In healthcare revenue cycle management, productivity often feels like the obvious target. Coders and leaders alike track Encounters Per Hour (EPH), believing that higher is always better. After all, more productivity should mean more revenue… right?
It’s an easy mistake to make. We made it too. Several years ago, when we first had the ability to measure productivity with precision, we thought the same thing: if coders are faster, outcomes will be better. But over time, as we built more proprietary performance data across thousands of providers and millions of encounters, a very different truth emerged.
The Problem is that the Productivity Isn’t the Whole Story
EPH measures how fast a coder works. But speed alone doesn’t guarantee outcomes. In fact, it can hide trade-offs: higher denial rates, longer charge lags, or revenue leakage. Productivity is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle.
That’s why we developed STAR² Ai, our proprietary measurement of total coding outcomes. Unlike single-metric productivity, STAR² Ai incorporates:
- Denial prevention
- Charge lag
- Net revenue captured
- Coder productivity (EPH)
- And more
When we plot STAR² Ai against EPH, something remarkable happens.
Finding the Sweet Spot on the Curve
At first, as productivity (EPH) rises, STAR² Ai rises with it. Faster coding contributes to better outcomes. But beyond a certain point — the Productivity Sweet Spot — the curve begins to bend downward.
That means that pushing productivity too far actually reduces total outcomes. Coders may be faster, but the gains are wiped out by more denials, missed revenue, or longer charge lags.
It’s counterintuitive unless you’ve seen the data. But once you do, the picture is clear: optimizing on productivity alone is like winning a race to the wrong finish line.
STAR² Ai Augmented Coder Impact per Year
The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Coders
To bring this home, imagine three coders:
- Coder 1: Works slowly. Their productivity (EPH) is low, and so is their STAR² Ai score. They aren’t capturing the full value available.
- Coder 2: Works extremely fast. Their EPH is high, but they’ve pushed past the sweet spot. Their STAR² Ai is lower because denials rise, accuracy drops, and revenue slips away.
- Coder 3: Works at the sweet spot. Their EPH isn’t as high as Coder 2, but their STAR² Ai score is much higher because they maximize total outcomes across denial prevention, charge lag, and revenue integrity.
Like Goldilocks, the third coder isn’t too slow or too fast. They’re just right.
The Takeaway: Optimize for STAR² Ai, Not Productivity
The lesson is simple but profound:
- Productivity is important, but it’s the Wrong Finish Line.
- The real goal is maximizing total outcomes.
- With STAR² Ai, providers can see the full picture and know where their coders are on the curve.
Because at the end of the day, no one wants to win the race to the wrong finish line.
