Two problems, not one
Get paid on the ones they said no to.
Getting to yes and getting paid on the no are different jobs. Keep whatever gets your authorizations submitted — we work the ones that come back denied.
Half one
Submission — someone else’s
Deciding whether auth is required, assembling documentation, submitting cleanly. Real work, and we don’t ask you to rip it out.
Half two
The residual — ours
Appeals, reconsiderations, peer-to-peer prep. Every point of first-pass approval you don’t have is a denial someone has to work or write off.
Inpatient level of care not established
Aetna · lumbar fusion · $18,400 at risk
“The submitted records do not document a trial of conservative therapy of sufficient duration, and the requested site of service is not supported by medical necessity criteria.”
Two assertions. Both are answerable from the chart and the contract — which is the entire job.
Reconsideration — inpatient level of care, lumbar fusion
Aetna · CP-0214 rev. 06/2026 · denial reason 4A · $18,400
The plan’s criteria require six weeks of documented conservative therapy [§3.1]. The chart shows continuous physical therapy from 03/14 to 05/02 [PT notes], exceeding that threshold.
Advanced imaging within 90 days is on file as of 06/11 [MRI]. Site of service is set by the agreement, not by medical policy [§4.2].
Sources
Policy and contract are labeled separately. A reviewer can open every one.
That package did not exist twenty minutes earlier. Here is every step between the denial and the signature — and who does each one.
How an appeal is built
A denial comes back. Ninety minutes of someone’s day, or six of ours.
Nothing here decides medical necessity. The physician does — we assemble the argument and cite it.
Reason code 4A — level of care not established
“Submitted documentation does not establish medical necessity under the plan’s length-of-stay criteria.”
The payer’s own criteria, against your own chart
An appeal package the reviewer can audit line by line
Criterion-by-criterion rebuttal, every claim anchored to the document it came from, in the payer’s required format — handed to the specialist for signature.
None of it survives contact with a spreadsheet. It has to live somewhere a reviewer works all day.
The workspace
One case, one verdict, one next action.
Requirements on the left, the chart evidence that satisfies them on the right, the citation one click deep. Nothing is asserted that a reviewer can’t open.


One slot per payer, empty until you fill it — this is a new workspace, so every row reads none uploaded yet. Once a contract is in, you can ask it questions, and its citations join appeal packages beside the policy ones, labeled separately, because an obligation is not a criterion.

What the pilot recovered against what it cost, and the day it paid for itself. Every recovered dollar is listed by case and marked verified when the payer's payment reference is on file — entered by a reviewer, never inferred. This is where an overturn rate stops being a promise and becomes a number.
Which leaves the only question worth asking before a pilot: why should you believe any of this?
What we put in writing
Four claims. All checkable before you sign anything.
Ask every vendor in this category the same four. Including us.
Provider side only
No payer product, no payer investors, no utilization-management contracts. Every other claim on this list a competitor could match by building it. This one they would have to unbuild. When you ask who else is on the other side of our table, the answer is nobody.
On the cap tableEvery payer, published in full
Named payers, sourced to public policy documents, each source on its own refresh cadence and flagged — not silently served — once it goes stale. Counted per document, not per payer brand, so licensees sharing one corpus are counted once. We compete on whether you can audit a criterion, not on how many we claim.
Browse the whole list →Da Vinci DTR + PAS conformance
Named conformance, not “FHIR-capable.” Tested and passing against Inferno, HL7’s own open-source reference validator — not a self-report — ahead of the CMS-0057-F compliance date of January 1, 2027.
Inferno-verifiedSingle-tenant per health system
One deployment, one tenant. PHI isolated to yours, encrypted at rest, with a documented auto-purge policy your security review can read before procurement starts.
In the security packetFour claims, all checkable. One offer that puts them at risk.
Paid pilot · fixed scope · BAA first
Run it on your own denials. Judge the before-and-after in one meeting.
A paid pilot on a fixed volume of your own denials, measured on overturn rate — the number we’re willing to be judged on.
Jay Clem
Founding Partner, MeetsCriteria
You’ll talk to the person who builds it. Book a call first — we put a BAA in place before any patient data moves.
jay@meetscriteria.comSchedule onlineReply inside one business day.
Model your residual first →