AI Autonomous Medical Coding Buyer’s Guide
While revenue cycle management (RCM) is widely recognized as a prime area for leveraging AI to drive financial ROI, identifying the most impactful areas for investment—and selecting the right vendors—remains a challenge. Autonomous coding is rapidly gaining traction, and this buyer’s guide aims to equip organizations with the insights they need to make more informed decisions.
AI Autonomous Coding vs. Computer-Assisted Coding
The next significant advancement in AI for RCM appears to be in medical coding. Responding to substantial challenges in recruiting qualified coders and an increase in the volume of coding work to be done, provider organizations are leveraging autonomous coding to process millions of encounters without human intervention. Many vendors are entering the market claiming to offer autonomous coding solutions.
However, it’s essential to define what true autonomous coding entails. In our view, to be considered autonomous coding, a solution should require zero human intervention for the charts coded by the engine and sent straight to billing, though it might also send some more complex charts to humans for them to handle. It should also provide clear explanations for coding decisions, so humans can audit as needed.
In contrast, computer-assisted coding (CAC) solutions rely on human coders to review each encounter, with the software generating code suggestions for approval or correction. Although CAC offers substantial improvements over manual coding, the shift to autonomous coding promises even greater accuracy, faster processing, and reduced costs.
Technology Advancements Underpinning Autonomous Medical Coding
In theory, medical coding may appear relatively straightforward—mapping clinical notes into a structured set of codes using well-defined rules—but the reality of patient conditions and charts can be incredibly complex. As a result, medical coders are typically trained for hundreds or even thousands of hours, and may not be interchangeable across specialties. This has made automating coding an incredible challenge until relatively recently.
Medical coding is ultimately a complex pattern-matching challenge—but it lacked effective tools until the rise of natural language processing (NLP), deep learning, and large language models (LLMs). These technologies now bridge the gap, converting unstructured clinical documentation into standardized diagnoses and procedure codes, facilitating smoother translation into billing systems.
The Transformer Model for Deep Learning
A major leap in this field came from Google’s 2017 paper, “Attention Is All You Need” which introduced the transformer model for deep learning. This architecture delivered several critical improvements that reshaped the way machines interpret clinical text:
Contextualized embeddings: Previous models assigned a single static meaning to each word, failing to capture nuance. Transformers generate dynamic word embeddings that shift meaning based on context. For instance, the word “block” might refer to an anatomical obstruction (e.g., a blocked artery) or a procedure (e.g., a nerve block), depending on its usage. This contextual flexibility is crucial in clinical documentation, where precise interpretation drives accurate coding.
Self-attention mechanism: The transformer architecture employs self-attention, allowing it to weigh the importance of each word relative to others in a sequence. This capability enables the model to grasp subtle relationships across long sentences, understanding critical language such as negations (“no evidence of infection”) or modifiers (“mild, persistent pain”). It also allows the model to read bidirectionally, integrating context from both preceding and following words—an essential skill for making sense of complex medical language.
Pre-training and fine-tuning: One of the transformer model’s most powerful innovations lies in its two-phase training process. First, the model is pre-trained on vast general datasets, giving it a foundational understanding of language. It is then fine-tuned on domain-specific medical texts, enabling it to handle the specialized terminology and nuances required for accurate medical coding. This hybrid approach mitigates the challenge of limited clinical data, ensuring the model can perform with high accuracy without requiring massive, specialized datasets from scratch.
In summary, transformer-based models have redefined how unstructured clinical documentation is processed, overcoming the limitations of earlier technologies. By understanding nuanced language through contextual embeddings, self-attention, and fine-tuning, these models enable precise translation of medical notes into codified diagnoses and procedures.
These advancements enable algorithms to understand clinical documentation and assign appropriate codes as human coders would. However, the transition to autonomous coding required more than just these models; it also needed infrastructure for processing data at scale, labeled clinical documentation, and optimization of models and training techniques.
Initially, autonomous coding focused on specialties with simple, well-defined codes like radiology, pathology/lab coding. These also tend to be high volume, low revenue per chart, making automation particularly useful. To automate these specialties to a reasonable level of accuracy, vendors were able to use smaller datasets and less advanced models. As technology advanced and datasets grew, vendors began tackling more complex specialties, including primary care, OB/GYN, orthopedics, and emergency medicine.
