Codes Health

What do they actually do

Codes Health retrieves a patient’s medical records from many sources—health information exchanges (HIEs), TEFCA connections, EHR integrations, direct provider requests (fax/phone), patient uploads, and its own provider databases. The product handles e‑signature and ROI forms, automates daily follow‑ups with providers, and uses AI to catch common errors (missing dates, signatures, typos) so fewer requests get rejected and records arrive faster Codes site, Codes site.

When records come in, Codes groups and summarizes encounters, extracts diagnoses and treatments, builds a chronological history, and flags gaps or notable facts. Outputs are reviewed by humans where needed for legal‑grade accuracy, then delivered as case chronologies for legal teams or pre‑visit summaries and intake co‑pilot views for clinicians. The company highlights an average 3–5 day time‑to‑record for provider customers Codes site, Codes site.

Who are their target customer(s)

• Personal‑injury and workers’ comp law firms: They need complete, chronological records to value and settle cases, but pulling records is slow, error‑prone, and staff‑intensive due to provider outreach and rejected requests.
• Paralegals and litigation intake teams: They spend hours on follow‑ups, fixing missing signatures/dates, and normalizing inconsistent file formats, which slows triage and chronology building.
• Mass‑tort and other high‑volume legal practices: They must process large claimant volumes quickly; manual retrieval and review don’t scale, delaying qualification and increasing costs and missed evidence.
• Clinic administrators and care coordinators (e.g., hospice): They need a full, accurate history before the first visit to assess eligibility and plan care, but records are fragmented across providers and often arrive late.
• Disability/insurance claims handlers and eligibility reviewers: They require defensible, chronological medical evidence quickly for benefit or coverage decisions, but scattered records and long retrieval times slow determinations and increase appeals.

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Founder‑led outreach to local PI/workers’ comp firms and litigation intake teams via warm intros (YC network, law school clinics, paralegal groups), offering short, supported paid pilots with concierge onboarding, ROI/e‑signature setup, and clear SLAs so firms see chronologies and time savings early Codes site, YC listing.
• First 50: Turn pilot wins into case studies and references; run targeted outbound to mass‑tort/high‑volume firms and clinics (email/LinkedIn to paralegals and intake managers), and convert referrals via referral fees or discounted cohort pricing. Highlight measured improvements (faster turnaround, legal‑grade chronologies) in short one‑pagers and 15‑minute demos to reduce buying friction Codes site.
• First 100: Stand up a repeatable motion with a small AE/onboarding team, a productized low‑friction pilot (self‑serve intake + optional concierge), and channel partnerships with EHR/HIE/claims software and retrieval vendors. Standardize vertical templates (PI, workers’ comp, hospice/disability) and use ABM for larger enterprise targets Codes site, YC listing.

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

Codes sits at the intersection of medical record retrieval/ROI, legal case preparation, and clinical intake—large, established spend areas. Its practical TAM is the subset tied to automating record retrieval, chronology building, and pre‑visit intake for U.S. law firms and ambulatory provider practices.

Bottom-up calculation:

Illustrative U.S. TAM: Legal—assume ~10,000 PI/comp/mass‑tort firms handle ~200 cases/year needing records; at ~$200 per matter for retrieval + AI summary ≈ ~$400M/year. Clinical intake—assume ~20,000 mid‑sized practices use pre‑visit retrieval for ~50 patients/month; at ~$60 per intake ≈ ~$720M/year. Combined initial TAM ≈ ~$1.1B, before hospitals/insurers and deeper EHR embedding.

Assumptions:

• Law segment: ~10k target firms; ~200 record‑requiring matters per firm annually; ~$150–$300 revenue per matter.
• Clinic segment: ~20k target practices; ~50 intakes per month needing records; ~$40–$100 revenue per intake.
• Scope limited to U.S.; excludes large hospitals/payers and deeper API/EHR use cases (which could expand TAM).

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Ciox Health: Large, established ROI and medical‑record retrieval provider serving law firms, payers, and providers; competes on provider network and enterprise workflows. Codes differentiates via automated HIE/TEFCA pulls and AI‑driven summaries with human verification Ciox, Codes.
• MRO Corp: Traditional ROI and clinical data‑exchange vendor for hospitals/health systems, offering release services and normalized data flows. Codes focuses on faster, case‑oriented chronologies and intake summaries for law and clinics MRO, Codes.
• ChartRequest (CaseBinder): Software‑first record‑retrieval platform marketing to law firms with workflow automation and a legal portal. Codes overlaps on retrieval automation but layers AI summaries and human verification for legal‑grade outputs ChartRequest, Codes.
• Lexitas (Record Insights®): Legal services firm combining nationwide retrieval with AI‑enabled chronologies and nurse/expert review; a direct competitor for firms seeking retrieval plus defensible summaries. Codes similarly offers AI + human review for litigation workflows Lexitas, Codes.
• Compex Legal Services: Nationwide litigation support and record‑retrieval provider bundling retrieval, summarization, and canvassing. Competes on breadth and relationships; Codes emphasizes automated data pulls, AI extraction, and a productized intake co‑pilot Compex, Codes.