FREE RESOURCE

Billing Staffing Ratio Benchmarking Scorecard for eClinicalWorks Using Practices

MGMA puts the benchmark at 2.70 billing staff per physician for a physician-owned practice, less for hospital-owned. eClinicalWorks can tell you your headcount. It won't tell you whether that headcount is actually right. This scorecard runs the comparison, location by location, and flags where staffing is genuinely off.

See Whether Your Billing Staff Ratio Actually Holds Up

eClinicalWorks can report your headcount and your provider count without hesitation. What it won't do is tell you whether 12 billing staff for 6 providers is generous, appropriate, or a problem that's about to show up in your denial rate.

This scorecard applies MGMA's actual staffing benchmark by ownership type, physician-owned or hospital-owned, and checks it against a second, independent method based on claims volume per biller. When the two disagree, that's worth a closer look, not something to average away and forget.

What's Inside This Scorecard?

One workbook, three tabs: the real MGMA ratios, a place to log every location's numbers, and a ranked list of where staffing sits furthest from target.

1. Staffing Ratio Benchmarks

  • MGMA's actual 2.70 billing staff per physician benchmark is built in for physician-owned practices >
  • Hospital and health system-owned locations default to 1.67, since MGMA data shows they typically run leaner
  • A second, independent benchmark checks staffing against claims volume: 10,000 claims per biller a year
  • Every default is editable the moment you have your own specialty-specific figure

2. Location Staffing Data

  • Provider FTEs and billing staff FTEs get entered once per location or specialty group
  • The actual ratio and the benchmark comparison are calculated on their own, based on ownership type
  • Claims volume is optional, but where you have it, the claims-based method runs alongside the ratio method
  • Locations get flagged as Understaffed, Overstaffed, or Appropriate, not just handed a number and left to interpret it

3. Staffing Scorecard Summary

  • Every location's variance from benchmark rolls up into one ranked list
  • Locations are sorted by how far off they sit, worst first, whether that means understaffed or overstaffed
  • One view across the whole organization instead of a separate conversation per location
  • Rerun it after a staffing change and see whether the ratio actually moved

Built for Healthcare Leaders Responsible for Staffing & Operational Efficiency

For the leaders who have to decide whether to hire or whether the headcount is already generous enough.

 Practice Administrators
Practice Administrators
Know whether a staffing complaint is a real gap or a perception problem before committing to a new hire.
Billing Directors & Managers
Billing Directors & Managers
See which location's ratio is actually out of line, instead of managing every site the same way.
 CFOs & Finance Leads
CFOs & Finance Leads
Weigh a staffing increase against a real benchmark instead of a gut feeling about what looks understaffed.
 RCM Operations Leaders
RCM Operations Leaders
Compare locations against each other and against MGMA at the same time, using one ranked list.

Stop Guessing at the Right Staffing Level

A hunch that a location feels short-staffed is not the same as knowing it's 30 percent below where MGMA says it should be.

Run your provider and medical billing staff counts through this scorecard, and find out which locations are actually worth a staffing conversation, and which ones just feel that way.