Standardized Underwriting Review
Q1: Major Health Concerns Focus
Summarize major health concerns (if any) to focus on.
Expected
- summary: Migraines (onset ~2011, photophobia/nausea, treated with Excedrin). Occasional leg edema after 12‑hour RN shifts, improved with compression stockings. No cardiovascular anomalies on current exam.
RikAI 2.2 Vision (Demo)
NO AGREEMENT
The model's answer describes a completely different set of medical conditions (hypercholesterolemia, substance abuse, obesity, etc.) compared to the expected answer, which focuses exclusively on migraines and leg edema. There is no overlap in the specific diagnoses or medical history details provided.
Based on the provided APS medical records, here is a concise summary of the major health concerns requiring underwriting focus:
**1. Hypercholesterolemia (E78.00)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Chronic condition, with documented high LDL levels (276) as early as January 2017 (Page 28). Family history of hypercholesterolemia (mother) noted.
* **Treatment/Management:** Managed with Lipitor (Atorvastatin) since at least March 2018 (Page 5, 31, 34). Provider notes a likely need for a statin due to suspected familial/genetic hypercholesterolemia (Page 31, 34). Patient is also advised to continue exercise.
* **Current Status:** Described as "stable" (Page 34) and "improving" (Page 69) with weight loss. The provider planned to check lipids to monitor progress (Page 31, 34, 69).
* **Relevant Findings:** Physical exams consistently show normal cardiovascular findings (Page 5, 31, 69). An EKG was ordered and reported as normal (NSR) in March 2018 (Page 31, 34).
**2. History of Substance Abuse (Oxycontin/Heroin)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** History of Oxycontin abuse/overdose in 1997 (Page 3, 28, 67) and IVDA (intravenous drug abuse) with heroin (Page 28, 67). The patient reports being "sober/clean now for years" (Page 28, 67).
* **Treatment/Management:** No active treatment mentioned in the records; status is self-reported abstinence.
* **Current Status:** Asymptomatic and reportedly sober for years. HIV testing was negative in the past (Page 28, 67). A screening for GC/Chlamydia/HIV/hep was recommended in January 2017 (Page 69, 71) but not confirmed as completed.
* **Relevant Findings:** No current physical findings related to substance abuse. The patient is a former smoker (quit May 2015, Page 28, 67) and uses a nicotine buccal patch (Page 128).
**3. Vitamin D Deficiency (E55.9)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Chronic condition. A level of 12 ng/ml was recorded in January 2016 (Page 28). The patient reported not taking Vitamin D regularly (Page 28, 34).
* **Treatment/Management:** The patient was advised to take Vitamin D supplements, but adherence was noted as poor (Page 28, 34, 69). Rechecking the level was part of the plan (Page 34, 69).
* **Current Status:** Status is "stable" but "might still be low" due to non-adherence (Page 69). A more recent lab report from December 2021 (Page 134) is not available in the provided images, so the current level is unknown.
* **Relevant Findings:** The patient reported symptoms of lightheadedness and numbness in hands, which he associated with low Vitamin D (Page 28).
**4. Morbid Obesity / Weight Management**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** History of morbid obesity, with a weight of 311 lbs documented in 2016 (Page 28). The patient lost over 100 lbs, reaching 212 lbs by March 2018 (Page 28, 31).
* **Treatment/Management:** Managed through diet and exercise (gym 5-6 days/week) (Page 28, 31). The provider provided dietary management education and encouraged exercise (Page 34, 69). The patient's BMI was noted as 30.0-30.9 in March 2018 (Page 34).
* **Current Status:** The patient has achieved significant weight loss and continues to exercise (Page 28, 31, 34, 69). The provider noted weight was "much improved" (Page 69).
* **Relevant Findings:** Weight loss is associated with improvement in other conditions like hypercholesterolemia, elevated BP, and sleep (Epworth score improved from 7 to 4) (Page 28, 31, 69).
**5. Elevated Blood Pressure (R03.0)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Chronic condition, noted as "elevated BP without diagnosis of hypertension" (Page 3, 5, 28).
* **Treatment/Management:** Managed through lifestyle changes (diet, exercise) and weight loss. No antihypertensive medication is mentioned.
* **Current Status:** Described as "IMPROVED" and "normal now" in March 2018 (Page 31, 34) and "improved with wt loss" in January 2017 (Page 69, 71). The provider planned to continue monitoring (Page 31, 34).
* **Relevant Findings:** Physical exams show normal cardiovascular findings (Page 5, 31, 69). Orthostatic vitals were checked in January 2017 and were within normal limits (Page 71).
