Grounded in practice, not principle
Our models exist to improve referrals for patients, and that purpose defines their boundaries. We are not trying to describe what could be true in principle based on a license, training, or registration. We are trying to estimate what is true in practice at the moment a referral is made. That means grounding each model in observed behavior and other real-world evidence, then defining its output around a concrete referral decision. E.g. a retina specialist is an ophthalmologist, and in principle is capable of cataract surgery; in practice, a routine cataract referral does not belong with them. Our methods are built to capture the second judgment, not the first. That framing also means we will sometimes not know the answer. The available evidence may be incomplete or conflicting. Where that uncertainty exists, we say so rather than guess.The models
Each model page details its methodological approach, validation, and known limitations. Click into any model to learn more.Referral Scope Match
Open betaRoutine referral categories matched to what a provider actually does, derived
from observed practice patterns.
Stale Location Affiliation Risk
Open betaRisk that a practitioner-location affiliation is stale or not patient-facing.
Availability
Closed betaHow soon a provider can be seen at a specific location.
Patient Experience
In developmentWhat patients actually report about access and experience.
In Network Probability
In developmentLikelihood that a provider will still be in network in the next 90 days.
More on the way
Coming soonWe’re building toward every piece of information that prevents a referral
obstacle. Tell us what would help most.