How Does Autonomous Coding Work?
Most autonomous coding systems share a common structure: They ingest clinical data through EHR integration, process it, and, ideally, write codes to a claim in the claims management system. If the model’s confidence score is low or a rule is flagged, the documentation is sent to a human coder for manual coding. Systems set a required confidence level; any predicted codes below this threshold are sent for human review.
However, there are a number of more nuanced architectures for autonomous coding systems, each with their own strengths and challenges. Here’s an overview of the main approaches:
End-to-end deep learning: A single deep learning model processes raw clinical documentation and directly assigns medical codes. These models, often based on transformers or recurrent neural networks (RNNs), are trained on large datasets to learn complex patterns in medical text. There’s a direct analog here to large language models, except that these models generate structured data in the form of billing codes rather than unstructured text.
Pros:
Ability to capture complex patterns: Deep learning models excel at modeling intricate patterns in data, which is beneficial for understanding nuanced clinical documentation.
Fine-tuning: While models don’t naturally improve as they process more data, they can be fine-tuned for improved performance.
Cons:
Limited Reconfigurability: Deep learning models are difficult to adjust when coding guidelines change, often requiring extensive retraining rather than simple updates. This can be a drawback for buyers who need quick adaptability to evolving standards.
Resource intensive: Deep learning models demand extensive, high-quality labeled data to achieve accurate coding predictions, and these models also require substantial computation power both for computing and inference, which can influence cost.
Lack of interpretability: These models can be “black boxes,” making them hard to interpret and debug.
NLP and rules-based techniques: Focuses on linguistic aspects using advanced text analysis to extract relevant medical information. These systems often involve multiple stages like text parsing, entity recognition, and contextual analysis, followed by a set of rules mapping clinical documentation into medical codes.
Pros:
Transparency: Greater traceability in coding decisions, enabling clear visibility into the logic behind each assigned code. A well-designed autonomous coding solution should provide the “why and how” of each code for auditing and compliance, helping users understand and trust each decision.
Cons:
Rigidness: For the most complex coding types, rules-based systems may struggle to capture the nuance required to accurately code.
Slower adaptation: Needs frequent updates to stay current with medical language and standards.
Hybrid Architecture: Combines deep learning models with traditional rule-based systems. Deep learning handles text processing and code prediction, while rule-based systems ensure compliance and handle edge cases.
Pros:
Increased automation for complexity: Handles complex scenarios that some pure rules-based models might miss, although the most complex scenarios may not be captured.
Transparency: Increased traceability in coding decisions, enabling clear visibility into the logic behind each assigned code. A well-designed autonomous coding solution should provide the “why and how” of each code for auditing and compliance, helping users understand and trust each decision.
Cons:
Complex integration: Depending on the exact architecture, resolving discrepancies between the AI model’s output and rule-based checks can be complicated.
Ongoing maintenance: Regular updates are needed for both rules-based reasoning components and for an end-to-end model.
What Are the Benefits of AI Autonomous Coding?
While it’s fairly obvious that automating the medical coding process is beneficial, it’s important to break down exactly what that means and understand how autonomous coding can contribute to ROI.
Claims processing speed
Autonomous coding systems significantly enhance the speed of claims processing by eliminating delays associated with human intervention. Traditional coding workflows can take anywhere from one day to two weeks, depending on the complexity of cases and the availability of coding staff. In contrast, autonomous coding delivers results within hours, accelerating the entire revenue cycle. Faster coding leads to quicker claims submission, reducing the time it takes for providers to receive payment from insurers. This improvement in cash flow directly impacts the organization’s financial health, allowing for more predictable revenue streams and reducing the days in accounts receivable (AR). Additionally, the faster turnaround minimizes the risk of claims being denied due to late submission.
Scalability
The scalability of autonomous coding systems offers a significant ROI advantage by allowing healthcare providers to adjust quickly to fluctuations in documentation volume without the need for extensive human resources. Unlike human coders, who require time-consuming onboarding and training, autonomous systems can immediately handle increased volumes, making them ideal for providers with variable caseloads.
This scalability reduces the need for maintaining a large, permanent coding staff, and instead enables elastically scaling up or down on the number of charts that can be coded at a given time. It also enables providers to avoid the high costs associated with hiring temporary staff or paying overtime during peak periods. By aligning coding capacity more closely with actual demand, providers can operate more efficiently, leading to cost savings and improved financial performance.