**6. Gynecomastia (N62)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Noted as a finding in March 2018 (Page 5, 31, 34). The provider suspected it was ultimately from weight loss (Page 34).
* **Treatment/Management:** The provider planned to check hormonal evaluation and endocrine evaluation (Page 34). No specific treatment is mentioned.
* **Current Status:** Routine finding. The provider suspected it was related to weight loss (Page 34).
* **Relevant Findings:** Physical exam noted "minimal bilat gynecomastia" (Page 5, 31, 34). A more recent endocrine evaluation in December 2021 (Page 134) showed elevated Estradiol (82.1 pg/mL, H) and Testosterone (1107 ng/dL, H), which may be relevant to this finding.
**7. Night Sweats (R61)**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Reported for the last 4 months as of March 2018 (Page 28).
* **Treatment/Management:** The provider planned an endocrine evaluation, including checking FSH, LH, prolactin, cortisol, testosterone, and a CT scan to rule out lymphoma/occult cancer (Page 34). The plan was to obtain insurance authorization for these tests.
* **Current Status:** The records do not indicate if the planned evaluation was completed or the cause was determined.
* **Relevant Findings:** This was a new, symptomatic complaint at the time of the March 2018 visit (Page 34).
**8. Family History of Colon Cancer**
* **Onset/Timeframe:** Paternal grandfather diagnosed with colon cancer in his 60s (Page 3, 28, 67, 128).
* **Treatment/Management:** No specific management mentioned in the records.
* **Current Status:** A known family history risk factor.
* **Relevant Findings:** This is a significant risk factor for the patient's future health, which may warrant consideration for earlier or more frequent screening, though no screening is mentioned in the provided records.
Q2: Data Discrepancies Action Req
Identify data discrepancies (DOB, Height, Weight > 20lbs, Names).
Expected
- Q2_data_discrepancies: Weight variance: 142 lbs (current) vs 168 lbs in prior 2015 medical record – delta > 20 lbs. Name variation: 'Jennifer K. L.' vs 'Jenny L.' in 2011 notes. Confirm that DOB and height are otherwise internally consistent.
RikAI 2.2 Vision (Demo)
NO AGREEMENT
The model's answer provides completely different factual information than the expected answer, referencing a male patient with weights in the 200-240 lb range instead of the female patient ("Jennifer") with weights in the 140-160 lb range. Furthermore, the model incorrectly identifies DOB inconsistencies and fails to identify the specific name variation required by the expected answer.
Based on a review of the provided medical records, the following data discrepancies have been identified:
### 1. Date of Birth (DOB) Inconsistencies
There is a clear inconsistency in the patient's age, which implies a discrepancy in the Date of Birth (DOB) across different records.
* **Conflicting Values:**
* Age 29 (implying DOB circa 1990)
* Age 30 (implying DOB circa 1990)
* Age 31 (implying DOB circa 1990)
* **Sources:**
* **Age 29:** Page 118 (laboratory report dated 09/10/19) and Page 118 (laboratory report dated 09/10/19) list the patient's age as 29.
* **Age 30:** Page 120 (visit note dated 04/30/2020) states "30 y/o male".
* **Age 31:** Page 134 (laboratory report dated 12/28/21) lists the patient's age as 31.
* **Magnitude of Difference:** The age reported varies by 2 years (from 29 to 31) over a period of approximately 2 years (from 09/2019 to 12/2021). This is inconsistent, as a person's age should only increase by 2 years over that time frame, not fluctuate.
### 2. Height Variations
There are minor variations in the recorded height, but they are within a reasonable margin of error for different measurement methods or rounding.
* **Conflicting Values:**
* 70.25 inches
* 70 inches
* 5'11" (which equals 71 inches)
* **Sources:**
* **70.25 inches:** Page 68 (Vital Signs, 01/30/2017) and Page 68 (Vital Signs, 01/30/2017).
* **70 inches:** Page 103 (ECG report, 01/30/2017) and Page 103 (ECG report, 01/30/2017).
* **5'11" (71 inches):** Page 120 (Physical exam, 04/30/2020), Page 121 (Physical exam, 04/30/2020), Page 129 (Physical exam, 01/13/2022), and Page 129 (Physical exam, 01/13/2022).
* **Magnitude of Difference:** The difference between the lowest (70 inches) and highest (71 inches) recorded height is 1 inch. This is a minor variation and may be due to different measurement techniques or rounding.
### 3. Weight Differences Greater Than 20 lbs
There are several instances where the patient's weight differs by more than 20 pounds across different records.
