How does the platform produce a rolling 13-week cash forecast operators trust?
Design target · Expected outcome
±15% → ±5% accuracy
Design target modeled from workflow design. No operator community has been measured, no approved Evidence Record supports it, and business outcomes remain contributory — figures are targets, not results. See Industry Findings for methodology.
Incumbents this workflow touches
Performs in-platform: Manual 13-week cash model in Excel
Integrates with (Tier 3): Treasury Prime · Bank reporting (BAI2) · Cash positioning tools
SeniorCRE does not “replace” the EHR. Where PointClickCare, MatrixCare, Yardi, or OnShift are in place, the workflow runs on top of the existing record via integration.
The problem
Cash forecasts are built in Excel from a snapshot of AR and a guess at payroll. When the actual lands at the end of the week, it bears little resemblance to the forecast, and capital decisions are made on stale data.
How the platform runs it
A rolling 13-week cash forecast is built from accepted source evidence reconciled to the operator-approved ledger definition: AR collections by payer with historical lag, payroll from the schedule, AP from approved invoices and recurring commitments, debt service, and capex commitments. Variance to forecast is reported weekly with explanations.
On the shift
The CFO opens the rolling 13-week forecast on Monday morning. AR collections by payer use historical lag — Medicare pays in 18 days, this Medicaid plan in 47, private-pay in 33. Payroll comes from the live schedule, not last year’s average. AP commitments include the three large vendor invoices approved last week. Variance to last week’s forecast is +$118K, explained by a faster-than-expected Medicare batch payment. The capex draw on Friday is sized to the actual position, not a guess.
What the outcome looks like
Forecast accuracy moves from ±15% to inside ±5%. Treasury decisions — line-of-credit draws, distributions, capex timing — are made on data instead of intuition.
What goes wrong without it
On Excel cash forecasts, the AR pull is a static snapshot, payroll is the prior-period average, and AP is whatever the controller remembers. Variance to forecast is routinely 15%. The line-of-credit draw is sized large to be safe; the unnecessary interest is real money. Capital decisions — distributions, capex timing, hold-or-buy on a property — get made on a forecast everyone privately distrusts.
Show me the evidence
Operators do not buy claims. They buy proof. If anything on this page reads as aspirational, ask us to walk you through the surface in production for a community at your acuity and payer mix.
Where this connects in the platform
Every financial workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Regulatory and accounting references
Financial workflows on this page reflect CMS PDPM and PDGM payment rules, GAAP revenue recognition (ASC 606), and the state Medicaid case-mix programs that drive reimbursement.
- Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) — SNF Payment Methodology
CMS
Component scoring (PT, OT, SLP, Nursing, NTA) and the variable per-diem adjustments that drive Part A revenue.
- Medicaid Case-Mix Reimbursement — RUG-IV and successor systems
Medicaid.gov
State-level case-mix methodology overview; each state files its own State Plan Amendment with rate calculation detail.
- ASC 606 — Revenue from Contracts with Customers
FASB
The GAAP standard for revenue recognition; governs how room-and-board, ancillary, and Medicaid revenue is recognized over the resident stay.
- OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Nursing Facilities
HHS OIG
Federal expectations for billing integrity programs — drives audit-log requirements and segregation of duties around claims.