cs.AIOct 20, 2026

Pattern Intelligence: Unsupervised, LLM-Interpreted Discovery of Systematic Underpayment and Denial Patterns in Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management

Authors: Harshil Lodhiya, Alex McManus

Organizations: SlicedHealth Woodstock, Georgia, United States

Abstract

Healthcare providers lose substantial revenue to systematic payer underpayments and claim denials, yet identifying the recurring, correctable patterns behind them remains largely manual and does not scale to hospital claim volumes. We present Pattern Intelligence, a deployed system that discovers such patterns without supervision by clustering claims on their adjudication behaviour rather than their identity. Each claim is embedded in a 130-dimensional vector combining per-line expected-versus-actual payment ratios, claim adjustment reason (CARC) codes, denial and payment signals, and service composition. Payer and contract identity are deliberately excluded from the distance metric - we show they dominate the geometry and collapse clusters into trivial per-payer groups - and are reintroduced only as a post-hoc segmentation (by contract and visit type) that keeps every surfaced pattern coherent and actionable. We cluster with HDBSCAN, recover structure from the noise set via second-pass sub-clustering, and gate low-confidence memberships. A large language model translates each centroid into an analyst-ready description of dominant procedures, adjustment reasons, and failure mode. We report a recurring finding: roughly one-third to one-half of high-dollar denials, depending on tenant and segmentation, form an irreducible long tail that no density-clustering configuration or representation we tried groups - a domain property, we argue, rather than a modeling deficiency. We evaluate validity through cluster-coherence analysis and quantify impact with a recoverable-opportunity ($) metric on two production tenants (approx. 10K and 157K claims) within a six-tenant deployment. Rather than a new algorithm, the contribution is a problem formulation, a representation-design insight, and empirical findings from production.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

Jul 31, 2026

From Prediction to Explainable Provider Behavior Profiles for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Review

Claims data can show that provider behavior changed but cannot by itself explain why. Fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) review requires identifying material behavior, locating the codes and dollars driving it, and testing plausible explanations. Forecast residuals conflate growth, service-line shifts, code maintenance, and incomplete observation with potentially concerning behavior. We instead formulate provider review as a descriptive representation problem: observed amount yijt=sitpijty_{ijt}=s_{it}p_{ijt}, where sits_{it} is provider scale and pijtp_{ijt} is procedure composition. The profile records scale history, effective-dated code lineage, clinical-family shares, first-use events, billing context, and Medicare-versus-client differences. An optional rank-32 nonnegative factorization of procedure co-occurrence adds a fixed semantic geometry for similarity and retrieval. The profile surfaces evidence for review without inferring intent or adjudicating FWA, and is one engine within Falcon's broader review system. In a ten-quarter proprietary Medicare Carrier and DME build (1.27 million providers; 9.2 million provider-quarter profiles through 2026~Q2), the semantic dictionary covers 3,641 procedures and raises recall at 10 from 36.0% to 44.4%; for high-cost rare events, recall at 50 is 56.1% versus zero for popularity. Under the governed eligibility contract, 414,093 providers enter the national review population, with 81.8% and 90.8% remaining eligible across adjacent quarters. Replication across eight client panels preserves 86.9--95.2% amount-weighted semantic coverage. Transparent descriptions thus form the core, with learned representations adding optional semantic context.
Aug 6, 2026

Beyond Feature Importance: A Comparative Analysis of Pattern Detection Methods in Cluster Interpretation

Interpreting clustering outcomes remains a fundamental challenge in data analysis, particularly in domains such as healthcare where meaningful patterns must be extracted from high-dimensional data. While numerous explainability techniques exist, they are primarily designed to assess feature importance or provide local instance-level explanations rather than to identify structured patterns present within clusters. This work presents a comparative evaluation of commonly used post-hoc analysis methods for pattern detection in clustering results. To enable controlled evaluation, we introduce a suite of synthetic datasets in which predefined patterns are systematically injected. Three widely used techniques are evaluated: a Random Forest surrogate model with permutation feature importance, LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations), and principal component analysis. Results demonstrate that although each method can successfully recover relevant features, none consistently detects all injected pattern types. These findings high- light a critical gap between existing explainability tools and the requirements of pattern-level cluster interpretation, motivating the development of dedicated pattern detection methodologies.
Oct 7, 2026

InsClaimBench: Benchmarking Insurance Claim Adjudication Across the Decision Chain

Recent advances in reasoning-oriented large language models (LLMs) have motivated increasing evaluation of their ability to perform professional decision tasks. Insurance claim adjudication is one such task, requiring models to connect case evidence, insurance rules, intermediate judgments, and payout calculations across a structured decision process. We introduce InsClaimBench, an end-to-end benchmark for evaluating insurance claim adjudication across the decision chain. Grounded in real claim materials and structured insurance rules, InsClaimBench contains 3,780 cases in 375 case families across auto, property, and health insurance, comprising 86,656 atomic rule judgments. It evaluates each claim from atomic rules through adjudication modules to payout decisions and amounts, with controlled factual variants testing whether required changes are correctly propagated across levels. Evaluation of six LLMs reveals a progressive loss of reliability along the decision chain. Payout-decision accuracy ranges from 74.23--80.19%, while joint decision--amount accuracy drops to 47.54--73.15%. Strong local performance also fails to ensure case-level correctness: atomic-rule accuracy reaches 95.48%, whereas rule-vector exact match peaks at only 36.90%, and the most frequent module errors are not necessarily those most associated with final-decision failure. Under factual changes, these inconsistencies further become propagation failures: module updates are less reliable than rule updates, correct local judgments can still yield incorrect payouts, and correct payouts can conceal intermediate errors. These results show that reliable claim adjudication requires consistent composition and propagation across the decision chain.