The problem
Coding the case after a long OR day.
Operative coding depends on details in the note: the procedure, laterality, implants, and bundling rules. Reconstructing it at the end of a long list takes time and invites errors.
How it works
Prepared by OpAgent. Decided by your team.
- 01
What OpAgent prepares
Proposed CPT codes with laterality and bundling checks, each linked to the text in the operative note. Cases the system cannot code confidently are flagged for the surgeon.
- 02
What the surgeon or coder reviews
The surgeon or coder confirms or changes each code.
- 03
Where approved work goes
Confirmed codes would move to billing. This workflow is not offered to practices yet.
Availability
In developmentBeing built or evaluated. Not offered to practices yet.
Evidence
What has been measured
Measured
97.5%
Agreement between CodeIQ OR's proposed CPT codes and the codes the operating surgeon billed
- Population
- Operative cases from one high-volume arthroplasty and trauma practice, five procedure families
- Sample
- 359 held-out cases
- Period
- Cases from 2018 to 2026, evaluated April 2026
- Compared with
- The operating surgeon's billed CPT codes
Limitation: Measures agreement with how the surgeon billed, not clinical correctness. It applies to surgical CPT coding only, not to other OpAgent workflows.
How this was measured →
Measured
96.1%
Billed, fully adjudicated lines suggested by CodeIQ OR that the payer paid
- Population
- Surgical claim lines at one participating orthopedic practice
- Sample
- 1,436 claim lines
- Period
- Historical claims reviewed in the August 2026 benchmark
- Compared with
- The payer's adjudication of each line
Limitation: Most lines were billed before CodeIQ OR reviewed them, so payment does not show that the suggestion caused it.
How this was measured →
Detailed methods →
Related workflows
How it connects