Taking an assessment rather than buying one? This page is written for employers. Here is the page for candidates.

Claims and policyholder service · Mid level

How to assess a Denial Management Specialist

Appeals-per-day is the metric most directly opposed to the outcome the employer wants. The fastest way to work a high volume of denials is to resubmit and to send templated appeals, and both are recorded as work done and neither overturns anything. What actually recovers revenue is the opposite behaviour: spending forty minutes on one denial, working out that the stated reason is not the operative one, and writing an appeal that names the plan provision and the clinical fact that meets it. A coding test cannot see this, because coding accuracy and appeal construction are different skills — plenty of accurate coders write appeals that argue with the payer instead of citing to them. Nothing in the current process observes the written appeal at all, which is strange, because the appeal letter is the entire deliverable of the job and it is the easiest artefact in this corpus to collect and grade.

Denial management is the one seat in this family that faces the payer rather than the policyholder, and it is included here because the competency is the same shape as a claims decision call turned around: read a file, work out what the rules actually require, and defend a position in writing to a counterparty who has already said no once. It is a provider-side or third-party revenue cycle role, most commonly in US healthcare, and it is one of the few jobs where the gap between a median and a strong performer is directly measurable in cash.

The scale of the opportunity is unusual and it is publicly documented. KFF's analysis of federal transparency data for 2024 found HealthCare.gov marketplace insurers denying 19 percent of in-network claims, and fewer than 1 percent of those denials being appealed by consumers. Providers appeal at higher rates than patients, but the same asymmetry runs through the system: a large fraction of denied claims are never properly challenged, and the reason is capacity and prioritisation rather than merit. That makes triage — deciding which denials to work, in what order, against which deadline — a first-class competency rather than an administrative afterthought, and it is squarely assessable as a data task over an aged denials worklist.

The second competency is diagnosis of the real denial reason, and it matters because the stated reason is frequently uninformative. KFF found that for 2024 in-network denials, "other" accounted for 36 percent of stated reasons and administrative reasons for a further 25 percent, with lack of prior authorisation or referral at 9 percent and medical necessity at only 5 percent. A specialist who takes "administrative" at face value resubmits and gets denied again. A specialist who reads the remittance advice against the authorisation record and the clinical documentation finds the operative defect — a missing referral, a date-of-service mismatch, a modifier — and fixes it once.

The third and decisive competency is the appeal letter, and here the regulation supplies both the standard and the lever. Under ERISA's claims procedure at 29 CFR 2560.503-1(g), an adverse benefit determination notice must set out the specific reason or reasons for the determination, reference the specific plan provisions on which it is based, and describe the plan's review procedures and applicable time limits. A denial that does not do this is itself defective, and a specialist who knows that writes a materially different appeal — one that holds the payer to the standard the payer is bound by, rather than restating the clinical story with more feeling. The same regulation supplies the calendar the job runs on: 72 hours for urgent care claims, 15 days for pre-service and 30 days for post-service determinations, each with limited extensions. Working backwards from those deadlines is the difference between an appeal and a write-off.

Savvanta assesses this without touching clinical judgment, which is out of scope for this corpus. The candidate receives an aged worklist and prioritises it, then receives one denial packet — remittance advice, authorisation record, documentation and plan language — and writes the appeal, then defends it on a live call against an AI payer representative who is polite, procedurally competent and not inclined to move. The rubric scores whether the operative defect was identified, whether the appeal cites a specific provision and a specific fact from this record, and whether the deadline logic is right. It does not score coding credentials, which are an employer-verified gate outside any simulation, and it does not score accent, dialect or manner of speech on the payer call.

What the job actually needs

reading a denial code against the actual clinical and administrative record
identifying which of several denial reasons is the real one
writing an appeal that cites the specific plan provision and the specific fact
working payer timelines backwards from the deadline
holding a position on a payer call without losing the working relationship

How people fail in this seat

resubmits the same claim unchanged because it is faster than appealing
sends a template appeal that recycles boilerplate and cites nothing specific to this patient
works the easy low-value denials and lets the high-value ones age past the appeal window
accepts an "administrative" denial reason at face value
tells a patient the claim will be paid before the appeal is decided

What most employers do instead

A CV screen for payer names, coding credentials and practice-management systems, a coding or terminology test, and an interview about denial rate reduction. Productivity in the last role — appeals worked per day — is often the decisive number.

The assessment

About 38 minutes end to end.

