Most of them sell to the C-suite first (money, reports, and compliance) and due to that those areas often get the most focus. I believe it's why a large portion of EMR's suck balls.
So yea, teh central question in most systems isn't "Is this patient getting better" it's "Can I bill this visit?"
Not sure if you are familiar with payor systems or not, but an EMR/EHR basically gathers all the information sent to a payor system and prepares it in the format the payor wants.
A good EMR/EHR does the same thing with referrals and authorisations, and bigger hospitals will have direct real time links to insurers to approve those referrals. Most of them happen instantly. The ones that aren’t require manual review from a medical practitioner who workers for the insurer.
I do not understand how a cobbled-together LLM based system will do this better than the existing EMRs.
For sure. At Cenote, we’re obsessed with ensuring our software delivers real value to clinics, rather than just adding another point solution—or worse, overwhelming them with multiple fragmented tools. As mentioned in another thread, many of these clinics aren’t the most tech-forward, and we've found that in-person discussions often reshape our bundle (e.g., prioritizing referral intake over insurance verification). This tailored approach ironically simplifies integration and maximizes ROI for our customers.
Thanks for clarifying that you have little to no interest in enhancing the quality of outcomes or success of treatment or quality of life for patients! Very telling!
Not our intention at all. Let me know what gave you that impression? We generally see the incentives of the owners we work with as very aligned with providing the best quality of care to their patients, and see our software as accelerating delivery of that care