Consistency and accuracy
By delivering high levels of consistency and accuracy, autonomous coding solutions help avoid errors and ensure compliance with coding standards. Human coders, even when highly skilled, can introduce variability and errors into the coding process, which can lead to denied claims, compliance issues, and revenue loss. The potential for coding errors is more pronounced when physician’s coding is used de-facto to submit the claims. Autonomous coding systems, once trained, apply coding logic uniformly across all cases, ensuring that similar cases are coded consistently. This uniformity reduces the likelihood of errors, leading to fewer denials and rework, which saves time and resources. The accuracy and consistency of autonomous coding also support better compliance with regulatory requirements, reducing the risk of audits and associated penalties.
Continuous improvement
While no coding solution—manual or automated—is perfect from the outset, autonomous coding systems offer a key advantage: they continuously improve over time. Deep learning-powered solutions, for instance, learn from feedback like audit corrections and evolving guidelines, enhancing accuracy and adapting to specific clinical practices. Likewise, NLP and rule-based systems benefit from regular vendor updates that fine-tune rules to align with an organization’s documentation standards and internal coding practices.
This ongoing refinement across architectures reduces the need for manual corrections and rework, leading to greater efficiency and cost savings. However, deep learning models may require retraining if coding guidelines change significantly to avoid dips in quality, whereas rule-based systems can be updated more directly. Regardless of the architecture, by staying aligned with changing medical and regulatory standards, these systems help mitigate compliance risks and minimize the potential for financial penalties.
Cost savings
Employing a team of skilled medical coders involves considerable expenses, including salaries, benefits, training, and ongoing education to keep up with evolving coding guidelines. In contrast, autonomous coding systems, once implemented, require minimal ongoing costs beyond regular maintenance and occasional updates. These systems can handle routine coding tasks automatically, allowing healthcare organizations to reduce their dependence on human coders. This reduction in labor costs translates directly into savings, which can be substantial, especially for large healthcare providers with high volumes of documentation.
Want More In-Depth Support in Considering ROI for Your Organization?
Join us for a webinar breaking down the AI medical coding category and frameworks for vendor selection on 11/21 at 12pm PT/3pm ET. Register here.
Which Vendors Offer Autonomous Coding Solutions?
Given the relative ease of fine-tuning off-the-shelf models to predict ICD-10 codes (and corresponding HCC codes), CPT codes, and HCPCS codes, many vendors have implemented automated coding solutions that process clinical documentation into billable codes. Even ambient scribe vendors are now generating codes directly from the clinical notes they produce.
However, as with most AI products, the differentiating factor is the quality of the model and its results—are they sufficiently accurate to be trusted in the majority of cases without additional human oversight?
As previously discussed, products that achieve sufficient accuracy within their focused specialties to the point where humans are not required to check each result are considered autonomous coding products. In contrast, those that require human oversight for every result are simply automated coding tools. Another characteristic of autonomous coding vendors is that they go beyond providing a model; they offer an end-to-end solution to complete the workflow. This often includes the ability to escalate uncertain clinical notes to human coders for a final review. The solutions that currently meet these requirements are:
One consideration is that many vendors offer specialty-specific models (or models fine-tuned with clinical documentation and codes for a particular specialty), rather than general-purpose models that work across all types of documentation. When considering vendors, it’s important to first identify the specialties for which you need coverage, and then assess them accordingly, as explained in the next section.
Selecting an Autonomous Coding Vendor?
Join us for a free webinar diving into this category and talking through vendor selection. Register here.
What to Look For in Autonomous Coding
Technical Architecture
Given the amount of technical jargon and loosely defined terms in this space, it’s essential to understand the technical architecture of an autonomous coding solution. Is it an end-to-end deep learning solution? How does its NLP pipeline function? If it’s a hybrid architecture, which parts rely on deep learning and which on rules-based systems? While you don’t need to know the full architecture in detail, it’s important to ask clarifying questions to get a feel for how autonomous coding systems work.
One key consideration is whether the solution uses human-in-the-loop processes to validate and train the model. If humans are involved in ongoing validation, it may suggest the system is less autonomous than advertised. While machine learning models require training for continuous improvement, ideally, this happens out-of-the-loop without delaying results.
