Technical Guide
Ambient Scribes Suggesting E/M Levels Without Creating Upcoding Risk
An ambient scribe can propose E/M levels with limited upcoding risk only when the suggestion is treated as a governed, advisory agent action. That means runtime policy limits what the agent may propose, its tool access is read-only or suggestion-only, each suggestion links to specific note content, a human assigns the final code, and every step is logged for compliance review.
Note generation and level suggestion are different tasks
Drafting a note and proposing an E/M level are separate jobs, and the second one should be governed as its own agent action. The suggestion is advisory: the agent proposes, cites its evidence, and stops. A clinician or coder decides the final level.
The path below summarizes the governed flow. Each stage is covered in the control architecture that follows.
Governed E/M suggestion path
- SuggestThe agent proposes a level within runtime policy limits and cannot assign or submit a code.
- CiteEach suggestion points to the note content that supports it.
- ApproveA clinician or coder decides the final level, recorded separately.
- RecordPrompts, outputs, model version, tool calls, and approver are logged.
A control architecture at the agent runtime layer
Many organizations define these controls in policy documents but not where the agent executes. The runtime layer is where permissions, policy checks, and logging can be enforced on every call, so the control does not depend on the model following instructions.
Mapping each risk pathway to a runtime control
Start by identifying where upcoding risk enters the workflow, then apply each control below to the pathway it addresses.
| Control | What it does |
|---|---|
| Runtime policy enforcement | Policy defines what the agent may propose, such as a suggestion with cited evidence or an abstention, and blocks outputs or actions outside that scope. |
| Least-privilege tool access | The agent reads the note and encounter context it needs. It has no permission to assign, edit, or submit final codes in EHR or billing systems. |
| Evidence-linked suggestions | Every suggested level carries references to specific note content for each criterion it relies on. |
| Human-in-the-loop approval | A clinician or coder assigns the final code. The approval is a distinct, attributed event, not an inferred acceptance. |
| Auditability and monitoring | Records are retained for each suggestion, and aggregate patterns are watched for upward drift. |
What an auditable record should contain
For every suggestion, the record should allow a reviewer to reconstruct what the agent saw, what it produced, and who made the final decision.
- Prompt
- Output
- Model version
- Policy version
- Source note
- Tool calls
- Approver and the approval event, recorded separately from the suggestion
Criteria for judging readiness before enabling E/M suggestions
- The agent's permissions allow suggestion but not assignment or submission of any E/M code.
- Each suggested level links to specific note content supporting it, and the agent abstains when support is missing.
- The final level is approved by a named human, and that approval is recorded separately from the suggestion.
- Logs capture the prompt, output, model version, policy version, source note, and tool calls for every suggestion.
- Suggestion rates and level distributions can be monitored by clinician and over time, with a defined response to upward drift.
- Compliance and revenue integrity reviewers have tested the records by reconstructing sample suggestions end to end.
Define E/M suggestion controls at the agent runtime
Review how runtime policy enforcement, agent permissions, and audit logging apply to your ambient scribe workflow before suggestions reach production.
Talk to an Expert