Rapid Claims Review
A fast, fixed-scope review of up to 30 strategically selected claim files designed to answer a specific leadership question in five business days.
A Clear Starting Point for Claims Leaders
When something feels off in claims operations, leaders often lack objective evidence to pinpoint the issue. The Rapid Claims Review provides fast, file-based insight without launching a full audit or long-term consulting engagement.
This is a focused review built to surface real patterns in claim handling, early decisions, or oversight practices, using claim files as the source of truth.
What to Expect
Choose the Review That Matches Your Question
Each Rapid Claims Review uses the same evidence-based approach. The difference is the question being asked.
Review
This review examines claim quality, reserve adequacy, documentation discipline, and strategic decision-making across selected files. It is designed to identify financial risk, inconsistent handling practices, and missed signals that affect claim outcomes.
This review focuses on the earliest stages of the claim lifecycle. We assess intake quality, early investigation steps, initial reserving, and first 30-day decisions to identify breakdowns that drive downstream cost, delay, and rework.
This review evaluates diary usage and workload signals within claim files to determine whether oversight practices are driving meaningful progress or creating unnecessary activity. The focus is on effectiveness, not volume.
What You Receive
Every Rapid Claims Review includes:
Review Details
Up to 30 claim files
Five business days from kickoff
Fixed, with a clearly defined review focus
Reviews align to your guidelines, standards, or oversight expectations
Limited remote access to claims system
Minimal disruptions to claims staff
Common Questions About the Rapid Claims Review
Thirty files isn't a statistical sample—it's a strategic sample. Files are selected based on criteria we agree on: recent closures, specific lines of business, high-reserve cases, or whatever aligns with your question.
Systemic issues surface quickly. If documentation discipline is inconsistent, it shows in the first ten files. If early investigation is breaking down, the pattern emerges fast. Thirty files is enough to identify whether you have a problem and what kind—not to quantify it across your entire book.
Your internal team could do this—if they had three weeks and a methodology built for rapid pattern detection.
The review framework I've built encodes 25 years of claims expertise. The questions, the red flags, the assessment structure—it's systematized. AI handles the cross-file data compilation that traditionally consumes days of manual work.
Your team asks "did we follow our process?" I ask "is your process the right process?" Different question, different value.
Two things: expertise and efficiency.
I've personally handled over 25,000 claims as an adjuster, manager, and operations executive. When I review a file, I'm not following someone else's checklist—I built the checklist.
The big firms send teams of juniors with Excel spreadsheets. They spend weeks compiling before analysis begins. My AI-enabled framework compresses that compilation into hours, so I spend my time on interpretation and recommendations—not data assembly.
They deliver 200 pages in six months. I deliver actionable findings in five days.
AI handles data compilation—the work that used to take days of manually organizing observations across files. That's process efficiency, not judgment replacement.
The framework guiding the review is mine, built on 25 years of claims experience. The interpretation of findings is mine. The recommendations are mine.
AI makes me faster. It doesn't make me unnecessary.
A concise findings document designed for leadership discussion:
- What I observed, tied directly to file evidence
- Patterns and risk signals identified across the file set
- Practical recommendations you can act on
This isn't a 200-page report. It's a focused answer to the question you asked.
Five days is possible because of how I've built the process.
Traditional reviews spend most of their time on setup and data assembly. I've eliminated that. The framework is built. The questions are loaded. Findings get captured in structured format from file one. AI compiles across the file set.
The five days is real analytical work, not compressed shortcuts.
Three things:
- Agreement on the specific question we're answering
- File selection criteria aligned to that question
- Secure file access on day one
If file access is delayed, the timeline adjusts accordingly. I'll be clear about dependencies upfront.
That depends on what we find.
The review is designed to stand alone—you'll have actionable findings regardless of whether we work together again. But if the findings point to deeper issues, I can scope follow-on work: process redesign, AI workflow pilots, ongoing advisory support.
No obligation, no automatic upsell. The review earns the next conversation.
Start With a Rapid Claims Review
Schedule a brief call to confirm the right review type and timing.