Which campaigns produced the patients you collected from?

A practice management system posts a charge on the day of service and collects some fraction of it weeks later, after the contractual adjustment, the patient responsibility and occasionally an appeal. The gap between charged and collected is routinely large and it is not uniform.

That matters for attribution because payer mix differs by channel. A channel that brings self-pay cosmetic patients and a channel that brings insured patients can post identical charges and collect amounts that are not remotely comparable. Ranked on charges, they look alike. Ranked on receipts, one of them is twice the other.

Tebra's encounter reporting exposes receipts alongside charges, which makes the honest version of this report straightforward to produce. Export receipts, and the channel table reconciles to the practice's own financials instead of to a gross-charges figure nobody recognizes.

Tebra's documentation warns that an encounter-scoped report will not tie out against reports built on a posting period, because the two are scoped differently by design. That is not a quirk; it is the accrual-versus-cash distinction showing up in a reporting menu.

For attribution, service date is usually the right choice: it puts the money next to the visit the marketing produced. Posting date answers a cash-flow question instead. Either works here provided you use the same one every time, and the report says which one it is reading.

The match reads a contact detail, an amount and a date. Diagnoses, notes and clinical detail are not needed, are not read, and should not be in the export. The one optional column worth adding is the site, for a practice that runs more than one.

Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, isolated per workspace and deletable in one click, and we act as a data processor with a DPA available. CloseRev does not sign HIPAA Business Associate Agreements and is not built for protected health information; whether even a contact detail and an amount count as PHI under your obligations is a question for your compliance lead before the first upload.

Many independent practices run a self-pay line alongside insured work: aesthetics in a dermatology practice, cosmetic procedures beside medical ones, membership beside fee-for-service. They are marketed with different keywords at very different costs and they collect at completely different rates.

CloseRev does not split them by service line or payer: a column marking which patients came for cosmetic work and which were insured would put health information in the file. What keeps the whole-practice ranking honest is receipts — each channel is credited with what its patients actually paid, not what was billed — though it will not show how a channel's total divides between the two lines. Where each line runs from its own site, a Location column separates them without describing anyone's care.

If one channel's patients are denied or written off at a materially higher rate than another's, that is a marketing finding wearing a revenue cycle costume. It usually means the channel is bringing patients whose coverage does not match the service, or self-pay patients who do not complete payment plans.

Because the report is built on receipts rather than charges, that difference shows up automatically as a lower revenue figure for the channel. The report shows that it happens, not why; the adjustments stay in Tebra, where the billing team can trace them.

The fix that points to is often in the targeting rather than the budget, which is cheaper than either raising or cutting spend.