Kennar Health
Kennar Health, operating as Toothpicker Holdings and based in Hicksville, New York, sells what it calls an AI workforce for value based care networks. A scribe listens to the patient interaction and structures clinical data in real time, and an analysis layer surfaces HEDIS quality gaps and HCC risk opportunities from patient data so a provider can act inside the existing workflow rather than switching systems. It also automates transitions of care. Reported figures are 70 percent capture rates, a 0.2 risk adjustment factor lift and two hours per day saved, none of them substantiated. It describes EHR agnostic integration and a multi tenant architecture serving health systems, independent practice associations, accountable care organisations and management services organisations. It is filed under value based care intelligence rather than clinical summarisation, and cross listed into ambient scribes, because of what it delivers. The record is unified and insights are surfaced, but the measured outputs are captured codes, closed quality gaps and risk score movement rather than a summary a clinician reads. The reason this record is worth having despite thin evidence is a compliance argument nobody else in this index makes. Asked how its data holds up under RADV audit, the company answers that it captures HCC codes PROSPECTIVELY at face to face encounters with MEAT compliant documentation support, states that retrospective chart review is the primary driver of RADV clawback risk, and argues its point of care model removes that exposure by design. It further states that all data traces back to a face to face encounter with an approved provider type, meeting CMS encounter level evidentiary standards, and that output is standardised audit ready supplemental data rather than non standard manual submission. That distinction between prospective capture and retrospective review is the sharpest framing of audit risk found anywhere in this index, and it is discussed on the governance axis alongside the fact that the same company markets a specific risk score lift.
Capability Axes
The company describes an AI workforce running agentic workflows, with a scribe capturing and structuring the encounter and an analysis layer surfacing quality gaps and risk opportunities from it. There is no system of record, services organisation or prior platform underneath, and every stated output is model produced. Graded on what the product is; note that the wider record is thin and a refresh should confirm this once more is published.
Agentic workflows operating at network scale with no described gate. The company states that providers can act on insights immediately within their existing workflow, which is the design goal, and nothing published describes what a provider is expected to verify before doing so. No confidence signal, routing threshold, abstention behaviour or required review step was located for either the scribe output or the surfaced risk and quality opportunities. The compliance architecture discussed on the governance axis does supply an indirect control, since tying every code to a face to face encounter with an approved provider type constrains what can be submitted, but that is an eligibility rule rather than an accuracy check and should not be read as oversight of whether the code is right.
Numbers without method. Three figures are published, a 70 percent capture rate, a 0.2 risk adjustment factor lift and two hours saved per day, and none carries a denominator, a baseline, a population or a measurement approach. Capture rate in particular is meaningless without knowing capture of what, against what reference standard, and as judged by whom. No model or model family is named, no accuracy figure for coding or gap detection exists, and no evaluation methodology was located. The company does describe MEAT compliant documentation support, which at least names the criteria its output is meant to satisfy, and that is more specific than most of this category manages.
Nothing published establishes benefit or deployment. No customer is named, no funding is disclosed, no case study exists and no independent evaluation was located, and the company's public footprint is minimal. The three quantified claims are vendor asserted with no supporting material. Graded C rather than Not Rated because outcomes are claimed; nothing supports them.
No retention period, training use statement or de identification posture was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The scribe component captures patient interactions in real time, so audio handling should be established specifically: whether recordings are made at all, how long anything is held, and whether captured content informs model improvement.
HIPAA compliance is claimed for the platform, with no business associate agreement terms published, which is the standard middle rung. One structural point worth establishing given the multi tenant architecture and the network buyers named: where an independent practice association or accountable care organisation contracts on behalf of participating practices, confirm which entity holds the agreement and how data is separated between participants who may be competitors.
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. A multi tenant platform serving competing organisations in the same network should be able to evidence tenant isolation, so request that specifically rather than a general attestation.
No FDA clearance or device authorisation was located and none is expected, since the product captures documentation and surfaces coding and quality opportunities rather than diagnosing or recommending treatment. The regulatory exposure sits in CMS risk adjustment rules and audit, which the company addresses directly and which is covered on the governance axis.
