⋮
Ctrl+Shift+D to toggle · drag header to reposition

SQL Inspector

Click any chart to see its SQL query.

Sections

Text Editing

Move & Inspect

None selected
Click to select any element (including SVG).
Drag to move. Arrow keys nudge 1px (Shift=10).
Change fill/stroke/opacity/font-size inline.
Esc to deselect. Tab to cycle.

Element Map

Typography

Layout

Colors

Export