Coding reviews claims before you submit them, which is the moment when a fix is still free. Instead of finding out about under-coding or a compliance problem after a denial, you see it while you can still correct the claim. The example below is a sample batch.
The Coding dashboard. Revenue uplift and audit-risk exposure sit above the reviewed claims.
The headline numbers
Claims reviewed in the batch.
Revenue uplift: the range you could capture by correcting under-coding, in real dollars.
Audit risk exposure: the range you are exposed to if the problem claims go out as billed.
Clean claims: how many need no change at all.
Issues by category
A quick breakdown of what is driving the findings, such as E/M under-coding, a missing Modifier 25 or U5, RT/LT laterality, LCD or medical-necessity gaps, missing add-ons, and NCCI conflicts. It tells you where your documentation or coding habits could use attention, not just this batch.
The claims table
Every claim gets a row: the claim, patient and date of service, specialty, billed codes, the suggested change, the issue type, a confidence score, a severity label, and the dollar impact. Severity runs from Revenue plus (money to capture) to Clawback risk (money to protect), and the riskiest claims are flagged to HOLD submission so nothing goes out before you have looked. If your organization needs payor-specific coding rules or custom denial logic, that is available on Enterprise plans.