Dental organizations
See what is missing before the package leaves your office.
A VA Community Care case leaves as a package: the referral, the authorization, the treatment plan, the charting, the images, the narrative. Someone in your office has to confirm those documents agree with each other before it goes out. AVC reads the package and shows you where they do not.
AVC prepares the decision. Humans make it.
The work today
The package is assembled by a person, one document at a time.
A coordinator opens the authorization to see what was already approved. Then the treatment plan, to see what the dentist intends to do. Then the chart, to confirm the tooth. Then the narrative, to check that it describes the same work. Then the images, to confirm they are present and readable.
None of that is difficult. All of it is exacting, it happens on every case, and a single line that does not line up is usually invisible until the case comes back.
AVC does that pass first, and shows its work. The coordinator is still the one who decides what to do about it.
A number that does not match
The narrative names one tooth, the procedure list names another. Both look correct in isolation.
A document nobody noticed was absent
Charting for one quadrant never made it into the upload, and the gap is not obvious from a file list.
A service that may sit outside the authorization
Whether it does is a judgment call, usually made before all of the authorization context is in one place.
What AVC shows you
Six things, on every package.
This is the whole product surface for a practice. It is deliberately narrow.
Documentation that appears missing
Named, not counted. The flag says which evidence element is absent, so the person fixing it does not have to guess.
Information that conflicts
Where two documents in the same package disagree (a tooth number, a surface, a date), both statements are shown side by side.
Authorization questions
Where the request raises a question against the authorization on file, the question is stated plainly rather than resolved silently.
Services that may need additional approval
Flagged as a possibility for a human to confirm. AVC does not decide what is approvable, and it never returns an eligibility verdict.
Evidence linked to its source
Every finding carries the document and page it came from, the rule that produced it, and the version of that rule. You can check it in one click instead of re-reading the file.
Reconstruction you do not repeat
The package is structured once. Whoever opens it next (a colleague, a reviewer, someone covering a shift) reads the same organized case rather than rebuilding it.
Before it goes out
A package review, as your coordinator would see it.
Illustrative package
Treatment package readiness review
Synthetic example. Not a real patient or case.
Referral
Present and readable.
Authorization document
Present. Scope extracted and linked to page 1.
Treatment plan
Clinical narrative references Tooth #14. Procedure list references Tooth #15.
Sources
- Treatment Plan, page 2
- Clinical Narrative, page 1
Periodontal charting
Charting for Quadrant 2 not located in the submission.
Radiographs
Image date could not be read from the file. A person should confirm it.
Requested services
- Extraction, Tooth #30Within Current Authorization
- Implant placement, Tooth #19Additional Approval Likely Required
Nothing here is a decision. Each item is a flag with its source attached, waiting on a person to accept it, override it, or fix the underlying document.
What you are trying to get done
Your objectives, in your words.
These came out of conversations with practices and groups doing this work. They are the outcomes you are aiming at. They are not results we have measured (see below).
A community practice
- Prepare complete treatment packages
- Identify missing information before submission
- Understand possible authorization issues early
- Reduce correction and resubmission work
A multi-location group or DSO
- Standardize authorization workflows across locations
- Reduce operational inconsistency between sites
- Improve visibility into case status
- Measure administrative burden with real numbers
- Reduce avoidable rework
Where we actually are
What we do not know yet.
You have been pitched dental software before, so here is the part most vendors leave out.
AVC has no pilot data. We have measured nothing. Anywhere on this site that a number would normally sit, there is a description of what the product does instead, because a number would be invented.
Whether these flags are the ones that matter
We can surface missing documents, conflicts and scope questions. We do not know which of those actually prevents a round trip in your office, and which is noise your team already catches.
Where your rework really comes from
Documentation gaps, authorization scope, transcription, or something upstream of all three. We have a hypothesis. We do not have your data.
Whether coordinators use the source links
Traceability is the part we are most confident about as engineering, and least confident about as a habit. People may click through, or they may trust the flag and move on.
What this is worth to you
We have no pricing to defend and no case study to cite. The first conversation is about your workflow, not a quote.
Where AVC stops
AVC prepares the decision. Humans make it.
AVC organizes evidence and applies documented rules. It does not exercise clinical or benefits judgment, and it is built so that it cannot. Your dentist decides what care is appropriate. VA retains final authorization authority. Nothing is submitted without a person choosing to submit it.
If AVC cannot resolve something, it says so and routes it to a human. It does not guess.
AVC does not
- Determine Veteran eligibility
- Diagnose dental disease
- Approve or deny treatment
- Replace a licensed clinician
- Submit a request without a human
Join the pilot
We would rather be corrected early than be wrong at scale.
We are recruiting dental practices, multi-location groups and DSOs that handle VA Community Care dental authorizations. Pilot organizations get to shape what gets flagged, what gets ignored, and what the output actually needs to look like on a Tuesday afternoon.
The first step is a conversation, roughly 25 minutes with whoever actually assembles your packages. No patient data, no system access, no obligation.