The mystery tax
A consultant who cannot reconcile their statement against their own case list discounts every number on it. The suspicion costs more goodwill than any calculation error ever did — and it compounds monthly.
Case-level or nothing
A lump figure invites doubt; a statement listing each case, the billed head, the share rule applied, and the resulting line lets the doctor audit themselves in five minutes. Disputes shrink to specific lines, which is what resolution looks like.
| Item | Standard | Consequence / owner |
|---|---|---|
| Statement granularity | Per case, per billed head | Self-auditable |
| Share rules | Written, versioned, applied by system | No discretionary drift |
| Payer deductions | Source shown: claim + ground | Pass-through with provenance |
| Pending cases | Listed as pending, not dropped | Nothing vanishes |
| Dispute channel | Line-level query, tracked | Resolution, not resentment |
Deductions need provenance
When a payer deduction flows through to a consultant’s share, the statement must show the source: claim, ground, amount. Pass-through pain with provenance is accepted; without it, it reads as skimming.
What to do on Monday
- Move to case-level statements next cycle.
- Publish the share rules document, versioned.
- Show deduction provenance on every pass-through line.
Worked examples on this page are illustrative arithmetic on stated assumptions, not measured market statistics.