AI CDI & utilization review
34 – 37SmarterDx by 3
| Dimension | Regard | SmarterDx | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access & transparencyPublished pricing, evaluation path, and whether a clinician or a small group can trial the tool without an enterprise procurement cycle. | 1 | 3 | -2 |
| Revenue & denial impactDocumented effect on case mix index, DRG accuracy, denial rates and appeal outcomes, weighted toward independently reported results over vendor claims. | 8 | 9 | -1 |
| Capture accuracyHow reliably the tool finds genuine documentation gaps — diagnosis specificity, HCC recapture, severity and acuity capture — without flooding reviewers with false positives. | 9 | 9 | — |
| Traceability & auditabilityWhether every suggested code or query anchors to a verbatim phrase in the record, and whether the audit trail would survive a payer or RAC review. | 8 | 8 | — |
| EHR & deploymentDepth of EHR integration, concurrent versus retrospective review support, reviewer worklist prioritization, and the implementation burden on IT and HIM. | 8 | 8 | — |
Regard
- Best for
- Systems that want diagnosis identification driven by comprehension of the whole longitudinal record rather than the current encounter alone.
- Limitation
- Enterprise-only with the least transparent commercial terms in the category and no individual evaluation route.
- Price
- Enterprise, sales-led
SmarterDx
- Best for
- Hospitals that want a pre-bill AI pass over finished charts to catch missed revenue and denial risk before the claim goes out.
- Limitation
- Acute-care focused and enterprise-only, so it does not serve ambulatory groups or individual clinicians.
- Price
- Enterprise, sales-led
