Workers' compensation billing looks like medical billing. It uses procedure codes, claim numbers, and electronic submissions — the same basic vocabulary as Medicare or group health. So it's natural to ask: can a general-purpose Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) platform handle workers' comp?

The answer, in nearly every meaningful way, is no.

This article explains why workers' comp billing software is categorically different from general medical billing software, what specifically breaks when providers try to use a standard RCM for workers' comp, and what compliance actually requires in this space.

Why Workers' Comp Is Not Group Health

Standard RCM platforms are built around the workflows of Medicare and private group health insurance. Those workflows are well-established, widely standardized, and relatively forgiving of generic approaches. Workers' compensation is none of those things.

Workers' comp is a state-regulated system, and every state operates its own rules for authorization, billing formats, fee schedules, payment timelines, and dispute resolution. A provider treating injured workers in California faces an entirely different compliance landscape than one in New York or Colorado. No single general RCM is built to navigate that patchwork.

More fundamentally, workers' comp payers — insurers, self-insured employers, and the Third-Party Administrators (TPAs) who manage claims on their behalf — do not accept bills the same way Medicare or a private insurer does. They use their own clearinghouses, their own electronic addresses, and their own document requirements. Standard billing software simply isn't built with those connections or that logic.

The Clearinghouse Problem: Why "Any RCM Can Submit e-Bills" Is a Myth

One of the most common and costly misconceptions in workers' comp billing is that e-bills can be sent to any clearinghouse, and that the clearinghouse will route the bill to the right place. This is not how workers' comp e-billing works.

In workers' comp, each claims administrator — every insurer, TPA, or self-insured employer — uses a specific clearinghouse to receive and process e-bills. The three primary workers' comp clearinghouses are Jopari, Data Dimensions (formerly WorkCompEDI), and Carisk. The TPA CorVel operates as its own clearinghouse. Each payer is assigned a unique Payer ID number by whichever clearinghouse they use.

The correct electronic "address" for any given workers' comp bill is therefore a combination of the right clearinghouse plus the right Payer ID. Send the bill to the wrong clearinghouse — even a perfectly valid one — and the bill has to travel an indirect route that introduces delays, dropped documents, and the real risk of never arriving at all.

Standard RCM platforms typically route all submissions through a single clearinghouse. In group health and Medicare, this works fine. In workers' comp, it often fails. Bills go missing. Documents get separated from the bill they're supposed to accompany. Payers claim never to have received the submission — and because there's no verified delivery record, the provider has no recourse.

Dedicated workers' comp billing software maintains direct connections to every active clearinghouse and an always-current database of Payer IDs for every claims administrator. daisyBill, for example, tracks thousands of Payer ID combinations, including payers who use multiple clearinghouses or maintain client-specific Payer IDs for each employer they serve. This is what accurate, reliable e-bill delivery requires.

Supporting Documents: The Requirement Standard RCMs Cannot Meet

Workers' comp billing has documentation requirements different from Medicare or group health billing: the provider must submit supporting medical documents — progress reports, proof of authorization, treatment records — alongside the bill itself.

Workers' comp requires the supporting documents to travel with the bill as a 275 file, transmitted electronically to the same clearinghouse at the same time. The two components together constitute a compliant submission.

Most general RCM software cannot handle this. The result is that providers fall back on faxing or mailing the supporting documents separately, then hoping someone at the claims administrator's office manually matches them to the corresponding electronic bill. When that matching fails — and it frequently does — the payer denies the bill on the grounds that documentation was never received. The provider has no proof of transmission and no easy path to appeal.

When supporting documents are transmitted electronically alongside the e-bill using properly built workers' comp billing software, the claims administrator's clearinghouse returns an X12 277 Acknowledgement confirming receipt of both the bill and the documents. That acknowledgement is timestamped and indisputable. It eliminates the most common pretextual denial in workers' comp — "we never got the paperwork" — entirely.

Compliance Consequences: What Happens When the Tool Doesn't Fit the Job

Workers' comp compliance isn't just about submitting a bill correctly. It's about navigating a system in which the default outcome of a dispute is denial of payment, and in which payers face relatively few consequences for late or incorrect reimbursement unless the provider actively holds them to account.

State fee schedules govern what providers can be paid. In California, the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS) is updated regularly and is notoriously complex. Calculating the correct reimbursement amount requires current, accurate fee schedule data — something a general RCM has no reason to maintain. Getting this wrong means the provider accepts underpayments, sometimes without realizing it.

Payment deadlines are mandated by law in most states. In California, payers are required to reimburse within 15 working days of receiving a complete electronic bill. When bills don't reach the payer correctly — because they were routed through the wrong clearinghouse, or because supporting documents were never attached — the payment clock doesn't start. The provider waits, often indefinitely.

When a bill is improperly denied or underpaid, the provider has the right to dispute it through Second Review and, in states like California, through Independent Bill Review (IBR). These are formal, procedurally specific processes. A general RCM has no mechanism for initiating or tracking these appeals. Without a dedicated workflow for dispute resolution, providers let legitimate revenue slip away simply because the administrative burden of recovering it is too high.

Can a Standard RCM "Work" for Workers' Comp at All?

In a narrow technical sense, a standard RCM can submit a workers' comp e-bill — the same way a screwdriver can pound a nail. It's not the right tool, the results are inconsistent, and the cost of the failures adds up quickly.

Providers who use general billing software for workers' comp tend to experience a predictable pattern: higher rates of lost or undelivered bills, more denials citing missing documentation, slower payment, and greater administrative time spent chasing down what should have been straightforward reimbursements. Over time, the revenue lost to these inefficiencies can rival the cost of the care itself.

The workers' comp system already tilts toward payers by default. Providers who enter it without software purpose-built for its requirements are tilting the table even further against themselves.

What Purpose-Built Workers' Comp Billing Software Actually Does Differently

The distinction between a general RCM and a workers' comp-specific platform comes down to a few concrete capabilities.

Direct clearinghouse connections mean every bill reaches the right electronic destination — not after being rerouted, and not after being defaulted to paper. A maintained Payer ID database means the correct address for each claims administrator is always current, even as payers change clearinghouses or add client-specific IDs. Electronic document attachment means the 275 file travels with the 837, and delivery of both is confirmed in the 277 acknowledgement.

Beyond submission, specialized software tracks payment deadlines against the dates of confirmed delivery, flags late payments, and provides a pathway for appeals when reimbursement is incorrect. It automates fee schedule calculations so providers are never inadvertently accepting less than the law requires.

These aren't premium features. They are the baseline requirements for treating injured workers sustainably and getting paid for it.

The Bottom Line

For providers who see workers' comp patients, the question isn't really "which is better" between general and specialized billing software. It's whether the billing tool being used can actually do the job.

General medical billing software is excellent at what it's designed for. Workers' comp is outside the scope of that design — in clearinghouse routing, document handling, fee schedule compliance, payment tracking, and dispute resolution alike. Providers who attempt to use it for workers' comp billing will find themselves under-paid, under-documented, and under-equipped to fight back.

Workers' comp billing software built specifically for this system — with the connections, data, and workflows the system actually requires — is what makes treating injured workers financially viable.

daisyBill makes comp billing faster, easier, and less costly. Click below to learn more:

BILL BETTER: DAISYBILL