Regional health plan processing 50,000+ claims monthly with a team of 25 claims adjusters reviewing medical documentation for coverage decisions.
Claims adjusters spent 4 to 6 hours daily manually reviewing medical records attached to claims. Documents arrived in inconsistent formats including PDFs, faxes, and scanned images.
Extracting relevant clinical information for claim decisions was tedious and error-prone. Adjusters frequently missed relevant details buried in lengthy documents.
Processing backlogs grew during peak periods, delaying claim decisions and impacting member satisfaction. The manual approach could not scale with volume increases.
We started with a document inventory to understand the types of records received and their relative volumes. Lab results, physician notes, and imaging reports made up 80% of incoming documents.
We built a classification system to automatically sort incoming documents by type. This allowed specialized extraction models for each document category rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Extraction models were trained on the organization's specific document formats. We worked with the claims team to identify the key data points needed for coverage decisions.
Rather than fully automating decisions, we created a review interface where adjusters verify AI extractions. This keeps humans in the loop while dramatically reducing reading time.
The system was deployed via API integration with their existing claims platform, requiring no changes to adjuster workflows outside of the new review interface.
Incoming documents from fax, email, and portal uploads are captured and queued for processing
Documents are automatically sorted by type: lab results, clinical notes, imaging reports, and other
Specialized models extract relevant clinical information based on document type
Extracted data is formatted consistently for adjuster review
Claims adjusters verify extractions and approve or correct as needed
Validated data flows into the claims decision workflow
Consultants spent hours searching shared drives and legacy project folders to find relevant past work. File naming conventions were inconsistent, and folder structures varied by practice area.
Read Case StudyMaintenance requests arrived via phone, email, text, and tenant portal with no centralized tracking. Staff manually logged requests into spreadsheets, leading to lost tickets and duplicate work.
Read Case StudyCustomer service staff spent 60% of their time answering order status inquiries that could be resolved by checking the shipping system. Ticket volume tripled during holiday peaks, creating multi-day response backlogs.
Read Case StudyContract review required attorneys to manually read every clause in vendor agreements, leases, and purchase contracts. Standard contract review took 2 to 3 hours per document even for routine agreements.
Read Case Study