The systems it runs in

Three surfaces worked together, which is what this seat actually is: a hospital or professional billing system's denial and follow-up work queue, a clearinghouse for claim status and appeal submission, and the payer's own provider portal. Denial lines carry the payer's adjustment codes from the 835 remittance advice — an X12 claim adjustment reason code, any remittance advice remark codes, and the group code that assigns responsibility, CO, PR, OA or PI. The candidate works the queue, uploads the appeal with its supporting documentation, and writes the account note that carries the reference number and the governing deadline forward.

Epic Resolute
Oracle Health Revenue Cycle
athenahealth athenaCollector
Waystar
Availity Essentials
NaviNet

Any billing system with a denial or follow-up work queue, plus any clearinghouse or payer portal that accepts an appeal with attachments and returns a claim status. The 835 codes are the portable part and the fixture is built on them, so a buyer on a different stack changes the screens and not the exercise; the packet is rebuilt against the buyer's own payer mix and queue structure where they supply a sandbox or a redacted worklist.

Working speed is not scored. Appeals worked per day is the metric this desk is usually managed on and it is precisely the cheap path the design exists to catch: the fastest way to clear a queue is to resubmit unchanged and send templates, and neither overturns anything. Scoring speed here would reward the resubmission and the reprocessing offer in t3, so throughput is not measured and buyers are told why before deployment.

What the candidate actually does

Task	What happens
The aged worklist data_task · 10 min	A denial work queue as the billing system presents it: twenty lines with balance, payer, plan type, the claim adjustment reason code and any remark code carried from the 835 remittance advice with the group code that assigns responsibility, date of service, date the remittance posted, and prior appeal history. The candidate says what they will work today, in what order, and why, in one line each. The list is built so that sorting by balance descending, which is what every productivity-managed desk does, produces the wrong answer: a small-balance ERISA group health denial is days from the end of the 180-day appeal window at 29 CFR 2560.503-1(h)(3)(i) while the largest balance on the list has months left, and one line is already out of time and should be routed to a different remedy rather than worked. The cheap path is defensible in a stand-up meeting and loses money.
The appeal written_artifact · 16 min	One denial packet: a remittance advice whose stated reason is administrative and uninformative, the authorisation record, the referral, the clinical documentation, and the plan language. The stated reason is not the operative one. The authorisation exists, and the real defect is a date-of-service mismatch between the authorisation and the claim as submitted. The candidate writes the appeal. The cheap path, and the one that appeals-per-day rewards, is to restate the clinical story with feeling against the reason the payer gave. The strong path finds the operative defect, cites the specific plan provision and the specific fact from this record, and holds the payer to 29 CFR 2560.503-1(g)(1), under which the determination notice itself had to give the specific reason and reference the specific plan provisions on which it was based.
The payer call live_call · 12 min	An AI payer representative who is polite, procedurally competent and not inclined to move. Partway through they offer to send the claim back for reprocessing, which sounds like a win, closes the call, and will not fix the date-of-service defect; taking it without preserving the appeal deadline burns the window. The fork is that a reprocess is a result the candidate can report today, and insisting on the appeal timeline while accepting the reprocess is slower, more awkward, and correct. The call is not finished when it ends: the candidate writes the note into the account's activity record and sets the date the line returns to the work queue. A candidate who says the right things to the representative and records none of them has left the appeal window running with nothing on the account that shows it, which is a different and more expensive failure than not having said them.

The mark scheme

Each criterion is scored 1 to 5 against written anchors, and every score is reported with the excerpt that earned it. A criterion marked floored is reported as a finding rather than averaged into the total. The first is open; open any other to read its anchors in full.

Prioritises by deadline exposure rather than by balance (29 CFR 2560.503-1(h)(3)(i), at least 180 days to appeal an adverse benefit determination in a group health plan; 29 CFR 2560.503-1(f)(2) and (i)(2), the determination and review timeframes the calendar runs on)weight 0.2Orders by days remaining against value at risk, names the window for the top lines, and routes the line that is already out of time to a different rem…

1 The stated order is balance descending, or the reasoning for the order does not mention a deadline anywhere.

3 Mixes balance and deadline reasoning, catches the largest exposures, and misses at least one small-balance line that expires this week.

5 Orders by days remaining against value at risk, names the window for the top lines, and routes the line that is already out of time to a different remedy rather than working it.

Identifies the operative defect rather than the stated reasonweight 0.25Names the date-of-service mismatch between the authorisation and the claim, points to both documents, and states what has to change for the claim to b…

1 Accepts the administrative reason at face value and the appeal argues against it, or the recommended action is a resubmission of the same claim unchanged.

3 Recognises that the stated reason is not supported, because the authorisation is in the packet, but does not identify what the actual defect is, so the appeal asserts the denial is wrong without saying why.