The credit here is real and belongs first, because it is the sharpest compliance framing found anywhere in this index. Asked how its data survives a RADV audit, the company gives a mechanism rather than a reassurance: it captures HCC codes PROSPECTIVELY at face to face encounters with MEAT compliant documentation support, states plainly that RETROSPECTIVE CHART REVIEW is the primary driver of RADV clawback risk, and argues that a point of care model removes that exposure by design. It adds that every code traces to a face to face encounter with an approved provider type, meeting CMS encounter level evidentiary standards, and that output is standardised audit ready supplemental data rather than manual submission. That distinction, prospective capture versus retrospective review, is the single most useful thing a buyer in this market can understand about audit risk, and no other vendor in this index names it. Held at C for three reasons. The company simultaneously markets a specific risk score outcome, a 0.2 RAF lift, which is the coding gradient stated as a target rather than a consequence. Eliminating exposure by design is an absolute claim and no audit outcome evidence supports it. And no fairness, subgroup or demographic performance disclosure of any kind was located, which matters where the product also drives quality gap closure.
EHR agnostic integration is claimed and a multi tenant architecture is described as deploying across large provider networks, which is the right shape for the buyer types named. Nothing is evidenced: no EHR vendor, no integration mechanism, no standard, no marketplace listing and no customer deployment was located anywhere, so an organisation cannot establish whether its own systems are supported. The supplemental data output is described as standardised and audit ready, which implies a defined submission format, and that is the one concrete interoperability claim on the record.
A multi tenant architecture is stated, which establishes hosted shared infrastructure and rules out a customer hosted option. Nothing further is published: no cloud provider, region, residency commitment or tenant isolation detail. Graded C because the delivery model is clear and everything else is absent.
No price, tier or pricing mechanism was located. Not Rated is the house convention for absent pricing rather than a low grade. Given that the product is marketed on a specific risk adjustment factor lift, the contingent pricing question is the first one to ask: establish whether any component of the fee varies with risk score movement, capture rate or quality bonus, since that would align vendor revenue directly with coding intensity.
Coverage is described by organisation type rather than by care setting or specialty. Four buyer types are named, health systems, independent practice associations, accountable care organisations and management services organisations, which is a coherent value based care footprint, and transitions of care is the one named clinical workflow beyond the encounter itself. No specialty, no care setting and no instrument level behaviour was located, and the ambulatory point of care focus is implied rather than stated.
Pricing
Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.
| Entry Price | Pricing Basis | BAA Tier | Implementation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not published
|
Undisclosed. Sold to health systems, independent practice associations, accountable care organisations and management services organisations. | Not published. Where a network entity contracts on behalf of participating practices, establish which entity holds the agreement. | Not published. EHR agnostic integration and a multi tenant architecture are claimed for network scale deployment, with no stated implementation cost. | Vendor Published |
No price, tier or pricing mechanism was located, so commercial transparency is Not Rated per the house convention rather than graded down. The contingent pricing check is the first question here rather than the last, because the product is marketed on a specific risk adjustment outcome, a 0.2 RAF lift, alongside capture rate and quality gap closure. Establish whether any part of the fee varies with risk score movement, capture rate, shared savings or quality bonus. Contingent pricing on those measures aligns vendor revenue directly with coding intensity, which is not disqualifying but must be disclosed and understood, and it sits awkwardly beside the company's own audit defensibility argument. Three more items. What the pricing unit is, since a per provider, per attributed life or per encounter model behave very differently across a large network. What is included versus separately licensed, since the scribe and the analysis layer are described as distinct capabilities. And what the vendor's obligations are if a code it captured is later disallowed on audit, because the company makes a strong claim about eliminating RADV exposure by design and a buyer should establish whether anything contractual stands behind it. One verification note: the three published figures, 70 percent capture, 0.2 RAF lift and two hours saved daily, carry no denominator or method. Do not let any of them enter a business case without a definition and a reference customer.