Commissioned Research
Top 10 Best Third Party Medical Billing Services of 2026

GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE

Healthcare Medicine

Top 10 Best Third Party Medical Billing Services of 2026

Editorial roundup comparing third party medical billing services like Optum, Conifer Health Solutions, and R1 RCM for hospital and clinic teams.

19 min readUpdated Editorially scoped research
How we ranked these tools
01Editorial Scope

Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.

02Source Research

Search agents gather the source set and the review record, including transcriptions of video reviews and podcasts.

Read our full methodology →

Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%

Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy

Third party medical billing services matter because outsourced coding, claims submission, denial handling, and accounts receivable throughput directly affect cash flow, coding accuracy, and patient billing outcomes. This comparison helps practices and billing operations teams weigh outsourcing models, integration and automation fit, and revenue cycle responsibility boundaries before selecting vendors for physician and facility workflows.

Optum is the best choice for multi-site billing teams that need managed throughput and tight denial follow-up because it keeps the loop moving from payer responses through resubmission decisions, whereas The Coding Network fits physician practices that want coding-led quality control since it routes denial outcomes back into documentation review before claims go out again.

Editor’s top 3 picks

Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.

Editor pick
1

Optum

Denial and claim-status follow-up operations that close the loop from payer responses to resubmission decisions.

Best for: Fits when multi-site billing teams need managed throughput and deep denial follow-up.

2

Conifer Health Solutions

Editor pick

Managed denial resolution with structured follow-up loops tied to payer-specific outcomes and AR status tracking.

Best for: Fits when mid-market teams need managed billing operations across professional and facility workflows.

3

R1 RCM

Editor pick

Operational claim lifecycle management that ties payer responses to rework queues instead of stopping at submission.

Best for: Fits when multi-payer physician and facility billing needs managed claim follow-up and denial rework.

Comparison Table

1
OptumBest overall
enterprise_vendor
9.1/10
Overall
2
enterprise_vendor
8.9/10
Overall
3
enterprise_vendor
8.8/10
Overall
4
8.3/10
Overall
5
enterprise_vendor
8.0/10
Overall
6
enterprise_vendor
7.9/10
Overall
7
7.5/10
Overall
8
specialist
7.0/10
Overall
9
6.9/10
Overall
10
enterprise_vendor
6.7/10
Overall
#1

Optum

enterprise_vendor

Offers healthcare revenue cycle, payment integrity, coding, billing, and administrative services.

9.1/10
Overall
Features9.1/10
Ease of Use9.1/10
Value9.1/10
Standout feature

Denial and claim-status follow-up operations that close the loop from payer responses to resubmission decisions.

Optum is a strong fit for physician practice billing and facility billing because it manages claim production, payer submission support, remittance processing, and denial management in a single operational loop. The integration and automation surface is geared toward high-throughput claim files and consistent handling across payer programs, which reduces manual exceptions when volumes rise. Governance controls are designed for multi-team operations, with role separation and auditability in processing steps that touch sensitive billing data.

A tradeoff appears in implementation and governance discipline, because getting predictable results depends on configuring payer rules, coding edits, and exception handling to match the practice or hospital’s documentation patterns. Optum fits best when a billing department needs managed throughput for recurring claims volumes and denial work rather than only limited overflow billing.

Pros
  • +Integrated professional and facility billing workflows under one operator
  • +Denial management focus tied to payer response loops
  • +EDI-centric exchange patterns for claim submission and remittance handling
  • +Operational governance for multi-site and role-based processing
Cons
  • –Setup requires careful payer and exception rule configuration
  • –Workflow tuning can be slower when documentation patterns change frequently
  • –Reporting granularity can demand defined workflows to match internal KPIs
  • –Large operating scope can increase change management overhead
Use scenarios
  • Hospital revenue cycle teams

    Facility billing with high denial volume

    Fewer unresolved denials

  • Multi-location physician groups

    Professional billing across payer mix

    More predictable cash cycles

Show 1 more scenario
  • Billing operations leadership

    Governed outsourcing for compliance needs

    Tighter process accountability

    Teams apply role separation and audit-friendly workflows for controlled billing operations.

