Andy AI

Capture, chart drafting, the OASIS itself, wound and medication documentation, the QA pass over the full history and physical, and coding output are all model generated. The human contribution is described as review and confirmation rather than production: clinical experts review, clinicians confirm codes in the app. One qualification a buyer should test. The company describes the product as human reviewed by clinical experts and the coding as coder backed, without stating how many charts those reviewers touch or how much they change. If reviewers are substantively rewriting output rather than verifying it, this is a services business with an AI front end and the grade should move, which is the same question this index puts to every vendor carrying a human layer.

A review gate is described at two distinct points, which is better than most of this lane manages. Documentation is drafted by AI, confirmed by the clinician, then synced to the EMR, and coding output requires clinician confirmation inside the app before it is billing ready. A separate QA layer described as human review by clinical experts sits between draft and chart. The companion app is explicit that it does NOT generate an OASIS on the device and that the agency must connect its EHR for the completed chart to appear, so nothing reaches the record through an unsanctioned path. Held at B rather than A because the reviewers are not credentialed in the way Lime Health names a credentialed home health coder verifying every chart by default, no threshold or abstention behaviour is published, and it is not stated whether QA review is applied to every chart or sampled.

No model card, named model, accuracy methodology or evaluation design located. The performance claims are stated as outcomes rather than as measurements: 45 percent more detailed charts, 24 percent more patient data captured, 45 percent more conditions identified, double the clinician productivity. Each of those needs a denominator and a comparator to mean anything, and none is given. A third party review site describes the accuracy as superhuman, which is that site's language rather than the vendor's, and is not evidence.

No study, controlled evaluation, third party assessment or named customer agency located, and no deployment count of any kind. Every figure is vendor reported and uncited: one hour saved per start of care chart, 90 minutes reduced to a 15 minute review, export in under five days, a 7 percent case mix increase, double productivity. The funding and founder credentials are verifiable through Y Combinator, Crunchbase and Dealroom and are real, but investor validation is not clinical evidence. The company also declined to submit products for a CB Insights analyst briefing, which is neutral in itself but means no third party analyst view exists either.

Not assessed. The only commitment located is that data uploads to a HIPAA compliant cloud. No retention schedule, audio deletion commitment, de identification practice or statement on training use was found. Two things make this gap larger than usual here. The app captures IMAGES as well as audio, so wound photographs of patients in their own homes enter the same pipeline. And the app store data disclosures indicate contact information and user content are linked to user identity with third party sharing declared, which a buyer should ask the vendor to explain precisely rather than infer from a store label.

HIPAA compliance is stated consistently and specifically, with the cloud described as HIPAA compliant in the product materials and in both app store listings. No business associate agreement terms, availability or pricing were published. This lands on the common rung: compliance claimed, BAA unpublished. The agency rather than the individual clinician is the contracting party here, which is a structurally healthier position than the free and self serve tools in this lane where a clinician can start recording before any agreement exists.

Not assessed. No named or dated certification, audit report, penetration test or trust centre located. HIPAA compliant cloud is a compliance claim rather than an attestation.

Not a regulated medical device and none claimed or required. The regulatory exposure that matters for this product is not device oversight but CMS: the OASIS drives both the quality reporting that determines agency star ratings and the case mix weighting that determines episode payment, so errors land in survey findings and in payment integrity rather than in device safety.

The reason for the C is one number: agencies using Andy are reported to see a 7 percent CASE MIX INCREASE. Under PDGM, case mix weighting determines what a 30 day home health episode pays, so this is the home health instance of the coding intensity gradient this index tracks, and it sits at a larger unit than most. The pattern is now visible at three scales: E and M level determines what a visit pays, DRG determines what an admission pays, case mix determines what an episode pays. Real counterweights belong in the same paragraph and are why this is C rather than D. Andy frames coding as accurate and DEFENSIBLE, requires clinician confirmation before anything is billing ready, and the underlying claim is that more complete capture of conditions genuinely present produces a more accurate case mix, which under a system that pays for documented clinical complexity is a legitimate argument rather than only a commercial one. There is no contingent pricing and no human removed. Separately, no fairness statement, subgroup analysis or accent and dialect disclosure was located, which matters in a segment where the workforce and the patient population are both linguistically diverse and the recording happens in the patient's home.

The architecture is genuine write back rather than transfer. The completed chart including the OASIS is generated INTO the agency EHR, the agency connects its EHR to Andy's cloud as a deployment step, and the companion app deliberately does not produce an OASIS on the device precisely so the record of truth stays in the EHR. That is the right shape. The gap is that NO EHR IS NAMED ANYWHERE. Lime Health, the closest comparator in this segment, names its six post acute systems explicitly. Andy says only that it is compatible with leading home health EHRs and that specific systems require confirmation during onboarding. For an agency running WellSky, MatrixCare, HCHB, Axxess, Devero or Netsmart, whether their system is supported today is the first question and the answer is not published.

Not assessed. Delivered as an iOS and Android companion app uploading to a vendor cloud, with an EHR connection established per agency. No hosting region, residency option, sub processor detail or offline behaviour was located. Offline behaviour is a specific question for this product rather than a generic one: home health visits happen in patients' homes in rural and low signal areas, and three vendors in this lane now address that explicitly while Andy says nothing about what happens when the signal drops mid visit.

No price published. Quotes are customised by agency size, clinician volume and EHR integration needs, and access runs through a demo. What lifts this above the unrated floor is one genuinely useful commercial disclosure: the company states the bundle costs less than agencies typically pay for QA and coding alone, which anchors the buyer to a cost line they already carry rather than to a per clinician software rate. That is a benchmarkable claim even without a number, and it also tells a buyer what is being displaced. Ask whether the price is per clinician, per chart, per episode or per agency, because in home health those produce very different totals at the same headline rate.

Narrow by design and deep within it. Home health only, spanning start of care through discharge, covering both nursing and therapy disciplines with therapy evaluations and exercise documentation captured during treatment. The depth marker this index looks for is present: it names the instruments rather than counting specialties, working to the OASIS and PDGM and organising the product around start of care as the pivotal chart. Wound documentation via photograph and medication list reconciliation are the two field specific capabilities. Held at B rather than A because coverage is a single care setting in a single country with no language breadth described, and because it addresses home health only rather than the wider post acute picture.