Real findings. Real notes. Real rules.

De-identified examples from analyzed documentation. This is what review-before-signature looks like.

straight from the panel

Four findings, as clinicians see them.

Unedited captures from Verq Check on de-identified documentation. The cards below them are illustrative examples of the same check families.

Blocker finding: 97110 billed code lacks documented justification — the per-code justification field is blank or too brief — blocker · 97110 justification

Medium finding: on the Plan tab, Neuromuscular Rehabilitation is checked but its supporting detail box is blank or too brief to support medical necessity — medium · plan-of-care substance

Medium finding: laterality not referenced — treatment side is left but the documentation never references that side — medium · consistency

Verq Check score card: 60 out of 100, needs review, fix 10 things before this claim is clean, 10 issues — the note score, in the panel

Undercoding

Evals billed below the complexity the note supports. A claim that pays less than it should looks clean to every scrubber — undercoding has no alarm. It never comes back as a denial; it just pays less, forever.

97161high

Eval billed at low complexity. The note documents two comorbidities affecting the plan of care and moderate clinical decision-making — consistent with 97162.

rule: eval complexity · direction-aware

97110 · 23 minmedium

23 documented minutes billed as 1 unit. The documented time supports 2 units under the timed-code total.

rule: cms 8-minute rule · per-code minutes

Unsupported billing

Units, NCCI pairs, and modifiers — the ones that do come back.

97530high

6 documented minutes — below the 8-minute threshold. 1 billed unit not supported by documented time.

rule: cms 8-minute rule · per code

97530 + 97140blocker

Bundled NCCI pair billed for the same session with no documentation supporting a distinct service. Without a 59 justification, the pair conflicts.

rule: ncci procedure-to-procedure edit

Audit exposure

Medical-necessity, visit-justification, and plan-of-care language — the “insufficient documentation” class that Medicare's error data ranks as the top cause of therapy denials.

subjective · daily notehigh

Chief complaint states no clinical reason for care (“doing okay — just wants to get stronger”). The note does not justify the visit as written.

rule: medical necessity · visit justification

plan of carehigh

Recertification window has lapsed for the active plan of care. Visits documented after the certification period are exposed on review.

rule: plan-of-care certification & recert timing

The whole story

Rules catch rule-breaks. The AI reviewer reads the note end to end — diagnosis to assessment to plan to billed codes — and flags where the story doesn't hold together. It reads a de-identified note: every identifier is stripped in the browser first, so no PHI leaves the browser — not even for the AI.

M25.561 · goals · planhigh

The diagnosis is right knee pain, but every goal and intervention in the plan targets shoulder function. As written, nothing in the plan of care treats the condition that justifies it.

rule: second read · diagnosis–plan consistency

97110 · assessmentmedium

The note bills skilled therapeutic exercise, but the narrative describes independently performed exercises with supervision. As written, the story doesn't demonstrate why a therapist's skill was required.

rule: second read · skilled-care narrative

Each of these took a reviewer's knowledge and about 40 milliseconds.

Your clinic's notes deserve the same look.

Join the beta On a different EHR? Request it — we add EHRs by demand.