Best for: Fits when multi-site billing teams need managed throughput and deep denial follow-up.

#2

Conifer Health Solutions

enterprise_vendor

Delivers hospital revenue cycle management, clinical business services, coding, billing, and patient access support.

8.9/10
Overall
Features8.9/10
Ease of Use8.9/10
Value8.9/10
Standout feature

Managed denial resolution with structured follow-up loops tied to payer-specific outcomes and AR status tracking.

Conifer Health Solutions is a third-party medical billing vendor geared toward revenue cycle operations that need consistent claims handling across professional billing and facility billing contexts. Teams typically see value when Conifer is responsible for the high-volume loops like claim status follow-up and accounts receivable follow-up while internal staff focus on clinical documentation and coding governance. Conifer’s operational focus tends to work best for multi-site groups where handoffs between eligibility, coding, claim submission, and denial resolution must follow one workflow map.

A tradeoff is that deeper automation and tighter control usually require structured intake on payer rules and internal escalation paths, which can slow initial ramp. Conifer works well when organizations have a defined payer mix and want fewer internal touches on remittance processing and denial research, especially when staff bandwidth is limited.

Pros
  • +Covers both physician practice and facility billing workflows
  • +Runs claim status follow-up and accounts receivable follow-up operations
  • +Focuses on denial resolution workflows instead of stopping at submission
  • +Operational approach fits multi-site billing governance
Cons
  • –Ramp requires upfront payer rules and escalation path documentation
  • –Workflow customization can lag internal edge cases without clear change requests
  • –Admin oversight is needed to keep coding and policy assumptions aligned
  • –Control depth depends on how responsibilities are split with internal teams
Use scenarios
  • Revenue cycle managers

    Reduce AR follow-up workload

    Faster collection cycle

  • Practice operations leads

    Unify professional billing work

    More consistent claims handling

Show 2 more scenarios
  • Revenue cycle analysts

    Stabilize denial resolution operations

    Lower denial leakage

    Denial work is managed as a continuous follow-through loop, not an isolated correction step.

  • Hospital billing managers

    Coordinate facility billing execution

    Cleaner payer throughput

    Facility billing execution stays aligned with payer follow-up and AR tracking expectations.

Best for: Fits when mid-market teams need managed billing operations across professional and facility workflows.

#3

R1 RCM

enterprise_vendor

Provides outsourced revenue cycle management, medical billing, coding, denial management, and patient financial services.

8.8/10
Overall
Features8.8/10
Ease of Use8.8/10
Value8.8/10
Standout feature

Operational claim lifecycle management that ties payer responses to rework queues instead of stopping at submission.

R1 RCM is positioned for end-to-end third party medical billing workflows that run beyond one-off claim submission into ongoing accounts receivable follow-up. The engagement commonly centers on claims lifecycle management, including payer response monitoring and rework for nonpaying or underpaying claims. For practices that rely on staff to coordinate coding, documentation, and billing edits, the provider’s operational structure reduces day-to-day administrative load while keeping billing decisions within a defined process.

A key tradeoff is that integration depth depends on how patient accounting systems, practice management systems, and coding workflows are connected for electronic exchange, because the service must align files, remittance data, and claim status signals to internal queues. R1 RCM fits best when a team wants an operating model for recurring billing cycles and denial resolution rather than a narrow function like submission-only processing. It is also a strong fit for groups that need consistent payer communications and documented escalation paths when account balances stall.

Pros
  • +Well-defined billing operations that cover the claim lifecycle
  • +Strong focus on payer response tracking and rework workflows
  • +Experienced staffing model for denial and follow-up workload
  • +Clear operational cadence for recurring billing cycles
Cons
  • –Integration depth varies by practice system connection maturity
  • –Governance and reporting require active coordination to stay aligned
  • –Complex documentation workflows can increase turnaround variability
  • –Queue priorities may feel opaque without regular status reviews
Use scenarios
  • Physician practice billing manager

    Monthly billing close with denial rework

    Fewer unresolved aging balances

  • Revenue cycle operations team

    High-volume claim status follow-up

    Lower staff time on follow-up

Show 1 more scenario
  • Hospital billing coordinator

    Facility claims with remittance reconciliation

    More consistent remittance handling

    R1 RCM manages facility billing execution through remittance and payer response workflows for account reconciliation.