* **Conflicting Values:**
* 207.0 lbs
* 205 lbs
* 220 lbs
* 225 lbs
* 230-240 lbs
* **Sources:**
* **207.0 lbs:** Page 68 (Vital Signs, 01/30/2017) and Page 68 (Vital Signs, 01/30/2017).
* **205 lbs:** Page 116 (Note, 09/16/2019) states "weight was 225 in january now 205".
* **220 lbs:** Page 120 (Physical exam, 04/30/2020) and Page 121 (Physical exam, 04/30/2020).
* **225 lbs:** Page 116 (Note, 09/16/2019) states "weight was 225 in january".
* **230-240 lbs:** Page 129 (Physical exam, 01/13/2022) states "WEIGHT: 220; currently 230-240".
* **Magnitude of Difference:**
* The difference between 205 lbs (Page 116) and 230-240 lbs (Page 129) is 25-35 lbs.
* The difference between 207.0 lbs (Page 68) and 230-240 lbs (Page 129) is 23-33 lbs.
* The difference between 205 lbs (Page 116) and 225 lbs (Page 116) is 20 lbs (exactly at the threshold).
### 4. Name Variations
No discrepancies in the patient's name, including nicknames, middle initials, or spelling, were identified in the provided records. All documents refer to the patient generically as "Patient" or "Patient Name" without providing a specific name for comparison.
Q3: Delta Categorization
Categorize Q2 findings into Concerning vs. Non‑Concerning.
Expected
- Q3_delta_categorization: Non‑concerning: first‑name nickname variation ('Jenny' vs 'Jennifer'). Concerning: unexplained 26‑lb weight loss over 2 years without clearly stated medical cause – requires underwriter follow‑up.
RikAI 2.2 Vision (Demo)
NO AGREEMENT
The expected answer provides a specific underwriting classification for a name variation and a weight loss. The model's answer explicitly refuses to categorize these discrepancies, claiming they do not exist in the provided data and noting a mismatch in patient gender. Consequently, the model fails to deliver the assessment required by the expected answer.
Based on the provided medical records, there are no discrepancies related to a "Policy 4 APS document" mentioning a weight variance of 142 lbs vs 168 lbs or a name variation of 'Jennifer K. L.' vs 'Jenny L.'. The entire document set pertains to a single male patient, with consistent demographic information (Sex: Male, Race: Caucasian) and a documented history of significant weight fluctuations, but none matching the specific figures or names mentioned in the question.
Therefore, it is not possible to categorize the specified discrepancies as "CONCERNING" or "NON-CONCERNING" because they do not exist within the provided data. The question appears to be based on a misunderstanding or refers to an external document not included in the provided materials.
**Conclusion:**
The requested analysis cannot be performed as the specified discrepancies are not present in the provided medical records. The records consistently describe a male patient with a documented history of obesity and weight management efforts, with no evidence of the female names or the specific weight values mentioned.
Q4: Financial Anomalies
Report financial anomalies (e.g., Low Income / High Asset).
Expected
- Q4_financial_anomalies: Reported income of ~$68k as RN appears consistent with occupation and no obvious low‑income/high‑asset red flags. No evidence of illicit earnings, bankruptcy, or major credit issues in the provided materials.
RikAI 2.2 Vision (Demo)
WEAK AGREEMENT
The model contradicts the expected answer regarding the applicant's occupation (identifying "Corporate Accountant" instead of "RN") and claims income information is missing, whereas the expected answer cites specific income figures (~$68k). Consequently, the model states a financial assessment cannot be performed due to lack of data, differing significantly from the expected answer's positive confirmation of financial consistency based on available evidence.
Based on a review of the provided medical records, there is no information available to conduct a financial risk assessment or identify financial anomalies. The documents are strictly medical in nature and contain no data regarding the applicant's income, assets, credit history, or financial status.
The records detail the applicant's medical history, including:
- A history of morbid obesity and significant weight loss.
- Hypercholesterolemia and a family history of the condition.
- A past history of substance abuse (Oxycontin, heroin) with a period of sobriety.
- A history of Chlamydia.
- Vitamin D deficiency.
- A family history of colon cancer.
- Current medications, including Lipitor and Clomiphene.
- Physical exam findings and lab results from various dates (2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022).
While the documents mention the applicant's occupation as "Corporate Accountant" on page 29, there is no corresponding information on income level, assets, or any financial history to assess for anomalies such as income vs. occupation appropriateness, unexplained wealth, or bankruptcy.
Therefore, no financial red flags can be identified from the provided documents, as they lack the necessary financial data for such an assessment.
Custom Analysis
Ask a custom question about the document using context from Q1-Q4.
Source Document Verification