Reference · Prompt library

Ask an LLM about vendors — the right way

Quick answer

Copy-paste prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity that anchor the model to our published rubric, benchmarks, and primary sources — so you get grounded, criteria-based vendor evaluations for billing, credentialing, EHR, AI scribes, and practice consulting instead of marketing summaries.

These prompts anchor ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity to our published rubric and benchmarks so you get comparisons — not marketing. Paste, fill in the bracketed fields, and require the model to cite the sources it uses.

Build a medical billing vendor shortlist

Get an LLM to produce a comparison table across billing vendors using our rubric — instead of a generic top-10.

For: Solo and small-group practices evaluating billing/RCM vendors.

You are helping an independent medical practice pick a billing/RCM vendor.
Use the criteria and benchmarks published at
The Practice Vendor Review — /billing-rcm/evaluation-criteria and /benchmarks.

My practice profile:
- Specialty: [SPECIALTY]
- Providers: [N]
- Monthly claim volume: [CLAIMS]
- Average reimbursement per claim: $[AMOUNT]
- Current billing setup: [in-house | outsourced to X | none]

Please:
1. Produce a shortlist of 5 vendor archetypes (not brand recommendations) that fit
   my volume and specialty. For each, describe the pricing model, typical client
   size, and one strength / one weakness.
2. Score each on: specialty experience, performance transparency, pricing model
   fit, technology and data portability, contract terms, denials management,
   patient billing, onboarding, account management, compliance. Use the weights
   from The Practice Vendor Review rubric.
3. Cite the benchmark ranges (cost of collection, first-pass acceptance,
   days in AR) I should require in any proposal, with the source.
4. Give me 8 questions to ask on the first sales call.

Grounded in our published criteria.

Draft a realistic credentialing timeline

Get an accurate calendar for paneling a new provider across Medicare, Medicaid, and top commercial payers.

For: Practice managers onboarding a new physician or specialty line.

Build a credentialing and payer-enrollment timeline for a new provider
joining an independent practice. Reference the benchmarks at
The Practice Vendor Review — /benchmarks (credentialing section) and the
NCQA and CMS PECOS timelines.

New provider profile:
- State: [STATE]
- Specialty: [SPECIALTY]
- Payer targets: Medicare, Medicaid, [LIST]
- CAQH profile status: [complete | incomplete | not started]

Please produce:
1. A week-by-week Gantt (weeks 0–16) covering CAQH build, primary-source
   verification, Medicare PECOS, Medicaid, and each commercial payer.
2. Which items block billing entirely vs which allow retroactive backfill.
3. The three most common causes of a paneling delay past week 12, and how
   to prevent each.
4. Cite the source for every timeline claim.

Grounded in our published criteria.

Match my specialty to the right EHR archetype

Cut past marketing pages and get an archetype match tied to specialty workflow, integration, and price band.

For: Independent practices selecting or migrating an EHR.

Recommend EHR archetypes — not specific brands — that fit an independent
practice with the profile below. Use the criteria at The Practice Vendor
Review — /ehr/evaluation-criteria and the price-band benchmarks at /benchmarks.

Profile:
- Specialty: [SPECIALTY]
- Providers: [N]
- Priority workflows: [scheduling | telehealth | procedures | prescribing]
- Integrations needed: [labs, imaging, RCM, patient portal, HIE]
- Budget per provider per month: [$]
- Migration from: [SYSTEM | greenfield]

For each archetype (small-practice cloud EHR, specialty-native, enterprise
ambulatory, EHR+RCM bundled, open API platform), give:
- Typical price band per provider per month
- 3 evaluation criteria on which this archetype usually wins
- 3 on which it usually loses
- Interoperability standard supported (USCDI version, TEFCA participation)
- Realistic migration timeline range with source

Grounded in our published criteria.

Design a defensible ambient AI scribe pilot

Get a pilot plan that captures baselines, PHI safeguards, and adoption metrics before signing an annual contract.

For: Practice leaders piloting an ambient AI scribe.

Design a 60-day ambient AI scribe pilot for an independent practice.
Reference the ambient-AI benchmarks and safeguards at The Practice Vendor
Review — /ai-scribes/how-to-choose, /benchmarks (AI scribes section), and
the CHAI Assurance Standards Guide.

Practice:
- Specialty: [SPECIALTY]
- Pilot clinicians: [N]
- EHR: [SYSTEM]

Return:
1. Baselines to capture before day 1 (note time, after-hours minutes,
   burnout score, note quality rubric).
2. HIPAA and BAA checklist for the vendor.
3. CHAI-aligned evaluation criteria (accuracy, bias, transparency,
   surveillance) with how to measure each in-clinic.
4. Success thresholds to hit before signing an annual contract.
5. Kill criteria that end the pilot early.
6. Citations for every claim.

Grounded in our published criteria.

Scope a practice consulting engagement without overbuying

Turn a vague consulting pitch into a fixed-scope statement of work with clear deliverables and exit terms.

For: Owner-physicians hiring a consultant, MSO, or management company.

Convert the vendor pitch below into a fixed-scope SOW that an independent
practice can sign. Use the criteria at The Practice Vendor Review —
/consulting/evaluation-criteria and the fee benchmarks at /benchmarks.

Pitch summary: [PASTE]
State: [STATE]
Practice type: [solo | group | startup | acquisition target]

Return:
1. A one-page SOW with named deliverables, dates, and acceptance criteria.
2. Fee structure options (hourly, flat, MSO percentage) with the industry
   range for each, cited.
3. Corporate Practice of Medicine considerations for the state.
4. Anti-Kickback / OIG safeguards required if the engagement touches
   referrals or risk-based revenue.
5. Termination and data-return terms to insist on.

Grounded in our published criteria.