Best for: Fits when multi-payer physician and facility billing needs managed claim follow-up and denial rework.

#4

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions

enterprise_vendor

Offers medical coding, billing, claims processing, utilization management, and healthcare administrative outsourcing.

8.3/10
Overall
Features8.3/10
Ease of Use8.3/10
Value8.3/10
Standout feature

Delivery model centers on standardized, multi-site revenue cycle operations with claims follow-up work queues managed across the account lifecycle.

GeBBS Healthcare Solutions supports physician practice billing and broader revenue cycle management by handling claims submission workflows and end-to-end follow-up processes. The service emphasis is on operational delivery with payer-facing EDI handling, claims management, and denial-oriented work queues tied to real accounts receivable outcomes.

Pros
  • +Operational coverage across submission, follow-up, and denial handling
  • +Payer-facing EDI workflow support for claims and remittance processing
  • +Multi-site execution model supports consistent billing governance
  • +Coding workflow support for professional billing through daily production cycles
Cons
  • –Practice staff control depends on service workflows, not self-serve tooling
  • –Integration is primarily file and message exchange, not deep in-platform visibility
  • –Change requests can add lead time when payer or workflow rules shift
  • –Admin visibility into exceptions may require more coordination with the billing team

Best for: Fits when mid-market practices need managed revenue cycle execution with governance across sites and reliable payer follow-up.

#5

AGS Health

enterprise_vendor

Delivers healthcare revenue cycle services covering coding, claims, denials, accounts receivable, and billing analytics.

8.0/10
Overall
Features8.0/10
Ease of Use8.0/10
Value8.0/10
Standout feature

End-to-end revenue cycle workflow execution that keeps resolution loops moving after claim submission.

AGS Health runs outsourced physician practice and facility revenue cycle workflows focused on claims submission through follow-up, along with denial and payment reconciliation processes. The service is distinct in its emphasis on multi-entity operational execution, where work moves across coding, claim output, and downstream resolution steps rather than stopping at posting or submission.

Pros
  • +Broad coverage of claims lifecycle beyond submission
  • +Works across physician and facility billing workflows
  • +Denial and follow-up handling reduces internal rework
  • +Operational playbooks support multi-location throughput
Cons
  • –Workflow visibility depends heavily on agreed reporting cadence
  • –Provider-specific documentation issues can slow clean claim rates
  • –Governance needs tighter internal coordination on edits
  • –Change requests can require lead time to propagate

Best for: Fits when mid-market billing teams need outsourced full-cycle execution across physician and facility workflows.

#6

Omega Healthcare

enterprise_vendor

Provides outsourced medical coding, billing, claims management, denial handling, and healthcare support services.

7.9/10
Overall
Features7.9/10
Ease of Use7.9/10
Value7.9/10
Standout feature

Operational denial resolution and claim status follow-up managed as an end-to-end billing workflow.

Omega Healthcare delivers third-party medical billing services for physician practices and facilities, with a focus on managed revenue cycle workflows rather than a software-first workflow. The service covers professional and facility billing operations, including claims preparation, payer communications, and downstream follow-up needed to drive payment.

Pros
  • +Staff-run billing workflows reduce day-to-day operational burden
  • +Denial and payment follow-up processes target revenue leakage points
  • +Handles both professional and facility billing within one vendor relationship
  • +Payer communications support ongoing claim status tracking needs
Cons
  • –Automation and API access are not the primary interaction layer
  • –Exception handling depends heavily on internal coordination and turnaround
  • –Workflow transparency is more process-based than tool-based
  • –Requires clear operational requirements to avoid misrouting of edge cases

Best for: Fits when practices need outsourced billing operations with structured exception handling and payer follow-up.

