Adding a Second Nurse Practitioner vs. Fixing Denials
A four-physician family medicine group collects $2.45 million on $4.1 million in gross charges. Operating expense runs $1.52 million, and $110,000 in denials was written off last year without appeal. Payer mix is 38% Medicare, 44% commercial, 12% Medicaid, and 6% self-pay. The partners are weighing a second nurse practitioner: $118,000 salary, a 28% benefits load, $22,000 for an added medical assistant, and $9,000 for malpractice and EHR licensing. Administration projects 2,600 visits in the first full year at $95 average net collections per visit, but payer credentialing takes 90–120 days and only one exam room is free until a renovation completes in month nine. Two partners want to hire now; two want to spend $60,000 on a denials specialist instead. Next year's Medicare rates include a 2.5% cut.
1. Should the group hire the NP, fund the denials specialist, or do neither? Show the arithmetic and name the information that would flip your recommendation.
Read the worked answer
Run the NP economics first.
- Fully loaded cost: ($118,000 × 1.28) + $22,000 + $9,000 = $151,040 + $31,000 = $182,040
- Full-ramp contribution: 2,600 × $95 = $247,000; margin = +$64,960
- Year one with a 120-day credentialing gap: 2,600 × 8/12 ≈ 1,733 visits → $164,635, or a −$17,405 loss.
So the hire is sound on steady-state math and negative in year one, before the room constraint. One exam room caps throughput for nine months, which likely pulls year-one volume below the 1,733-visit estimate. The Medicare cut compounds it: 38% of collections × 2.5% ≈ $23,300 of lost revenue, which alone consumes a third of the NP's margin.
Then the denials option. $60,000 requires recovering 54.5% of everything written off. Some denials (eligibility, timely filing, missing authorization) are recoverable; medical-necessity and non-covered denials mostly are not. If 45% are recoverable and you win 70% of those: $110,000 × 0.45 × 0.70 = $34,650 - not enough alone. Add front-end prevention (denials equal 4.5% of collections; cutting a third of next year's saves ~$36,000) and the case improves markedly.
Recommendation: hire the NP but start credentialing now and make the start date contingent on the renovation date; if the room slips, delay. Fund denial prevention as a half-time role or contingency-fee vendor rather than a $60,000 FTE. What would flip it: whether the $95 net/visit holds under the new fee schedule, and whether the NP can actually fill a schedule given 31-day new-patient access.
2. One partner argues the practice should stop accepting Medicaid because 12% of visits 'drag down the payer mix.' Evaluate that reasoning and state what data you need before deciding.
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses average revenue with marginal economics. Fixed overhead - rent, EHR, front desk, the physicians themselves - does not disappear if Medicaid patients leave; it is redistributed onto the remaining visits.
- Medicaid is roughly 12% of $2.45 million ≈ $294,000 in collections.
- If variable cost is ~40% of collections, the contribution to overhead is about $176,000. Drop Medicaid and that contribution vanishes while overhead stays, raising cost per visit for every commercial patient.
Before deciding, obtain: (1) contribution margin per visit by payer, not gross charges; (2) no-show and lag-to-pay by payer (Medicaid often carries higher no-show and slower collection, which lowers effective yield); (3) whether closing the panel is even permitted under the practice's Medicaid MCO contracts and any state access rules; (4) whether Medicaid families generate commercial volume through other members or through referrals.
A defensible middle path is to stop accepting new Medicaid patients while retaining the existing panel, cap Medicaid at a set percentage of open slots, and renegotiate MCO rates. Dropping an entire payer mid-year also raises patient-abandonment and reputational issues and can trigger notice obligations under payer contracts.
3. A senior partner proposes paying the new NP a base salary plus 20% of net collections above $250,000. Evaluate the incentive design.
Read the worked answer
At $95 net per visit, $250,000 equals roughly 2,632 visits - above the 2,600-visit projection. That means the threshold sits just out of reach in year one, so the bonus pays nothing until the NP beats its own ramp forecast. An incentive that is unreachable in the first year reads as a pay cut and is a retention problem, not a motivator.
The deeper issue is what the formula rewards: pure collections. Under this design the NP is paid more for longer visits coded at higher levels, more tests and referrals, and denser scheduling - none of which the practice actually wants to maximize in a value-based environment. It also creates friction with physician partners if the NP's panel cherry-picks the better-reimbursed commercial patients.
Better structure: lower the threshold to a defensible ramp (e.g., 1,800 visits in year one, 2,400 in year two), and split the variable pay across three measures - net collections (weighted ~50%), panel growth or access improvement (third-next-available, new-patient slots filled), and a quality metric (screening rates, diabetes A1c control, or avoidable ED utilization). Cap the total at 15–20% of base, hold back a portion until year-end quality data is in, and put the formula in writing with a reconciliation process.