5 Names the date-of-service mismatch between the authorisation and the claim, points to both documents, and states what has to change for the claim to be payable.

The appeal cites a specific plan provision and a specific fact from this record, and holds the payer to its own notice obligations (29 CFR 2560.503-1(g)(1)(i) and (ii), the specific reason for the determination and reference to the specific plan provisions on which it is based)weight 0.25States the provision, states the fact in this record that satisfies it, identifies both documents by date, and notes where the determination notice fa…

1 Boilerplate that could be sent on any claim: the patient's condition restated, an assertion of medical necessity, no provision cited, no date or document identifier from this record.

3 Cites either a plan provision or a specific fact from the record, but not both connected to each other, so the reader has to make the link.

5 States the provision, states the fact in this record that satisfies it, identifies both documents by date, and notes where the determination notice failed to give a specific reason or reference a specific plan provision.

On the payer call, distinguishes a remedy from a gesture and protects the deadlineweight 0.2Says why a reprocess will not cure the date-of-service defect, accepts it only alongside the appeal, obtains a reference number and a named timescale,…

1 Accepts the reprocessing offer as the resolution, ends the call, and the appeal window continues to run with nothing filed.

3 Accepts the reprocess and separately intends to appeal, but does not establish on the call that the appeal timeline is preserved and does not obtain a reference for what was agreed.

5 Says why a reprocess will not cure the date-of-service defect, accepts it only alongside the appeal, obtains a reference number and a named timescale, and states the deadline the payer is now working to.

The next deadline and the route are recorded so somebody else can actweight 0.1Records the reference, the agreed action, the date it is due, the appeal deadline, and what happens if the payer misses its own timescale.

1 The call note records that the payer was contacted and nothing that constrains the next action.

3 Records the outcome and a follow-up date, without the reference number or the governing deadline.

5 Records the reference, the agreed action, the date it is due, the appeal deadline, and what happens if the payer misses its own timescale.

How it is scored

Weighted mean of the five criteria, each scored 1 to 5 against the anchors, reported with the worklist line, appeal paragraph or transcript excerpt that earned each score. The appeal is graded on what it cites, not on its length or its tone, and the report includes the specific provision and the specific record fact the candidate connected, so a reviewer can check the connection rather than take the score on trust.

Integrity

monitored session with all three tasks in one unbroken sitting
the appeal is scored against the packet supplied, which contains the planted mismatch, so a stored template cannot cite it
one live follow-up question asking the candidate to point to the two documents whose dates conflict
worklist and packet variants rotated so the operative defect differs between sittings

The log describes what happened. It does not produce a cheating verdict — the follow-up conversation is the control, because a statistical accusation is not something we would ask a reviewer to defend.

What you receive

the prioritised worklist with the candidate's one-line reasons
the appeal letter as submitted
full payer call transcript with the reprocessing offer time-marked
the account note as written into the activity record, with the follow-up date set on the queue line
per-criterion score with the excerpt that earned it

Who decides

Required for the appeal criterion. A reviewer must read the appeal and confirm that the provision cited actually supports the fact cited, because an appeal that cites confidently and wrongly reads well and is worse than useless, and that check needs somebody who can hold the plan language and the record side by side. The reviewer is also the person who decides whether a candidate's alternative prioritisation was sound, since a desk with different staffing or a different payer mix can justify a different order, and the rubric encodes one reasonable answer rather than the only one. The ranking entitles the buyer to conclude that this candidate found or missed the operative defect in this packet, and cited or did not cite to the record. It does not establish any coding credential, which is an employer-verified gate outside any simulation, it makes no clinical judgment and does not license the buyer to infer clinical competence, and it does not predict throughput on a real worklist, which depends on the employer's systems far more than on the person.

What this does not measure

The assessment does not read accent, dialect, fluency or manner of speech on the payer call, and no anchor is met by sounding assertive; the call criterion resolves entirely to whether a reprocess was distinguished from a remedy and whether a reference and a deadline were obtained. It deliberately does not measure appeals worked per day, which is the metric this seat is usually hired on and which is directly opposed to the outcome the employer wants, since the fastest way to work a high volume is to resubmit and to send templates and neither overturns anything. It does not assess coding accuracy, clinical reasoning or medical necessity judgment, all of which are out of scope for this corpus and none of which this design is competent to rank. Two construct- irrelevant risks deserve monitoring. The appeal is a substantial piece of written English produced under time pressure, and it is the most likely place for a second-language disadvantage to appear; it is graded on what is cited and connected, never on idiom, register, spelling or punctuation, and deployers should compare appeal scores against worklist and call scores by group, because a gap confined to the appeal is the signature of a writing-fluency effect rather than a difference in denial diagnosis. The second is prior exposure: the design uses ERISA group health framing, and candidates whose experience is entirely in Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed care or non-US payer environments will be disadvantaged by the framing rather than by the competency, so buyers hiring across those mixes should have the packet rebuilt rather than treat the score as portable.