#7

The Coding Network

specialist

Provides outsourced physician coding, auditing, education, compliance, and documentation improvement services.

7.5/10
Overall
Features7.5/10
Ease of Use7.6/10
Value7.4/10
Standout feature

Coding-led operational workflow that routes denial outcomes back into coding and documentation review before resubmission decisions.

The Coding Network delivers third-party physician and facility billing support with a coding-first workflow that prioritizes documentation-to-code alignment before claims move into submission and follow-up. Core capabilities center on medical coding for ICD-10-CM and CPT/HCPCS, claims preparation in 837 formats, and revenue cycle activities that include denial management and claim status follow-up.

Pros
  • +Coding-first workflow that ties documentation review to claim readiness
  • +Denial management focus with a loop back to coding and documentation
  • +Clear handling path from coding decisions to claims submission artifacts
  • +Dedicated billing operations that reduce day-to-day manual coordination
Cons
  • –Limited evidence of deep API automation for eligibility, status, and remittance
  • –Workflow visibility depends heavily on operational reporting cadence
  • –Requires upfront scoping of coding rules and payer-specific edge cases

Best for: Fits when physician practices need coding-led billing quality control with handled denials.

#8

Coronis Health

specialist

Offers medical billing, coding, credentialing, compliance, and revenue cycle services for healthcare organizations.

7.0/10
Overall
Features7.0/10
Ease of Use7.0/10
Value7.0/10
Standout feature

Managed denial and claim status rework execution tied to operational processes rather than software-only tooling.

Coronis Health delivers third-party medical billing for physician practice and facility workflows, with managed revenue cycle services that cover claims production and follow-up. The service is positioned around end-to-end account handling, including denial and claim status work that reduces manual chasing for busy billing teams.

Pros
  • +Managed claim status follow-up reduces day-to-day payer chasing
  • +Denial handling focuses on recurring denial categories and rework loops
  • +Administrative transaction file workflow fits standard clearinghouse connectivity
  • +Operational cadence supports consistent monthly billing throughput
Cons
  • –Limited evidence of fine-grained API extensibility for custom automation
  • –Governance for internal billing edits depends more on service processes
  • –Reporting depth may lag teams that require near-real-time operational metrics
  • –Workflow changes can take time because they route through operational teams

Best for: Fits when a practice needs managed billing execution with reliable payer follow-up and denial rework support.

#9

Billing Paradise

agency

Provides outsourced medical billing, coding, claims follow-up, denial management, and payment posting.

6.9/10
Overall
Features6.9/10
Ease of Use6.9/10
Value6.9/10
Standout feature

Ongoing denial management plus claim status follow-up as a managed service, not just transactional billing throughput.

Billing Paradise handles third-party medical billing workflows for physician practice and facility claims, including claims preparation and payer submission. The service emphasizes end-to-end revenue cycle tasks such as denial management and claim status follow-up, which reduce the operational load on billing teams.

Pros
  • +Coverage across both physician and facility claim workflows
  • +Denial management and claim status follow-up handled as ongoing operations
  • +Operational reporting supports monthly AR and denial trend review
  • +Works with payer submission requirements for routine claims cycles
Cons
  • –Integration depth depends more on process onboarding than API automation
  • –Coding quality control is sensitive to documentation and internal standards
  • –Multi-payer complexity can extend turnaround time for exceptions
  • –Configuration and governance rely heavily on coordination with staff

Best for: Fits when mid-market practices need managed billing operations with active denial follow-up support.

#10

Firstsource

enterprise_vendor

Provides healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing, medical billing, coding, claims, and patient financial services.

6.7/10
Overall
Features6.7/10
Ease of Use6.7/10
Value6.7/10
Standout feature

Cross-workstream operational governance that coordinates coding, claims, AR follow-up, and denial remediation.

Firstsource supports physician practice billing and hospital and facility revenue cycle workflows through end-to-end claim processing, reimbursement follow-up, and denial work. The service is distinct for its delivery model that emphasizes operational governance across large payer and policy variation rather than just claims throughput.

