What’s inside: company memory · audit trail
The question this file answersHow long does a prior-auth request sit in our inbox before anyone even finds the note and the code?
Fits: providers where every encounter generates coding and billing work.
Typical pattern, not a measured desk — the healthcare playbook has no volume for prior authorisations, so none is stated. Note, code and payer form live in three places; admin rebuilds the same request each time, then waits on a clinician for a sentence. It bites as the procedure date nears.
Mid-morning, the authorisation clerk opens a list of requests that are complete except for the clinical sentence, each with the note and codes already attached. The clinician's part shrinks to reading and signing; the chasing between three systems is what disappears.
Typical, not a measured client result. Every figure here comes from the playbook source named below.
the request pre-filled from the chart — built like our coding and denials file; prior authorisation has no published figure
Before: admin rebuilds the same request, then waits on a clinician for one sentence. After: the form is pre-filled from the chart and the clinician writes the sentence and signs. The desk carries no percentage, because none has been published for it.
We found no published figure for prior-authorisation assembly. The coding range in the healthcare playbook (AHIMA and McKinsey, both 2023) and Deloitte's (2023) document-processing figure describe claims and correspondence; they live on their own files and are not transferred here. Not a clinical outcome.
Your EHR and billing tools stay — Epic, Cerner, Athenahealth, Waystar or the ones you run. We point the coding-and-denials build at the request instead of the claim:
Medical necessity. Peer-to-peer calls. Appeals. The sentence only a clinician can write.
Not a clinical outcome.
Payer forms change without notice; a new template defeats the pre-fill until someone re-teaches it, so an incomplete file goes to a person rather than out of the door. If the codes in the note and in the billing system disagree, the request stalls — and that mismatch is usually the real problem, not the paperwork. Medical necessity is never inferred by the model; the coding benchmarks on the parent file are about claims, not authorisations.
The path: free 60-second estimate → free 20-minute review → paid audit of this one process (€1.5–3K, typically two weeks) → pilot with your people in the loop (€10–20K, weeks, not quarters). No transformation programme. Prices are public, on the services page →
Scoped in the audit — the playbook has no estimate for this exact desk.
That depends on your volumes and wage costs — this page will not invent the number. The free 60-second estimate runs that calculation from your answers, with every multiplier sourced.
Not a named Aperanda client. Process file · Healthcare.
Short process file. Same build as its parent file; the playbook has no separate volume or benchmark for this desk.