DRAGEN

DRAGENAudit

100 out of 100.

When federal auditors pulled a hundred enrollee-months of ABA claims in Indiana, every single one came back with an improper or potentially improper line. Wisconsin and Colorado were also 100 out of 100. These were ordinary practices doing ordinary work, and the auditors are still going.

Almost none of what they find is a clinical failure. It is arithmetic and filing — and arithmetic is something you can check before a payer checks it. DRAGENAudit reads your billing export and finds what an auditor would find, on your own computer.

The person who wrote it sits the same audit you do. DRAGENAudit was built by Chase Alexander Hought, M.S., BCBA — Software Engineer: a board certified behavior analyst in active practice who also writes the software himself.

The forcing function

The auditors are already doing this.

These are published results from the HHS Office of Inspector General, which has been working through state Medicaid ABA programs one at a time.

Indiana
100 of 100 sampled enrollee-months contained improper or potentially improper claim lines. At least $56M improper, 2019–2020.
Wisconsin
Also 100 of 100. At least $18.5M improper, 2021–2022.
Colorado
Also 100 of 100. At least $77.8M improper, 2022–2023.
Maine
At least $45.6M improper.
Still open
ABA audits remain on the OIG’s active work plan.
Read the first line again. When the OIG pulled a hundred enrollee-months in Indiana, a hundred in Wisconsin, and a hundred in Colorado, every one came back with a problem. Not most. All of them. These were ordinary practices doing ordinary work.

What it finds

Three things, over and over.

None of it is a clinical failure. It is arithmetic and filing — and arithmetic is something a computer can check before a payer does.

Units the note does not support

Eight units billed against a session documented from 9:00 to 10:45. That is 105 minutes of note against 120 minutes of bill. Nobody lied. Somebody rounded.

A provider who could not render it

Protocol modification billed under a technician. One line in a spreadsheet, repeated across a caseload for eleven months.

A month that was never eligible

No evaluation on file. No referral. An assessment that went stale. This is the expensive one — it does not make one note wrong, it makes every claim in that month improper.

What the report says

Numbers you can redo on paper.

No language model touches a number. Every figure is subtraction you can check by hand. A model that miscounts while sounding confident is worse than no report at all.

It draws no legal conclusions either. The report says 15 min unaccounted. It does not say overpayment, recoupment or fraud. Those words belong to you, your counsel and your payer.

And it refuses rather than guesses. A row it cannot read is listed by row number, and the run reports itself as incomplete. Run it without a client file and every month comes back NOT CHECKED — never clean. “We did not look” must never read the same as “we looked and it was fine.”

# a line-level finding documented 09:00-10:45 = 105 min billed 8 units = 120 min finding 15 min unaccounted # a month-level check, run with no client file evaluation not supplied status NOT CHECKED

The second block is the one that matters. It will not report a month as clean because it was never given what it needed to check.

Where your records go

Nowhere. The software runs on your machine.

There is no upload step and no server to send records to. You download the program once and the analysis runs on your own processor.

  • No install. Download it and run it — the download link comes after we talk, since there is no checkout on this page yet.
  • No server, no admin rights, no firewall exception, no IT project.
  • Works offline. Unplug the network cable and everything still runs.
  • No data-processing agreement to sign to use the software, because the software discloses no protected health information to anybody.
One exception, said plainly. Everything above is about the software you run yourself. If you hire me to run the chart review for you, you send me an export. That is protected health information, I am the one handling it, and it is covered by a business associate agreement signed before anything is sent. Two different arrangements, and I will not blur them.

Where this stands today

What is built, and what is not.

You are being asked to trust software with your billing data. So here is the honest state of it.

Built

The software exists

It is written, it runs, and there is a working program I can walk you through on a screen share using sample billing data, so no client record reaches me before a business associate agreement is signed.

Built

Local, and offline

It runs on your computer and transmits no client record. That is how it was written, not a setting you have to go and find.

Not yet

Buying it on this page

There is no checkout here and no automated license delivery. So licensing starts with a conversation: we talk, you watch it run, and the download link comes after.

Pricing

Per practice, never per seat.

Adding a clinician never raises the bill inside a plan. Prices are shared on the call while they are being finalized, and you see the renewal, refund and cancellation terms before you pay anything. Every copy starts with a 24-hour free trial: no card, and it never turns into a paid plan by itself.

Not ready to license anything? Start with a chart review. I run DRAGENAudit against your data under a business associate agreement signed before anything is sent, then sit down with you and read the report together.

Find it before the auditor does.

Bring your questions and watch it run on sample billing data. Your own export stays with you unless a business associate agreement is signed first. If it is not worth your money, I will say so on the call.

DRAGENAudit identifies discrepancies for your review. It does not provide legal advice and does not determine whether any payment was improper — those are decisions for the practice, its counsel and its payer.