Pros
  • +Operational governance for multi-entity billing workflows
  • +Managed follow-up cycles for claim status and payer resolution
  • +Structured denial handling tied to payer response outcomes
  • +Coding workflow managed alongside billing operations
Cons
  • –Less admin self-service than API-first billing orchestration tools
  • –Operational changes can require formal request and lead time
  • –Reporting depth depends on what the engagement scope covers
  • –Integration breadth varies by practice system footprint

Best for: Fits when multi-location practices need controlled execution across claim, AR, and denial workflows.

Conclusion

After evaluating 10 third party medical billing, Optum stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.

Our Top Pick
Optum

Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.

Frequently Asked Questions About Third Party Medical Billing

How do third-party medical billing services handle EDI file exchange for claims submission and follow-up?
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions centers delivery on payer-facing EDI file exchange and account-based claims follow-up queues. Coronis Health also relies on standard HIPAA administrative transaction file connectivity with clearinghouse and payer workflows instead of building custom interfaces for each client. Optum uses structured claim handling from claim creation through remittance interpretation to keep payer feedback flowing into resubmission decisions.
Which services support claim status tracking and remittance workflows after submission?
Billing Paradise manages denial work and claim status follow-up as part of an end-to-end revenue cycle workflow. Omega Healthcare runs denial-oriented resolution and payer communications that continue through downstream payment follow-up. AGS Health maintains resolution loops across claim output and downstream resolution steps instead of stopping after submission.
When a practice uses both professional and facility billing, where does managed coverage typically start and stop?
Conifer Health Solutions covers professional and facility workflows with managed payment follow-up and denial work, which reduces handoffs between billing teams. Firstsource coordinates execution across claim, AR follow-up, and denial remediation so multi-entity workflows do not break between service lines. R1 RCM ties payer responses to rework queues through the full professional and facility claim lifecycle.
What breaks if coding documentation standards are inconsistent before outsourcing begins?
The Coding Network routes denial outcomes back into coding and documentation review, which helps correct patterns that drive rejection in ICD-10-CM and CPT/HCPCS claims. Coronis Health highlights workflow configuration and operational processes as the control layer, so weak documentation quality increases rework volume. Firstsource depends on defined workflow ownership for coding, claims submission, and status monitoring, so missing documentation slows escalation for aged AR.
How do these providers handle denial management versus routine claims throughput?
Omega Healthcare manages operational denial resolution and claim status follow-up as a full billing workflow rather than only processing submission batches. Billing Paradise runs ongoing denial management plus claim status follow-up to reduce manual chasing by billing staff. AGS Health keeps resolution loops moving after claim output, which matters when denial work drives repeated payer interactions.
How do onboarding and workflow configuration differ between workflow-first and software-first models?
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions emphasizes standardized, multi-site revenue cycle operations and expects consistent process execution rather than self-serve tooling. Coronis Health focuses on workflow configuration, reporting visibility, and service-level governance for internal control. The Coding Network starts with a coding-led workflow that aligns documentation-to-code decisions before claims enter submission and follow-up loops.
What technical integration requirements are typically needed beyond basic claims submission files?
Optum supports EDI-oriented exchange patterns that fit clearinghouse and payer connectivity for remittance interpretation and follow-up. AGS Health concentrates on operational execution across claim output and downstream resolution, so integration focuses on getting payer responses and resolution steps into the managed workflow. R1 RCM fits multi-payer routines by organizing workflow-driven claim handling and follow-up tied to AR stages, which depends on consistent transaction flows.
How should admin controls, access control, and audit needs be handled for external billing staff?
Firstsource provides operational governance across multi-entity workflows and uses defined workflow ownership with escalation paths for aged AR, which aligns internal oversight with external execution. Coronis Health relies on workflow configuration and reporting visibility to support governance through operational processes rather than deep internal user administration. GeBBS Healthcare Solutions centers standardized processes across sites, which reduces the governance gap when multiple billing entities coordinate coding and billing execution.
Which provider fit is best when a practice needs cross-workstream coordination across coding, claims, AR, and denial remediation?
Firstsource coordinates coding, claims submission, AR follow-up, and denial remediation through cross-workstream operational governance. Conifer Health Solutions supports managed denial resolution with structured follow-up loops tied to payer-specific outcomes and AR status tracking. R1 RCM ties payer responses into rework queues through claim lifecycle management, which keeps corrections tied to measured AR stages.
Where does claim lifecycle visibility fall short if a practice expects a self-serve dashboard experience?
GeBBS Healthcare Solutions expects teams to run standardized revenue cycle operations with payer-facing follow-up queues, so visibility depends on operational cadence rather than self-serve biller tooling. Omega Healthcare also follows a staff-led workflow model that focuses on exception handling and payer follow-up, which can feel less like an internal dashboard tool. Coronis Health provides governance through service-level processes and reporting visibility, so visibility depth depends on the agreed workflow and operational reporting setup.

