Give your AI-generated clinical outputs a licensed, specialty-matched physician signature and an audit-ready record. We supply the accountable human; you keep shipping.
AI agents can now run a clinical workflow end to end. What none of them carry is the one thing a medical decision requires: a licensed, named human who reviews it, signs it, and stands behind it when it is audited. As agents do more of the work, that signature gets scarcer, not cheaper.
Their agents act. Ours attest.
Why a human signs →Every health-AI product that recommends a next step is a router, steering patients toward providers, prescriptions, and purchases. The literature already names the governance that requires: routing transparency, conflict-of-interest review, and clinical appropriateness review. A platform can't audit its own routing — that review is a clinical judgment by a licensed human, which is the layer you get here, on your outputs, as a service.
Attestation for the answer. Governance for the route.
A signature proves identity, not engagement — a reviewer who approves everything untouched leaves a record indistinguishable from auto-sign, and auditors read it that way. Every determination here is a sign, revise, or decline with a documented rationale, so the record shows what the reviewer changed and what they refused. The honest "no" is what makes every "yes" defensible.
Not just who signed. How deeply.
Triage without a written reason drifts on things that aren't clinical. In August 2026 JAMA Network Open analysed 3.6 million patient portal messages and found that writing style — a greeting, a name, a question mark, message length — explained about half of why patients from marginalized groups reached their physician less often; clinical content explained almost none of it, and the nurses triaging had no idea. A reviewer who only clicks leaves the same kind of record. Ours don't: every determination carries a documented rationale, so drift like that is visible in your audit — not discovered by a journal three years later.
Access logs say who looked. A signed rationale says who is accountable, and why.
We ran a leading open-weights medical model head-to-head against a general-purpose model on ten hostile HSA/FSA determinations, including cases that had to be declined. Both scored a perfect ten on verdicts — until one case stated plainly that the patient had no diagnosis on file, with instructions never to invent one. The medical model wrote "Intermittent low back pain (M54.5)" anyway: fluent, plausible, and wrong — the exact failure class that sinks a compliance document. The general model wrote "no ICD-10 code to link." More medical capability did not mean more determination-grade reliability. That's why a licensed reviewer reads every determination before it becomes real: to catch precisely the confident, credible error.
Small harness (n=10, single fabrication event) — an honest signal, not a condemnation of any model. Reproduce the class yourself in the self-serve sandbox.
The model knew the code. The reviewer knew the patient didn't have the diagnosis.
Read the full story →An AI-generated clinical output that needs a licensed human behind it — a determination, an assessment, a coded note, a letter. Synthetic or de-identified while we set up a BAA.
An NPI-verified, licensed physician evaluates it in their own specialty and signs, revises, or declines — with a documented rationale. Not a rubber stamp; the honest "no" is part of the product.
A signed, timestamped, audit-trailed determination returned to you — the artifact that makes an AI output a defensible clinical act.
California's Physicians Make Decisions Act (in force since 2025) and a growing set of state and CMS rules require a licensed, specialty-matched human — not an algorithm — to own an AI-driven decision on medical necessity. In 2026 the FDA's device center pointed the same way, proposing that medical AI be judged by how autonomously it acts and how much harm a wrong output can do, with a human checkpoint before any consequential action — and the company deploying the AI still responsible for it. Building that clinician layer in-house is expensive and slow; we make it shared infrastructure.
Every determination is owned by a named, licensed physician and built to survive an audit.
NPI-verified physicians review in their own scope — the right clinician for the output.
You get the physician layer as a service, on your outputs, without hiring or credentialing.
One fee per determination — the same whether the answer is yes or no, never tied to a sale, never a percentage of anything. Nothing is billed during the synthetic-case pilot; the number is set in writing before any live case.
Pre-go-live pilot: every case runs on synthetic or de-identified data while the BAA is finalized. No PHI is accepted — the gate is enforced in code, not promised in copy.
Every determination leaves a tamper-evident, hash-anchored receipt anyone can check at hashcare.com/verify — without trusting us.
Privacy and terms are linked in the footer of every page; the honest state above says what is and is not in force today (no BAA yet, no PHI accepted). Security questions come straight to the team through the form below — you get an answer from a person, not a portal.
We're opening a small, scoped pilot where your outputs are reviewed by our physicians, with results in writing (including the honest "no"). Tell us a little and we'll reach out.
The pilot runs on synthetic cases, and nothing is billed. We'd rather you stress-test the receipt than take our word for it. Be case #47. Prove us wrong before anything is billed.
We only store what you enter here to follow up. No pitch spam. ClinicalSwipe provides independent, licensed physician review of AI-generated clinical outputs; it does not practice medicine.