To govern AI coding and billing suggestions derived from ABA records, keep the completed clinical record and actual service facts as source evidence. Verify the person, provider, date, time, location, modality, service, authorization, and current licensed code and payer sources. A qualified coding or billing reviewer selects the claim route. Keep suggestions quarantined until approved and separate generation, claim release, acknowledgment, adjudication, denial, and payment.

Define Orion's AI coding suggestion review file

Orion limits the tool to surfacing possible rules and conflicts. It cannot turn incomplete documentation into a billable service, change the clinical record, infer time, establish provider eligibility, or guarantee coverage. The unit identifies approved use, client and event, source records, model and version, vendor, user and accountable author, output state, reviewer, downstream use, exception, and evidence needed for release or closure.

Build Orion's page-specific control record

Orion records claim candidate and line, client and member, payer product and route, service date, clinical source and version, rendering and billing roles, location and modality, time and units, authorization, code-set year and license, payer source and effective date, model and version, prompt or ruleset, suggestion and confidence, cited evidence, missing or conflicting fact, reviewer role and decision, override reason, released claim, acknowledgment, adjudication, denial, correction, refund or disclosure effect, incident, and monitoring cohort. Suggestions never write back to the source record.

Put Orion's human-review boundary into practice

Orion validates by payer route, service type, provider role, setting, and service date. Test cases include incomplete records, conflicting times, overlapping services, stale authorization, changed provider, wrong location, corrected notes, unsupported code, and payer-rule changes. The interface displays the source facts and current rule beside the suggestion. Reviewers can hold, reject, or correct without editing clinical content. A clinical issue routes to the author or qualified clinician; a coding issue routes to the coding reviewer; enrollment and contract questions route to payer operations. The system blocks auto-submission and records every decision. Monitoring separates local validation holds, clearinghouse or payer acknowledgments, pre-adjudication rejects, adjudicated denials, corrections, and payment. A low denial rate does not prove coding correctness. Model, ruleset, payer, code-set, or template changes trigger fresh validation and a versioned release.

Protect client communication and ordinary access for Orion

Orion preserves the client's direct communication, AAC, language and disability access, consent and assent when applicable, dissent, health, safety, privacy, priorities, and correction route. AI use never makes communication, food, water, bathroom access, mobility, prescribed care, rest, or emergency help conditional on tool participation or task performance.

Work through Orion's fictional example

Orion reviews 40 suggested lines. Thirty-two pass all source and rule gates. Three lack supported time, two use stale authorization, one assigns the wrong rendering role, one uses a retired payer rule, and one conflicts with the record location. All eight are held. The cohort teaches AI governance and denominator discipline. It does not establish treatment effect, model safety, legal compliance, coding correctness, payer acceptance, accessibility, or product performance.

Keep Orion's denominator tied to the locked population

Suggestion release readiness is 32 of 40 lines, or 80.0%. First-pass claim outcomes use mature released claims only. Held lines stay in the original review cohort. Reviewer override count is reported with reasons, not as a quality score.

Assign Orion's decisions to accountable people

Clinicians own clinical records. Qualified coding and billing reviewers select claim content. Payers control their requirements and adjudication. Privacy and security leaders govern data. AI supplies advisory output only.

Address Orion's main AI documentation risk

The model can learn historical billing habits that were wrong or no longer current. Ground every suggestion in current sources and audited service evidence.

Test Orion's workflow with difficult cases

Orion tests time, units, provider role, location, modality, authorization, corrected note, code-year transition, payer conflict, duplicate, claim rejection, denial, and refund impact.

Check Orion's release evidence

Orion confirms the exact source set and versions, client and encounter, model and configuration, approved data route, generated draft, material edits, author and reviewer decisions, accessible client communication, release destination, correction path, monitoring cohort, and known limitations. The AI coding suggestion review file retains unresolved work, owner, deadline, downstream trace, and the next revalidation trigger.

Use Orion's ABA governance sources within their scope

Orion uses the CASP public overview only for high-level organizational context. The BACB Ethics Code applies to BCBA and BCaBA certificants and applicants as defined by the Code; BACB has no separate jurisdiction over organizations or corporations. These sources support competence, documentation, confidentiality, client involvement, assessment, intervention, risk, supervision, and correction boundaries. They do not approve a tool or transfer clinical authority to software.

Keep Orion's source record and medical-review boundary visible

Orion uses current CMS Program Integrity Manual Chapter 3 as Medicare medical-review guidance. It currently says services are expected to be documented when rendered; delayed or corrected entries may occur; date and author should be identifiable; and changes or addenda clearly and permanently noted. AI output cannot supply facts that were not documented, and Medicare guidance does not become a universal payer, state, or AI rule.

Map Orion's privacy, security, and vendor roles

Orion uses the current HHS Security Rule overview, HHS cloud guidance, and HHS business-associate guidance to analyze actual covered-entity, business-associate, subcontractor, cloud, and security roles. A BAA or vendor certification does not complete purpose, permissible-use, minimum-data, configuration, risk analysis, access, incident, retention, and shared-responsibility work.

Use Orion's AI frameworks as voluntary risk tools

Orion treats the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and NIST Generative AI Profile as voluntary risk-management resources, not clinical, legal, coding, or payer authority. The profile helps teams examine generative-AI risks and actions. A framework, score, benchmark, or vendor evaluation does not prove safety, accuracy, fairness, accessibility, compliance, or fitness for this ABA use.

Protect Orion's data-purpose and communication boundaries

Orion uses HHS de-identification guidance for its two HIPAA methods and residual-risk boundary. Calling output synthetic or removing names is not itself a method. FTC staff guidance warns AI companies to honor privacy and confidentiality commitments. The OIG GCPG is voluntary and nonbinding. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices.

Choose Orion's next review trigger

Orion reopens the AI coding suggestion review file after a model, prompt, retrieval, source, template, vendor, subprocessor, setting, language, client communication method, access role, data term, payer rule, incident, complaint, correction, audit finding, or regulation changes. The review records affected people and records, immediate safeguard, owner, deadline, communication, correction, downstream propagation, and validation.

Close Orion's workflow without hiding uncertainty

Review the AI coding suggestion review file with affected clients and authorized people, qualified clinicians, health-information, privacy, security, AI-governance, accessibility, language, payer, coding, and technical leaders, and the specialists named in the manifest. Confirm source support, authorship, authority, client access, model provenance, vendor terms, errors, downstream use, correction, and independent validation. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required external review is complete.

Related resources

Sources