How to evaluate AI for your revenue cycle. Five buyer guides.

Because the alternative is worse. Most buyer guides on the internet are written by vendors who are pretending they are not vendors, or by analyst firms whose business model is access fees. Both options leave the buyer without a real checklist. We are a vendor. We disclose that on every guide. We still publish the checklist we wish every prospect would run on us, because if a prospect runs a real evaluation and picks someone else, the buying decision was correct. If they pick us after a real evaluation, the relationship starts on better footing.

Three questions that cut through every vendor pitch. First, what is the evidence on MY data, not your demo data? Second, where is the audit trail, the explainability, the failure mode? Third, what happens when accuracy degrades or your model is wrong? Every guide in the set applies these questions to the specific category. The detailed framework lives at /ai/framework.

Six to twelve weeks for a meaningful pilot. Anything shorter is a sales process pretending to be an evaluation. Six weeks lets you stress test on real volume, run the same claims through your incumbent for comparison, and surface the edge cases that always live in your tail. Twelve weeks lets you watch accuracy stability across a payer policy update. Three weeks is a demo dressed up as a pilot. CFOs who approve three week pilots are choosing speed over information.

Buying the demo. Every demo runs on a curated dataset, a tuned specialty, and the vendor's best charts. The accuracy number you see in the demo is not the accuracy you will see on your data. Insist on running the evaluation on your own data. If the vendor refuses, that is the signal.

Yes. Each guide includes either a worked ROI example or a methodology for buyers to compute their own. We avoid generic ROI claims like 'save 30 percent on coding costs' because they do not survive contact with a real chart of accounts. The math template asks for your volume, your current denial rate, your current coder cost, and computes the realistic recovery range based on the category.

These guides are written for the person who is the procurement team. Most mid-market healthcare organizations do not have a dedicated vendor evaluation function. The buyer is the CFO or the VP of RCM or the practice manager. The guides are structured so a single person can run a defensible evaluation in six weeks without an analyst firm.

We will cover them. The current set includes the highest-spend categories: medical coding, denial prediction, eligibility verification, HCC coding, and prior authorization. Next quarter we are adding patient pay AI, clinical documentation improvement, contract analytics, and credentialing automation. Each guide takes about three weeks to draft, internal review, and publish.

Quarterly. Payer policies change, CMS rules change, and the vendor landscape moves. We refresh each guide on a quarterly cadence and version-stamp the publish date at the bottom. If you read a guide and the date is older than six months, ask us for the current version.