Bassim Michael has created Practice Gauge, a cloud-based analytics platform for his fellow accountants to use with their dentistry and veterinary clients.
“I know a lot of my CPA peers think I’m crazy to be working with dentists,” he said. “I really enjoy working with them. Once we found out we enjoyed working with them, we started figuring out what they really wanted. We found out they were very competitive, so they wanted to compare to their peers. They wanted more proactive tax planning, and they also wanted quarterly meetings.”
Bassim Michael
He finds they are more open to meetings with their accountants. “I think what helps for dentists is that they usually work three or four days a week, so they actually have time to meet with their CPAs,” he said. “So we created a client-focused type of practice, and we bundled accounting, tax advisory and tax planning, and they really liked it. We did value pricing and fixed pricing long before it was popular, back in 2006.”
“We help them with collecting bills, and they like the practice management overall and financial management. We basically do write-up, accounting, tax, tax compliance, tax planning, business advisory. We don’t get into debt collection, billing and stuff like that. We try to basically act like their CFO.”
He works with about 200 dentists now in about 16 states but is based in Southern California. Through the other CPAs using Practice Gauge he estimates he is supporting a total of about 300 dentists and veterinarians.
“We always ask our clients, what’s keeping you up at night? Interestingly enough, it’s probably the same things that are keeping accountants up at night,” said Michael. “Staffing is really big on their mind. And what complicates it for dentists and other health care providers is that if they are dependent on insurance reimbursements, insurance payments have not gone up. They’ve actually gone down, and not kept up with inflation.”
He noted that while salaries since COVID have risen dramatically, insurance company reimbursements have not. “We’ve seen strong pressure on their earnings, and many providers are actually looking at going out of network with their insurance, because they just cannot be profitable,” said Michael.
In some cities, hygienists get paid $60 or $70 an hour, while insurers are only reimbursing them $50 or $60 for doing the cleaning. “It’s not even covering the salary of the hygienist,” said Michael. “If the hygienist is spending an hour, and there’s a cancellation right then, for sure they’re going to be losing money on that. It’s been very challenging for dentists who run their practices, and that’s why they need guidance from us.”
He developed Practice Gauge about six years ago, and it keeps track of information such as overhead and cash flow. The program is certified by Intuit, connects with QuickBooks Online, and is available on the Intuit marketplace.
“It picks the data from QuickBooks Online, and then we’re able to also compare a particular client’s data with the averages of the other clients in the database,” said Michael. “We can sort by zip code specialty. We can do a lot of stuff, and we don’t just do it for dentists. We can also do it for veterinarians, and we could also add other specialties or other types of professional services. We could actually do it for accountants as well.”
The system tracks financial data and overhead profitability. “We want to track professional and paraprofessional salaries,” said Michael. “Over the last four or five years, salaries have become your biggest expense. We want to track what percentage of revenues that’s consuming.”
The program does peer analysis and trend analysis based on information from the dentists and vets in the database. “Trend analysis is when you’re comparing this year to previous years and peer analysis is when you’re comparing your data to other averages in the database,” said Michael. “No one can see what each individual practice is doing. They just hit the averages. Data security is very important to us. That’s why we undergo an audit every year. The third report that we provide is monthly collections. It shows the collections in a graph form and also in a table format.”
The report also offers information on net collections versus net operating income. “We’re really big on determining what the true operating income is,” said Michael. “The biggest challenge that a lot of CPA firms are having with their clients is being able to provide the deliverables in a timely manner, and this automates that part. If CPAs want to provide advisory services, that report could become the focal point of your quarterly or monthly advisory meeting.”
The accounting and audit landscape in 2026 is defined by the full integration of artificial intelligence directly into core enterprise software platforms. Rather than operating as standalone third-party tools, generative AI, automated reconciliation, and continuous anomaly detection are now natively embedded within major ERP engines including SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, QuickBooks, and Sage. This technology integration is transforming daily financial operations, internal reporting controls, and external audit workflows.
Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap
Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap between finance teams utilizing integrated AI automation and those relying on legacy manual processes. Organizations actively leveraging embedded AI report up to 37% higher revenue per employee, driven by automated invoice matching, instant ledger entries, and predictive cash flow modeling. Routine, high-volume transactional tasks that once required manual intervention are now executed in real time with continuous digital audit trails.
AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities
However, the widespread deployment of embedded AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities for accounting professionals. Auditing standards now mandate strict verification protocols for algorithmically generated journal entries and financial commentary. External auditors are evaluating enterprise AI governance frameworks, reviewing automated rule sets, testing data ingestion pipelines, and ensuring that financial controllers maintain human-in-the-loop oversight over automated system outputs.
Furthermore, cloud governance and data security have become core operational skills for modern CPAs and controllers. As financial ledgers and client data stream through interconnected cloud ecosystem APIs, accounting teams must implement multi-factor access controls, continuous data encryption, and strict data privacy compliance to protect sensitive financial records from cyber vulnerabilities.
The embedding of AI into enterprise accounting software redefines internal financial controls and career requirements for accounting professionals. Business owners and finance leaders must update governance protocols, invest in staff digital literacy, and ensure accounting systems maintain rigorous audit compliance to capture productivity gains safely.
Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.
The expansion shifts ESG compliance
This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.
To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.
The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.
Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.
A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.
What the SEC Proposed
According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.
The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.
Why Investors Are Pushing Back
Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.
Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.
Lessons From the U.K. Experience
The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.
Practical Implications for Finance Teams
Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.
Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.
What to Watch Next
The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.
Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.