Verify your autonomous coder before the claim goes out.
Your AI assigns the codes. Coding-Assist Verification re-derives them against the documentation and the coding rules, tells you which codes are defensible and which are not, shows you the reasoning for every code, and hands you an audit receipt. Not a confidence score. Proof you can bill on.
Book a pilot See a sample receipt
THE PROBLEM
Autonomous coding is arriving faster than anyone can check it. The market is running from under two billion dollars toward thirteen and a half (roughly 28 percent a year), and the reason is simple, there are not enough coders, the staffing gap is well past half the field. So practices reach for an AI coder, and the same shortage means nobody is left to audit it.
The AI produces a plausible code and a confidence number, and asks you to trust it. That is fine for a suggestion. It is not fine for a submitted claim, where a wrong code becomes a denial, a clawback, or an FCA exposure with your NPI on it. And grading probability with more probability (a model scoring a model) does not clear the bar a payer or an auditor holds you to. As of August 2, 2026, the EU AI Act makes "prove what your AI did" a board-level obligation, not optional.
HOW IT WORKS
Coding-Assist Verification sits behind your coder, not inside it. For each coded claim it runs the same pipeline AYA runs on its own claims:
- it scrubs the claim for completeness and coding accuracy,
- it checks the codes against the documentation and the coding rules,
- it analyzes the claim for up-coding and under-coding (gaming) risk,
- it gates a high-risk claim to a human instead of waving it through,
- it selects the defensible code inside the peer-percentile safe zone,
- and it generates a tamper-evident audit-defense package with the rationale for every code.
Where a decisive check exists, you get a clear answer. Where none does, it fails closed and flags the claim for review, it does not manufacture a green check. Your coder, your prompts, and your data stay yours.
WHAT YOU GET (the receipt)
For every claim, one record an auditor or a payer can read:
- which codes are defensible and which are not, - the rationale per code (why this ICD-10 or CPT, tied to the documentation), shown, not scored, - the risk flag (up-coding, under-coding, missing documentation, bundling), with the reason, - the denial and clawback-risk delta of the codes as submitted versus the defensible set.
A disagreement report you can put in front of a payer, not a dashboard you have to trust.
WHO IT'S FOR
Revenue-cycle teams and coding operations running AI or autonomous coding assist, physician groups, billing companies, and RCM shops living inside the coder-staffing gap. If a wrong code from your AI ends up as a denial, a clawback, or in front of an auditor, this is for you. It is not for consumer health chat or anything that never gets billed.
PRICING (the ladder)
- Pilot, a fixed-price paid proof on your own batch of coded encounters. You see the disagreement report, the per-code rationale, and the risk delta before you commit to anything. - Value-metered, per verified claim, once the pilot proves the delta. Your coder keeps running, we grade each claim pre-bill. - Platform, license the pre-bill coding verifier into your RCM stack.
IP is licensed, never assigned. The verifier stays ours, the value is yours. These numbers are starting hypotheses, not commitments.
THE PROOF (dogfood)
We run this discipline on ourselves. Luigi's coder and Luigi's verifier are the same in-house pipeline, so AYA grades its own coded claims with the exact verifier it sells. And every capability AYA ships terminates as a verification receipt, the same kind of proof this product produces (the receipts live in the open, under our verification reports). We are not selling a verification habit we do not keep.
Honest about the state of it, this product is the two coding pipelines AYA already runs (encounter-to-claim, and the billing-integrity check that carries the audit receipt), marketed together and reused, not rebuilt for the demo. What it has not yet done is run against a real practice's live coder feed. That is the first live test, and it needs a BAA and de-identified or consented data before a single real encounter is touched.
HONEST NOTE
We would rather under-promise. Where a sound check exists, we give you a defensible answer with the reasoning shown. Where one does not, we tell you that and escalate to a human, we do not fake a green check. No PHI was touched building this, no claim was submitted, no money moved. That refusal to fake certainty is the entire product.
Book a pilot
*This page is a specification. The capability it describes is not built yet, and nothing here is a claim that it runs today.*