Tools reviewed

Primary sources checked during evaluation.

Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.

How to Choose the Right Third Party Medical Billing

We separate options by how well they handle third party medical billing workflows: whether they manage data exchange from intake through outcomes. The biggest differences show up in API automation, operational visibility, and how denial handling closes the loop.

API and automation depth

Why it matters

API and automation depth matters when third party medical billing needs to flow from your system to theirs without manual rekeying. Better integration reduces timing gaps and keeps remits and claim events aligned.

How to check

Ask what actions are available via API (claim creation, status updates, remittance processing, and posting triggers) and what events they support. In a demo, show a sample claim payload through your mapping and confirm you can re-run the same workflow in a sandbox.

Claim status follow-up workflow

Why it matters

Claim status follow-up workflow matters because third party medical billing is judged on what happens after submission. You need consistent tracking so you know what to retry, correct, or escalate.

How to check

Have the vendor show how status results appear over time and what the workflow does next when statuses change. Request an example with a simulated rejected/received pattern and confirm you can filter by payer and time window.

Denial handling and rework steps

Why it matters

Denial handling and rework steps matter because third party medical billing often fails at the last mile. Strong control turns denials into corrected resubmissions with clear ownership and audit trails.

How to check

Ask for a demo of how a denial is captured, categorized, and routed to rework. Then walk through a sample denial reason to corrected resubmission, including which fields change and where notes are stored.

Medical coding support in workflow

Why it matters

Medical coding support matters when billing accuracy depends on the codes that move with the claim. If coding edits are hard to control, errors become expensive during third party medical billing submissions.

How to check

During the demo, request a claim build that includes code edits and confirm how the product stores the before/after values. Ask whether code validation happens with each send and whether users can see which claims were impacted.

Remit to posting reconciliation

Why it matters

Remit to posting reconciliation matters because third party medical billing requires money movement to match claim outcomes. Good linkage reduces posting mistakes and makes payment differences traceable.

How to check

Ask how the product connects remittance results to patient/provider posting and how adjustments are explained. In the demo, load a sample remittance and show the full trace from claim to payment to any exception list.

Audit logs and admin controls

Why it matters

Audit logs and admin controls matter in third party medical billing because corrections and resubmissions need accountability. Without strong governance, teams struggle to prove what changed and why.

How to check

Request a walkthrough of user actions recorded during claim edits, status pulls, and denial rework. Ask who can change configurations and whether you can restrict actions using roles and view the audit history for a single claim.

Red flags

  • Status follow-up is mostly a dashboard with no defined next actions.
  • Denials show reasons but the tool can’t guide corrected resubmissions.
  • Remit handling exists, but reconciliation to posting is unclear.

Fit by situation

  • If your team relies on system-to-system automation, prioritize API and automation depth.
  • If you spend time chasing outcomes after submission, prioritize Claim status follow-up workflow.
  • If denials drive most of your rework, prioritize Denial handling and rework steps.
Commissioned Research

Funding and competing interests

This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.

They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.

Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →

Keep exploring

FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS

Not on this list? Let’s fix that.

Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.

Apply for a Listing

WHAT THIS INCLUDES

  • Where buyers compare

    Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.

  • Editorial write-up

    We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.

  • On-page brand presence

    You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.

  • Kept up to date

    We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.