Specialty Coverage
The uniqueness of clinical notes and coding across specialties and care models makes it crucial to ensure the solution is tested and proven in the areas you need. Autonomous coding is well-established in specialties such as primary care, radiology, path/lab, cardiology, hospital E&M, ED visits, urgent care and office visits, and, to a lesser extent, inpatient professional coding. Check which specialties the vendor covers, and ask how many similar customers the vendor supports. If you need coverage beyond these, ask how many similar customers the vendor supports.
For hospitals and health systems, achieving full coverage across all specialties and service types remains a challenge. No solution currently provides autonomous coding for inpatient facility coding, which is a significant revenue driver for health systems. To justify the investment, assess which of your high volume specialties have the biggest gap in professional coding coverage, and whether the vendor provides coverage of those high-volume specialties to make the integration worthwhile.
On the other hand, some complex specialties may still require a human-in-the-loop approach, and aren’t yet suitable for autonomous coding.
Automation Rates
Automation rates vary widely across vendors and specialties, so it’s essential to set realistic expectations and clearly define what “automation rate” means. Some vendors may include partially coded encounters or additional “add-on” processes in their automation rate, which can lead to differences in reported metrics. Ideally, automation rate refers to the percentage of clinical encounters that are fully coded and sent directly to billing without human intervention.
While more complex specialties generally have lower automation rates, they also depend on the level of investment and model training a given vendor has applied. As a result, relatively simple but lower volume specialties like rheumatology and infectious diseases don’t have particularly high automation rates.
In addition to baseline rates, understand how automation is expected to improve over time. Some systems rely on rules-based methods that perform well immediately but show limited improvement. Others may require additional training data and fine-tuning, with accuracy improving steadily.
One other consideration is that you should evaluate how the system improves: Will the vendor fine-tune the model based on your workflows and the clinical language used by your providers, or will your coders need to audit results to generate supervised training data?
Processing Time and Throughput
Processing time is how long it takes a given encounter to be coded up and turned into clinical documentation. While humans can take days or weeks to code up a given encounter, autonomous coding solutions can typically process data in less than two hours. If a solution takes eight hours or more, it likely has a human-in-the-loop for auditing results, and we would exclude this solution definitionally from the autonomous coding category.
Throughput—the volume of clinical notes the system can handle in a given time—is another good measure of both capacity and true automation. Partial automation can allow vendors to quickly process 40-50 claims using manual intervention through a business process outsourcing (BPO) service. However, handling thousands of claims per hour reliably is a better indicator of a true autonomous coding solution.
Even if your organization only processes dozens of claims at a time, pressure-testing the system to handle higher volumes can validate the vendor’s claims about automation.
EHR Integration
The quality of EHR integration can vary widely between vendors. As a first step, check out the vendor’s EHR partnership programs, such as Epic Toolbox, Oracle Cerner’s Open Developer Program (OPN), and AthenaHealth Marketplace. Next, ask about the nature and scope of any technical integrations.
Native EHR integration offers key advantages over third-party solutions, enabling coding outputs to be delivered within the EHR and maintaining familiar data formats and workflows. Each coding decision can include in-line explanations and direct access to patient charts, facilitating quick verification and audits within the workflow. It also allows embedding chart-specific queries in the EHR, removing the need for separate datasheets.
This deep integration supports complex workflows, such as coding multiple appointments for the same patient, managing Locum Tenens modifiers, and handling various payor-specific requirements. In contrast, third-party integrations using nightly batch processing or non-native formats may limit workflows like code explanations and inline provenance.
Pricing and Price Model
Even with identical automation rates, vendors can differ significantly on their price model and incentive structure. It’s important to understand whether the vendor charges by encounters processed or encounters successfully coded and what platform fees look like. The pricing model can determine the alignment of incentives between your organization and the vendor.
Onboarding and Implementation
The ease of implementation varies between vendors. Ask about the onboarding process and whether vendors have an existing playbook for EHR integration. Strong vendors typically provide dedicated staff to assist with EHR integration and help set up connections with downstream systems for manual coding when necessary.
Also, ask how vendors configure their engine to handle payer-specific requirements. Technical architecture based on interoperable standards, such as FHIR, as well as deep, native EHR integration simplest implementation and can lower ongoing costs for the customer.
