AI that cites its sources, or stays quiet
Most AI medical coding software is trying to replace the coder — autonomous coding engines that assign codes from the chart and ask you to trust the output. We are not doing that. Medical Coding & Billing Pro is built for a coder who is going to make the decision themselves, and the rule we hold ourselves to is simple: any suggestion we make comes with the guideline it rests on, or we do not make it.
Or don’t take our word for it — paste a claim into the free scrubber and see what it finds. No signup.
Your certification is on the claim, not ours
When a code is wrong, it is the coder's name against it — not the vendor's. That asymmetry should decide how the software behaves. An engine that emits a confident code with no traceable reason has transferred all of the risk to you and none of it to itself. We would rather be useful and checkable than impressive and opaque.
What we actually do with automation
We use it where it can be checked. Guided decision trees that walk documented facts to a code and cite the guideline at every step. Search that understands how coders type — 'mdd' finds F33, 'dm2' finds E11 — because that is a pattern-matching problem with a verifiable answer. Conflict detection across a diagnosis set, where every finding quotes the CMS note that produced it.
What we will not ship
An unsourced coding suggestion. If we cannot point at the guideline paragraph or the tabular note behind an answer, we would rather say nothing than say something confident. A wrong code you did not question is worse than no help at all, because you would have caught it yourself.
And we do not want your PHI
Nothing here needs a patient record. You bring codes; we bring rules. That is a deliberate design choice, and it means there is no protected health information for us to leak.
What this is not
This is not autonomous coding. It will not read a chart note and produce a claim. If you want an engine to code for you at scale, the enterprise CAC vendors are a genuinely different product, and they are not selling to individual coders.
We would rather lose the click than sell you a trial that disappoints you on the first afternoon.
Questions
- Is AI medical coding software accurate enough to trust?
- It depends entirely on whether it shows its work. An autonomous engine that emits a code with no traceable reasoning cannot be audited by the coder whose certification is on the claim. Assistive tools that cite the guideline behind each suggestion can be checked, and should be.
- Does this replace a medical coder?
- No, and it is not trying to. It is built for the coder to use, and every answer it gives is designed to be verified rather than accepted.
It is all one product
There are no modules and no tiers. Everything below is the same $390.
Try it on a claim you already coded.
Paste a diagnosis set you submitted last week and see what comes back. That is the fastest way to find out whether this is worth anything to you.
$390/yr flat · 7-day free trial · no card required