From eligibility to remittance — standards-based claims, ERA/835 posting, and disciplined A/R follow-up, all bound to the same patient, encounter, and documentation your clinical apps already share.
PatientTrac treats the revenue cycle as part of the clinical record, not a separate silo. Charges originate from the same encounter_id the specialty apps write to, claims are generated in standard formats, and follow-up works that same shared data. These are workflow and documentation tools: they support billing operations and do not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance. Founded in 1998, the platform was rebuilt cloud-native around this shared spine.
Whether you bill professional claims for a multi-specialty group, an ambulatory surgery center, or a single clinic, the revenue-cycle workflows run on the same shared record.
Every workflow below reads and writes the same clinical data. Each supports billing and documentation; none guarantees reimbursement or payer acceptance.
Professional claims are generated in the standard X12 837P format from the same encounter clinicians documented.
Electronic remittances post back against the originating claim, so payment status lives with the record.
Open receivables are organized by age and status, so teams can work the oldest and highest-value balances first.
Rejected and denied claims are routed into a structured correction-and-appeal path instead of disappearing.
Coordination-of-benefits and secondary billing follow the primary remittance automatically in the workflow.
Prior-authorization requirements and status are tracked against the encounter before services are billed.
For self-pay and elective care, cost proposals and financing options are prepared alongside the clinical plan.
PatientTrac supports billing and documentation workflows. It does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance, and it does not maximize billing. Coverage, coding, and payment decisions rest with payers and the practice's qualified billing staff.
The revenue cycle is worked from a single nine-tab workspace, opened against the encounter clinicians already documented. Each tab supports billing and documentation; none guarantees reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance.
Charges auto-populate on encounter close, drawing procedure and diagnosis lines straight from what was documented.
AI reviews the documented elements and suggests coding for qualified staff — it never selects codes on its own.
The professional claim is built in true X12 837P (005010X222A1) and handed to the clearinghouse.
Electronic remittances are parsed and posted back to the originating superbill automatically.
Open balances sort into standard aging buckets so teams work the oldest and highest-value first.
Rejected and denied lines route into a correction-and-appeal path, with appeal text drafted for review.
After the primary posts, secondary and tertiary claims sequence automatically with coordination-of-benefits.
Authorizations are tracked with approved units and expiry dates, decremented as services are rendered.
For elective and cash-pay care, itemized proposals combine professional and facility costs with financing options.
Every tab supports billing and documentation workflows. PatientTrac does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance, and it does not maximize billing. Coverage, coding, and payment decisions rest with payers and the practice's qualified billing staff.
Two mechanisms sit underneath the workspace: how coding assistance stays advisory, and how authorizations are tracked by units and expiry.
During documentation, the system captures the drivers relevant to downstream coding review — history, examination, and medical-decision-making elements — from what the clinician actually recorded.
The E/M level is not surfaced to the provider during documentation. AI does not select codes autonomously; suggestions are for qualified staff, and the workspace supports billing workflows but does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance.
Each authorization carries approved units and an expiry date. Units decrement as services are rendered against the encounter, and expiring authorizations are flagged before more services are billed.
Supports authorization workflows; approval, units, and validity rest with payers, and tracking does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance.
Every charge, remittance, and follow-up action is bound to the same encounter_id the clinical apps write to — so billing sees exactly what was documented, and documentation sees where the money is.
Patient management, scheduling & revenue-cycle hub — where charges, claims, and A/R are worked against the shared record.
Learn moreIntake & eligibility capture — demographics and coverage collected before the visit feed clean-claim generation.
Learn morePerioperative & procedural documentation — the operative record that substantiates procedural charges.
Learn morePatient engagement & recovery monitoring — RTM-aligned check-ins that document care-management workflows.
Learn moreSeveral care-management programs depend on consistent documentation over time. PatientTrac helps capture that documentation on the same record — it does not determine eligibility, codes, or payment.
Companion collects patient-reported outcomes through manual-sync check-ins, aligned with the Remote Therapeutic Monitoring code family (CPT 98975–98981), and documents them against the encounter.
RTM-aligned, not RPM. Supports documentation workflows; does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance, and does not establish code eligibility.
For chronic-care, principal-care, transitional-care, and behavioral-health-integration programs (CCM, PCM, TCM, BHI), the platform helps record the time, activities, and care-plan elements these workflows rely on.
Code families are referenced generically. Supports documentation workflows; eligibility, code selection, and payment are determined by qualified staff and payers.
Care-management programs are documentation-driven. PatientTrac helps capture the elements these workflows rely on — generically, without asserting eligibility, codes, or payment.
For the Remote Therapeutic Monitoring code family (CPT 98975–98981), Companion documents program setup and patient education, patient-reported data collection through manual-sync check-ins, and the clinical-review time the care team spends — all against the encounter.
RTM-aligned, not RPM. Patient-reported outcomes, not FDA-device data. Supports documentation workflows; does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance, and does not establish code eligibility.
For chronic-care, principal-care, transitional-care, and behavioral-health-integration programs (CCM, PCM, TCM, BHI), the platform helps log the time spent, the activities performed, and the care-plan elements these longitudinal workflows rely on across the month.
Code families are referenced generically. Supports documentation workflows; eligibility, code selection, and payment are determined by qualified staff and payers.
Intelligence and compliance are stated as mechanisms — what the workflows actually do, and where qualified people stay in control.
AI-assisted summaries, drafts, alerts, and suggestions for staff review; API keys remain server-side; coding and billing decisions remain with qualified professionals.
AI does not select codes autonomously, determine severity, or guarantee coding. The E/M level is not surfaced to the provider during documentation; the system captures documentation elements relevant to downstream coding review.
Row-Level Security on every table, a hash-chained PHI audit, TOTP multi-factor authentication, server-side keys, and organization-level tenant isolation protect billing and clinical data alike.
Revenue-cycle workflows support standards-based claim generation (X12 837P), ERA/835 posting, and documentation completeness; they support billing workflows and do not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance.
Most practices run billing in a system that never truly sees the chart, forcing re-keyed charges and blind follow-up. PatientTrac does the opposite: claims, remittances, A/R, appeals, and care-management documentation all sit on the same clinical spine, bound by one encounter_id, with server-side AI for review and concrete compliance mechanisms throughout. It supports billing and documentation workflows — it does not guarantee reimbursement, payment, or payer acceptance, and it never sets out to maximize billing. Founded in 1998, it was rebuilt cloud-native for exactly this.
Walk a claim from encounter to remittance across the connected apps, and see billing and documentation share one record.