Evin Levin, director of finance and operations at Allia Group, oversees asset underwriting, data analysis, and financial forecasting. With expertise in financial modeling, annual budgeting, and expense management, he plays a key role in optimizing company operations and executing projects that align with broad strategic objectives. He ensures every aspect of the financial strategy is focused on achieving equitable outcomes for healthcare providers.
With exceptional communication, team leadership, and analytical abilities, Evin consistently delivers impactful results. His dedication to excellence is reflected in his commitment to fostering a positive and continuously improving environment for both himself and his colleagues. Evin is deeply committed to ongoing learning and growth, always pursuing opportunities to advance personally and professionally.
Evin earned his degree in Business Administration from the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan.
A recent study commissioned by the Americans for Fair Health Care (AFHC), evaluating the Qualifying Payment Amounts (QPAs) under the No Surprises Act (NSA) Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process, finds that reported QPAs do not align with the actual median in-network contracted rates.
Listen to this article A little known fact: even several-year-old A/R tied to insurer underpayments can be recovered. Healthcare providers leave millions on the table every year due to unresolved underpayments from insurers acting in bad faith. A common misunderstanding is that if an insurer underpayment wasn’t challenged within several months, or missed out on the No Surprises Act (NSA)’s Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR)’s limited timeframe, it is too late to revisit the A/R. These severe underpayments strongly impact healthcare finances. Running an emergency room with less than 25% of fees covered by insurers sounds impossible. Yet, as we have uncovered on our Wall of Shame, physicians often only see mere fractions of the cost of services rendered paid by insurers. Many providers assume that if these underpaid services weren’t followed up on within a few months, they are no longer recoverable. However, depending on the state you operate in and your revenue recovery strategy, there may still be a substantial opportunity to recover that revenue. Allia Group works with healthcare providers to pursue recovery on underpaid insurer obligations, in many jurisdictions, going back as far as ten years. Here’s what providers need to know in regards to how far they can go back in time to recover insurer underpayments. Why Do Old Insurer Underpayments Get Ignored? Underpayments rarely draw urgent attention. Most billing workflows prioritize newly denied claims or current high-dollar services. But underpaid A/R, especially billing from multiple years ago, falls through the cracks for a few key reasons: 1. Reviewing Aging A/R Is Time-Intensive Manual review of old records can overwhelm internal resources. Sorting, identifying, and assessing historical underpayments takes the right datasets and extensive time and staff allocation. Even in the largest teams, the work simply doesn’t get done. 2. IDR Deadlines Are Tight The NSA requires open negotiation and IDR submissions within 30-day windows. If providers miss those deadlines, they often assume the opportunity is gone. However, IDR is only one viable pathway to revenue recovery— individual litigation windows are significantly longer. 3. Litigation Feels Financially Out of Reach Not only are many billing teams unequipped to pursue litigation, hospital systems and physician groups regularly consider litigation financially unviable. In healthcare, even the largest organizations’ finance and legal executives tread carefully around litigation, agreeing it’s costly enough to warrant caution. The fear of unpredictable expenses makes health systems avoid taking legal action, even when it could be a powerful tool for financial recovery. 4. Early Attempts Hit Dead Ends Even when a billing company flags an issue or attempts an appeal, those efforts often stall early. Frequently, where there is no structured escalation process or follow-up strategy, valid underpayments remain unresolved. As a result, significant revenue gaps are created—even when payers clearly failed to meet their obligations by underpaying providers or violating contract terms. How Far Back in Time Can Healthcare Providers Go? The timeframe for recovery depends on the location of the hospital, physician group, or EMS company. Each state sets their own unique statute of limitations on Allia Group’s legal causes of action. This is the timeframe in which a provider can legally pursue recovery on underpaid services. The chart below lists the states with the longest statute of limitations: State Lookback Window Louisiana 10 years New Jersey 6 years Massachusetts 6 years Ohio 6 years Indiana 6 years Tennessee 6 years New York 6 years Kentucky 5 years Illinois 5 years Missouri 5 years Depending on the location of services rendered, providers may be able to pursue reimbursement for care delivered up to 10 years ago, even if they’ve written off the balance or closed the A/R in their system. What Types of Insurer Underpayments Can Be Recovered? A wide range of underpayment scenarios can qualify for litigation-based recovery strategies. Essentially, if a payer paid less than what was owed under a contract or applicable law, that shortfall can be pursued years after the fact. These common situations include: Downcoded services with no clinical justification Improper denial of emergency services or inpatient stays Out-of-network reimbursements manipulated through flawed repricing models Repeated contract violations or rate reductions outside negotiated terms Claims ineligible for IDR due to timing or batching constraints Systemic patterns of underpayment across CPT codes or service types Allia Group’s Difference Allia Group specializes in litigation finance and other tools which mobilize providers to recover revenue tied to old insurer underpayments. Our approach is different from traditional billing or legal services: 1. Sophisticated Data Analysis We apply proprietary algorithms and state-specific legal knowledge to identify recoverable balances. We examine historical billing records, payer behavior, and contractual terms to surface actionable opportunities. 2. Bundled Litigation Model We group underpaid claims across providers, service lines, and CPT codes to build large, compelling cases against payers. This strengthens negotiating power while reducing administrative burden. 3. Litigation Finance Allia covers the costs of pursuing recovery, including legal fees, expert witnesses, data prep, and court costs. 4. Revenue Realization Our model turns closed or aging A/R into new revenue streams. We’ve helped providers identify and recover millions in unpaid balances previously considered unrecoverable. Key Takeaways Many providers miss out on recoverable revenue tied to old A/R because they assume it’s no longer viable for recovery. In many states, providers can pursue legal recovery of underpayments going back up to 10 years. A wide range of underpayment types can be included in litigation-based revenue recovery, not just denied claims. Litigation can offer a broader, more flexible recovery pathway than IDR style arbitrations or appeals. Allia Group helps providers identify, bundle, and finance litigation-based recovery—unlocking millions in lost revenue. Recover Old A/R from Insurer Underpayments with Allia Group – Contact Us Now Want to discover what revenue your healthcare practice could recover from old A/R tied to insurer underpayments? Contact Allia Group for a complimentary consultation to determine your best course of action.
