Grounded in practice, not principle
Our models exist to improve referrals for patients, and that purpose defines their boundaries. We’re not trying to determine whether a provider could perform a service in principle (whether their license or training permits it). We’re trying to determine whether a referral is appropriate in practice. 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. For some services the data lets us confidently rule a provider out but not confidently rule them in. Where that asymmetry exists, we say so rather than guess.The modules
Each page details the methodological approach, how we validate it, and its known limitations. Click into any module to learn more.Referral Scope Match
Open betaRoutine referral categories matched to what a provider actually does, derived
from observed practice patterns.
Location & Affiliation Probability
Closed betaWhere a provider actually practices and who they’re affiliated with.
Patient Experience
Closed betaWhat patients actually report about access and experience.
Availability
In developmentWhether, and how soon, a provider can be seen.
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.