The level of fine-tuning and ongoing support also varies. Some vendors provide out-of-the-box models and leave them unchanged, while others take a higher-touch approach, continuously fine-tuning models and incorporating feedback to improve accuracy. While this level of interaction requires more involvement from your team, it can result in better outcomes.
Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
Given how metric-driven success in autonomous coding is, it’s possible to partially de-risk vendor decisions through vendor commitment to aggressive SLAs for automation rates, accuracy rates, and turnaround times for encounters. If vendors slip beneath pre-negotiated rates, they should incur penalties in payments due to them. Along with at-risk pricing, this is another opportunity to align incentives between the vendor and the provider organization.
Reporting and Auditing
Automation requires robust reporting tools to effectively monitor performance. Vendors should provide capabilities to track key metrics like accuracy and automation rates over time, ensuring that model performance remains consistent and doesn’t degrade. These tools enable providers to assess coding accuracy and gauge the system’s overall effectiveness.
Another key feature here is detailed audit trails, which map the assigned codes to specific documentation and coding guidelines. This feature is highly valued by providers, frequently appearing in RFPs, as it enables a transparent view of how codes are generated. Audit trails allow physicians to see how their charts are coded—an insight that’s typically unavailable with human coders or even conventional computer-assisted coding (CAC) solutions. This transparency builds trust and provides valuable feedback to clinicians on documentation practices.
Final Thoughts on Autonomous Coding
Autonomous coding represents a critical inflection point in the evolution of medical coding, offering the promise of increased speed, scalability, consistency, and cost savings over traditional computer-assisted coding (CAC). While the technology is still maturing, it shows benefits like faster claims submission, reduced staffing costs, and fewer coding errors for high-volume, low dollar-per-chart specialties where health systems and provider groups have the biggest gap in professional coding.
For large health systems, however, autonomous coding presents both a strategic opportunity and a calculated risk. These systems must navigate the complexities of integrating autonomous coding across multiple departments with varying documentation requirements, which makes achieving full automation across all specialties difficult.
With that said, for health systems that have a significant ambulatory care volume, autonomous coding represents a compelling area for investment. As AI models improve with additional training data and vendor investment, the technology’s coverage will expand to encompass more complex areas of care like inpatient facility coding and more advanced surgical cases. Health systems investing now will need to choose their use cases carefully, knowing that not all coding can be automated yet, but, fine-tuning these operations and getting practice at autonomous coding as the technology improves might be advantageous.
The path forward will not be uniform. Adoption among health systems will depend heavily on their willingness to experiment, invest in robust integrations, and adapt their coding workflows to accommodate both automated and human-in-the-loop processes. In the short term, autonomous coding will likely work in tandem with traditional CAC solutions, with human coders providing oversight for complex cases. However, as confidence in the technology grows and automation rates improve, the reliance on manual coding will diminish.
In short, autonomous coding isn’t just a future bet—it’s already making meaningful inroads today. For specialty-focused providers, it offers immediate ROI and operational improvements. For forward-thinking health systems, it presents a high-reward opportunity, with the potential to redefine coding workflows and revenue cycle management over the next few years, in exchange for upfront costs around change management and the potential for having to manage both autonomous coding infrastructure and traditional coding infrastructure.
Those that move early have an opportunity to reap the benefits of first-mover advantage, positioning themselves for greater efficiency and scalability in an increasingly competitive landscape. The question is not whether autonomous coding will become a cornerstone of revenue cycle operations, but how quickly the technology moves and which types of providers will adopt it early and help shape its development.
Need support with AI vendor evaluation? Elion is here to help.
At Elion, we understand the complexities of evaluating emerging technologies like autonomous coding and the challenges health IT leaders face when deciding how to incorporate them into their operations. Our expertise lies in helping leadership teams map the evolving technology landscape, assess strategic fit, and align investments with long-term operational goals.
Join us 11/21 at 12pm PT/3pm ET for a deeper dive into this category. Register here.
Need more personalized support? Whether it’s identifying the right use cases for automation, thinking through the vendor landscape, or ultimately making vendor decisions, fill out this form to connect with our team. Through these engagements, we support health systems and provider groups in navigating these inflection points, positioning them to make smarter and more agile tech stack decisions that drive sustainable success.