Credo Health

The grade describes the mechanism, not the quality. Genuine model work sits at the centre: inferring that a record should exist from signals in the records you already hold is a real inference task, and agent assisted workflows drive the recovery. But the company describes its offering as combining digital and manual retrieval with AI driven analysis AND HUMAN EXPERTISE, and the value a customer buys includes an operational capability, chasing charts by telephone, portal and fax, that is not reducible to a model. That operational reach is the differentiator as much as the inference is, which is why this is B rather than A.

The product's default is unusually honest and that is the substance of this grade. Rather than assembling whatever records arrive and presenting the result as a patient history, Care Map explicitly tells the user WHAT IS STILL MISSING, flagging unresolved gaps rather than silently delivering an incomplete picture. Combined with source citation on every element, a clinician can see both where each fact came from and where the holes are, which is a materially better epistemic position than any product that hands over a summary with no completeness signal. Held at B because the inference itself is unmeasured in both directions: no false positive rate is published for records the system believes should exist but do not, which sends staff chasing phantoms, and no false negative rate for gaps it fails to notice, which leaves the clinician confident in a record that is still incomplete. Ask for both.

Output is source cited, which matters more here than in most records because the history is stitched from many organisations and a clinician needs to know which one each element came from. Beyond that nothing is disclosed: no model or model family named, no accuracy figure for encounter footprint inference or gap detection, no evaluation methodology. The figure the company does publish, that 30 to 50 percent of high value encounters are not returned digitally, is a claim about the national networks rather than about its own performance, and it is discussed on the interoperability axis.

More research activity than most at this stage, none of it outcome data. The company reports a body of work combining survey findings from more than 500 physicians and care team members, insights from a point of care beta with more than 150 clinicians, and real world pilot evidence on what drives action in clinical workflows, particularly in Medicare populations. That is a substantial evidence gathering effort and it is unusual for a seed stage company. It remains C because it is vendor run and vendor reported, no customer organisation is named, and nothing measures whether more complete records changed a clinical decision or an outcome. Record increase figures are described as estimates based on partner reported data. REFRESH TRIGGER: if the beta and pilot findings are published with methodology, revisit this grade.

No retention period, training use statement or de identification posture was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The surface deserves specific attention because the manual retrieval path is operational rather than purely technical: agent assisted workflows contact source providers by telephone, secure portal and fax on the customer's behalf, which means requests are made and records received through channels involving third parties. Establish the legal basis for those requests, who is identified as the requesting party, and what is retained after the history is delivered.

No HIPAA compliance statement and no business associate agreement terms were located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The relevant regulatory frame is broader than a standard BAA because the company operates in release of information territory, where HIPAA right of access provisions, state release rules and the partnership with a release of information business all bear on how records may be requested and delivered. Establish which party is the requester of record in the manual retrieval path.

No SOC 2, HITRUST, ISO 27001 or other attestation was located, and no trust centre or security page was found. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval.

No FDA clearance or device authorisation was located and none is expected, since the product retrieves, assembles and summarises records rather than diagnosing. The regulatory exposure sits in information exchange and release of information rules rather than in device regulation, and in the risk adjustment audit regime discussed on the governance axis.

The grade describes incentive structure and disclosure, and this record introduces a mechanism the index has not previously separated out. The commercial pitch is that value based care organisations can risk adjust accurately and drive superior reimbursement outcomes, so more complete retrieval raises risk scores. But the mechanism is different from the coding gradient tracked elsewhere: nothing is coded more aggressively, and no condition is inferred. Conditions that genuinely exist and are genuinely documented, at another organisation, are brought into view. That is the most defensible version of the gradient available, and it also improves care independently of payment, which is the counterweight and belongs stated. Two things keep it at C. Applying the distinction drawn on the Kennar record, retrieving external documentation is retrospective in character rather than prospective, so it lives in the part of risk adjustment where audit scrutiny concentrates. And no fairness, subgroup or demographic performance disclosure was located, which matters here in a specific way: patients whose care is most fragmented across organisations, and whose records are most likely to sit in systems that do not participate well in exchange, are disproportionately those with unstable housing, frequent moves or coverage churn. If retrieval completeness varies by population, so does everything downstream of it.

The deepest retrieval footprint in this category, and it earns the grade by not stopping where everyone else stops. THREE national networks are named, Carequality, CommonWell and eHealth Exchange, alongside regional health information exchanges, which is broader national coverage than any other record here. Then comes the part that is genuinely unique: the company states that 30 to 50 percent of high value encounters are NOT returned digitally by those networks, and it pursues them through agent assisted telephone, secure portal and fax retrieval. Every other retrieve and summarise product in this index stops at what the exchanges hand back. Records are then deduplicated and stitched with source citation, and point of care delivery into the EHR is achieved through partnership rather than natively, which is the one soft spot in an otherwise exceptional record on this axis.

No hosting model, cloud provider, region or residency commitment was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval.

No price, tier or pricing mechanism was located. Not Rated is the house convention for absent pricing rather than a low grade. The commercial model is worth probing specifically because the manual retrieval path is a variable operational cost the vendor carries per record chased, which pricing must absorb somewhere, and because record volumes vary enormously between patients.

Coverage is defined by buyer and by population rather than by specialty, and the population argument is a sharp one. Three buyer types are addressed, value based care providers, management services organisations and health plans, and the company singles out Medicare populations as the setting where care is most distributed across organisations and where retrieval therefore matters most. That is a coherent targeting argument rather than a generic claim, since the value of finding records elsewhere scales directly with how fragmented a patient's care has been. Graded B because no clinical specialty depth or instrument level behaviour was located, and the workflow addressed is pre encounter preparation rather than a range of care settings.