Listen to this article A growing number of healthcare providers are opting out of class action settlements—and with good reason. In the landmark $2.8 billion Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) antitrust settlement, health systems like the University of Pennsylvania Health System, MedStar Health, and Geisinger chose not to accept the generic terms applicable to a broad class action settlement. Instead, they opted out of the class action and pursued individual litigation tailored to the specific harm they experienced. Their decisions reflect a larger shift in thinking: as payer behavior becomes more aggressive and reimbursement rates decline, providers are looking for smarter, more strategic paths to healthcare revenue recovery. This shift raises an important question: Should your practice participate in a class action like the Blue Cross class action, or take the path of individual litigation? The answer depends on your healthcare revenue recovery goals, your potential claim value, and how much you want to influence the outcome. This blog outlines the key considerations to weigh as you decide what path makes the most sense for your organization. It is critical to note that class actions often include broad release language that can impact your ability to bring future claims against a payer, even those unrelated to the original harm pursued in the class action. Understanding the full scope of these releases is essential before deciding whether or not to opt out. Consideration #1: How Much Revenue Is at Stake? For many providers, the first and most practical question is: What kind of revenue recovery is realistic? Class actions are inherently broad. They aim to settle disputes for large numbers of claimants at once. That scale often means lower per-claimant payouts. Funds must be divided among all participants, and attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and settlement terms dilute each provider’s share. The result: a check that may be somewhat easy to claim, but underwhelming in value. Individual litigation involving opting out, by contrast, allows providers to seek revenue recovery based on the full scope of damages relevant to their organization. If your practice has endured years of underpayments, been forced out-of-network, or faced systemic delays and denials, you may have high-value claims that far exceed what a class settlement would yield. In many cases, that gap can amount to millions in additional revenue. For smaller or mid-sized practices, that level of revenue recovery could transform operations. For larger health systems, it could offset years of reduced margins and fund future growth. As reimbursement pressures mount across the industry, the financial opportunity presented by individualized litigation becomes increasingly hard to ignore. Although a class action can result in revenue recovery, it is equally important to focus on the rights which might be lost. Participating in a class action means accepting the settlement’s release language, which can be broader than it appears. In some cases, these releases extend beyond the specific injury at issue, potentially waiving your right to pursue future litigation for related (but still distinct) payer conduct. Failure to opt out may leave your organization locked into terms that handicap future claims. In some cases, the long-term legal consequences of that release can outweigh any short-term payment from the class action. Consideration #2: What Insurer Bad Behavior Is Your Organization Trying to Combat? Class action settlements are designed to resolve large-scale disputes affecting a broad category of harmed individuals and groups. But in doing so, they rarely address the specific behaviors or policy decisions that triggered the issue, or the unique issues that may have affected subsets of the class. The process focuses on compensating the class, not fixing the issues affecting your group. Key Factors That Make Your Case Unique Class settlements often fail to reflect the unique damages your organization may have suffered. For example, the contrast in how physicians vs. health systems are treated, the terms of your direct contracts with the payer—or lack thereof, and the specific impact of insurer practices in your geographic market can all create meaningful differences in harm that class treatment may overlook. Health Systems Vs. Physicians & Physician Groups In the case of the $2.8B BCBS suit, 92% of the settlement proceeds are going towards health systems due to evaluations by the plaintiff’s economists. This means that the affected practitioners and provider groups are left to share only 8%. Therefore, if a physician group is trying to combat insurer underpayments, this particular lawsuit may not be the most fruitful. Contractual Payer Relationships (or Lack Thereof) Organizations with direct contracts in place may have specific rights or limitations based on the terms of those agreements. In contrast, non-participating or out-of-network providers are often left without a clear legal framework for reimbursement. A class settlement rarely captures these nuances, potentially overlooking key differences in payment terms, rate methodology, and enforcement mechanisms. Geographical Market Impact Insurer tactics aren’t always applied uniformly across markets. Your region may be subject to unique practices, such as aggressive downcoding, network tiering, or payment deferrals that aren’t as prevalent elsewhere. Class settlements based on national averages or aggregated harm can fail to account for the concentrated damage in specific geographic areas. Why a Targeted Litigation Strategy? If your organization has been affected by targeted practices, such as delays in pre-authorization, manipulation of payment rates, or algorithmic claim denials, individual litigation gives you the ability to focus on those exact practices and your precise harms. You can craft a case around how those behaviors impacted your business, present specific evidence, and negotiate toward remedies that make sense for your unique situation and goals. This type of tailored litigation also allows for different forms of resolution. Rather than accept the same terms as every other claimant, you can pursue corrective action, policy changes, or operational commitments that align better with your goals. Consideration #3: Could Individual Litigation Yield Greater Leverage or Long-Term Value? Class settlements may resolve overall disputes, but as is often the case, influencing payer behavior is always a challenge. Despite billion-dollar settlements, many insurers continue to engage in the