One starting point.
Three paths from there.
The ranges below come from the current commercial model. They are planning hypotheses, not validated market prices or a promise of availability.
Recommended starting pointFor one supported Michigan payment-rule question
Recovery Review
Design-partner scopingScopedpilot fee + contingent component
A focused engagement to examine an agreed claim population and make supported rule discrepancies visible for qualified review.
- Fixed inputs, rule version and legal as-of date
- Supported no-fault evaluation with citations
- Written scope before data or fees change hands
- Recovery is never promised or guaranteed
Discuss a scoped review ↗For one post-acute or community rehabilitation facility
Facility
Planned after a validated pilot$2k–$5kper facility / month · indicative range
The expected recurring model for supported claim-pricing and appeal-review workflows after the wedge is validated.
- Value measured per facility—not per generic seat
- Ongoing supported rule evaluations
- Evidence-linked appeal drafting with human review
- Claim ingestion and production workflow are not live
Validate facility fit ↗For billing-team learning with synthetic cases
Trainer
Individual preview live · teams planned$50–$100per learner / month · indicative team range
Case-based onboarding and reviewer-readiness practice. Individual synthetic preview access remains free today.
- Synthetic cases only—no patient information
- Payer-context grading with visible rationale
- Team identity and progress reporting are planned
- Not an AAPC credential or recognized certification
Discuss team learning ↗ For multi-site providers and specialist RCM agencies
Network
CustomScope provider and agency workflows separately
No public percentage or standard enterprise term. Sites, eligible claim volume, services and recurring software are scoped independently so outcome revenue is not presented as ARR.
Discuss network fit →