This is the only assessment in the family aimed at a payer-facing seat, and its argument is simpler than the others: the entire deliverable of the job is a written appeal, and nothing in the current hiring process looks at one. Candidates are screened on payer names, practice-management systems, a coding or terminology test, and appeals worked per day. The appeal itself, the artefact that either recovers the money or does not, is the easiest thing in this corpus to collect and grade, and it is collected by nobody.

The prioritisation task is placed first because triage is a first-class competency here rather than an administrative preliminary. Denial volume is enormous and appeal capacity is not, so the binding constraint on recovery is which denials get worked, in what order, against which deadline. ERISA's claims procedure supplies the calendar the job actually runs on: at least 180 days to appeal an adverse benefit determination under 29 CFR 2560.503-1(h)(3)(i), and determination and review windows measured in 72 hours for urgent care, 15 days pre-service and 30 days post-service, each with limited extensions. Working backwards from those dates is the difference between an appeal and a write-off, and the worklist is built so that the obvious sort order, largest balance first, loses a small-balance line that expires this week. That is a fork a candidate can get wrong while sounding entirely reasonable about it.

The appeal task carries the most weight because it contains the competency that separates a median performer from a strong one in cash terms. The stated denial reason is frequently uninformative, and a specialist who takes an administrative reason at face value resubmits and gets denied again, which is recorded as work done. The packet is constructed so that the authorisation plainly exists, which disposes of the stated reason, and the operative defect is a date mismatch that is only visible if the candidate reads the authorisation record against the claim as submitted. Finding it is diagnosis. Citing it is a separate skill: plenty of accurate coders write appeals that argue with the payer instead of citing to them, restating the clinical narrative with more feeling and no provision reference at all.

The strongest move available on this task is the one that most candidates never make, and it is why the criterion is written the way it is. 29 CFR 2560.503-1(g)(1) obliges the plan's own adverse determination notice to give the specific reason for the determination and to reference the specific plan provisions on which it is based. A denial that says administrative and cites nothing has not met that standard. A specialist who knows this writes a materially different appeal, one that holds the payer to a rule the payer is bound by, and the difference in outcome is not marginal. The 5 anchor requires it, and a candidate who reaches a 5 here is demonstrating something no coding test and no interview has ever surfaced.

The payer call is short and has exactly one fork, which is enough. The representative is not obstructive; they are helpful in the specific way that costs the provider money. A reprocess sounds like movement, closes the call, and gives the candidate something to report, and it will not cure a date-of-service mismatch. Accepting it while the appeal window runs is the commonest quiet failure on these desks, and it is invisible in every productivity metric because it registers as a resolved contact. Scoring it requires only that the reviewer read whether a reference number and a deadline were obtained, which is a fact in the transcript rather than an impression of the conversation.

What this design will not do is rank clinical judgment or verify a credential. Coding certifications are an employer gate. Medical necessity determinations are outside the scope of this corpus and outside the competence of a simulation. The claim being made is narrower and more defensible: this candidate, given this packet, found or did not find the defect, and cited or did not cite the rule.

Sources

Every figure on this page is traceable. Where a claim could not be sourced it is stated qualitatively instead.

KFF, Claims Denials and Appeals in ACA Marketplace Plans in 2024, Michelle Long, Justin Lo and Kaye Pestaina, 24 March 2026, https://www.kff.org/patient-consumer-protections/claims-denials-and-appeals-in-aca-marketplace-plans-in-2024/
IT and Business Process Association of the Philippines (IBPAP), The Philippine IT-BPM Industry Overview 2026, 2026, https://admin.ibpap.org/storage/hub-resources/7Hv9U2uoLJVx2kxyRMObNm6W6L0MR57l9dZfrez7.pdf
29 CFR 2560.503-1(g), ERISA claims procedure: an adverse benefit determination notice must give the specific reason or reasons, reference the specific plan provisions on which it is based, and describe the plan's review procedures and time limits, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2560.503-1
29 CFR 2560.503-1(f), ERISA timeframes for group health claims: 72 hours for urgent care claims, 15 days for pre-service claims and 30 days for post-service claims, each with limited extensions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2560.503-1

See what the employer actually receives. A full report for one role, with every score shown beside the excerpt that earned it, conduct findings reported rather than averaged, and a reviewer sign-off required before any decision. No form.

Read a sample report Or talk to us about this role