Medical Billing Services

Medical Billers and Coders (MBC) is a US-focused medical billing and coding outsourcing company operating from India, specializing in revenue cycle management services for healthcare providers across the United States. The company markets itself exclusively to the US healthcare market, with its website at medicalbillersandcoders.com serving as the primary point of contact for prospective clients.

The core service offering centers on medical billing and coding, the process of translating clinical documentation into standardized codes (ICD, CPT, HCPCS) and submitting claims to payers, following up on denials, posting payments, and managing accounts receivable. These are foundational revenue cycle processes that most small-to-mid-size physician practices, specialty clinics, and ambulatory surgery centers outsource when internal billing staff become a cost burden or when denial rates and collection lag become a problem.

Based on what is publicly available, MBC's service scope appears to include claim submission, medical coding, denial management, payment posting, accounts receivable follow-up, and eligibility verification. These are the standard components of end-to-end revenue cycle management. The company appears to serve multiple specialties, medical billing is rarely generic, and specialty-specific coding (cardiology, orthopedics, behavioral health, urgent care, etc.) requires coders trained on specialty-specific CPT and modifier usage. Whether MBC has deep bench strength across all specialties or concentrates on a subset is something a prospective buyer should directly verify.

The delivery model is offshore India-based, which is a common and generally well-established model for US medical billing outsourcing. India has a large talent pool of coders credentialed through AAPC (CPC) and AHIMA (CCS, CCS-P) certifications, and many India-based RCM companies have served US healthcare clients for over a decade. The offshore model typically translates to lower per-claim or per-FTE cost compared to US-based billing services, though the tradeoff is timezone gap, which matters when payer follow-up calls need to happen during US business hours. I would ask MBC specifically how they handle payer phone follow-ups, whether agents work US-aligned shifts or whether turnaround on follow-up activities is next-day.

From a compliance standpoint, any company handling US patient billing data must operate under HIPAA-compliant frameworks. This means Business Associate Agreements (BAAs), data encryption, role-based access controls, secure transmission protocols, audit logging, and background-checked staff. HIPAA compliance is non-negotiable for any US healthcare billing outsourcer, it is not a differentiator, it is a baseline requirement. I would not rely on a vendor's self-declaration of HIPAA compliance alone; I would ask for specifics: where patient data is stored, who has access, what happens when an employee is offboarded, how incidents are reported, and whether they carry cyber liability insurance. None of MBC's formal certifications (such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, or HITRUST) are confirmed in available research, so buyers should press on the security posture directly rather than assume.

The pricing model for offshore medical billing services typically follows one of two structures: a percentage of collections (commonly 4% to 8% of net collections, depending on specialty and volume) or a flat per-claim fee. Some vendors offer per-FTE monthly pricing for larger practices. Which model MBC uses, or whether they offer more than one, is not confirmed in available research. Buyers should request a detailed fee schedule that includes what is and is not covered: claim submission, secondary claim handling, denial management, patient statement generation, credentialing support, and reporting are sometimes included and sometimes priced separately.

The right buyer for an offshore medical billing service like MBC is generally a small-to-mid-size US physician practice or specialty clinic that has a reasonably documented billing process, some volume consistency, and wants to reduce the overhead of maintaining in-house billing staff. A solo provider or very low-volume practice may not meet minimum engagement thresholds, so that is worth confirming upfront.

I would be careful about a few things when evaluating MBC specifically. First, the research base available on this company is thin, which is common for mid-market offshore billing vendors but means buyer due diligence has to do more work. Second, medical billing is a process where errors compound: a miscoded claim, a missed deadline for filing, or a failed eligibility check translates directly into revenue loss or compliance exposure. Third, specialty-specific competency matters enormously, a coder experienced in family medicine may not be the right fit for interventional pain management or complex surgical specialties.

The questions I would prioritize before engaging: What specialties do your coders have the most claim volume in? What is your average denial rate across clients, and what is your first-pass resolution rate? How do you handle payer phone follow-ups across timezones? What does your onboarding process look like for a new practice, who captures the workflow, what is the go-live timeline, and who is the named account manager? What reporting does the client receive, and how frequently? Can you share a sample report? Do you sign a BAA, and can I review your data security practices in detail?

For a buyer choosing between US-based and offshore medical billing, offshore India-based services are a reasonable option when the process is well-documented, the specialty has standard coding patterns, and the buyer has some internal capacity to review reports and manage the relationship. They are a riskier choice when the practice has complex coding needs, irregular payer mix, or no one internally who can catch billing errors. Before committing, I would strongly recommend a short pilot engagement, even 30 to 60 days on a subset of claims, to evaluate coding accuracy, denial rates, turnaround times, and the quality of reporting before transferring the full account.