Skip to content
Artifisys
Menu
Start a conversation Talk to us

Home health & hospice

The most common HOPE failure is a window somebody missed

Why do we keep failing HOPE submissions and HUV timing?

Book a 20-minute call Free. No demo, no slides.

Figures and rules on this page apply to

United States

Working somewhere else? The shape of the problem usually travels. The deadlines do not.

What this looks like

The visit happened. The clinician documented it, carefully, in the EMR. Then somebody realised the template did not match what iQIES wants, so it gets written a second time in a different place. Nobody planned that. It is just what happens when the tool arrives after the rule does.

The numbers

Every figure here is someone else’s. Check them.

  • HUV windowsthe most common compliance failure, six to seven months in
  • Doubledocumentation forced on clinicians where EMR templates arrived late
  • 2026when claims accepted with marginal EVV data may start being denied
  • 13 May 2026date CMS imposed a temporary nationwide enrolment moratorium

Why it happens

It is not a people problem.

HOPE is not hard to complete. It is hard to complete on time, every time, across a workforce where four in five people were not there a year ago. The failure is a timing and hand-off problem, and timing problems are exactly what nobody can hold in their head across fifty patients.

Why your current software has not fixed it

Because it was never built to.

Your EMR was built to hold the record of a visit. The windows around that visit belong to a different system: who is due, by when, what happens if a visit slips, and who gets told. Several clinical EMRs shipped HOPE-compatible templates late, which tells you where this sits on their roadmap. The gap is being filled by hand right now, in every agency.

Intelligence, plumbed in

The clinical detail HOPE asks for is already in the visit note.

A watcher that knows the clock. An app that works where there is no signal. A printed day sheet for the clinicians who prefer one. Underneath it: a connector, one agreed meaning per field, and a test set scored on your own records.

How we make AI survive real data
  • Connectors
  • A semantic layer
  • Evals you can check

However hard, whatever it is

Missed windows are one example. Bring the costlier one.

HOPE is this year's deadline. There will be another, and there are problems here with no deadline attached that cost more. Bring whichever is yours.

  1. 01

    We sit with you

    Days where the work happens, not a workshop in a meeting room. We watch the job get done and write down the shortcuts nobody wrote down.

  2. 02

    We read everything

    Your data, your rules, your vendors and their documentation, and the published research on your sector. We report what is actually in there.

  3. 03

    We break it to first principles

    Not which tool fixes this. What is actually causing it, taken apart until we reach the piece that cannot be divided further.

  4. 04

    Then we build

    Weeks, not quarters. By this point we are not guessing what to build, and guessing is the thing that makes projects long.

What we build

Specific enough to argue with.

Four mechanisms, not four features. Each one is a thing that happens on its own, every day, whether or not anyone remembers to run it.

  • Every HUV and SFV window tracked from admission, with the clock visible before it becomes a problem rather than after.

  • Alerts that reach the person who can actually act, early enough to reschedule.

  • One place for the data iQIES wants, filled from what the clinician already recorded, so nothing is written twice.

  • A submission log showing what went, when, and what came back.

How you would know it worked

Numbers in your own reporting, not ours.

  • Share of HUV windows met, which is the headline number.
  • Rejected or late iQIES submissions per month.
  • Minutes a clinician spends on documentation per visit, which should fall.

Straight answers

Where a model is involved, it is scored against your own records first. Accuracy per source, not one flattering average.

The questions this raises

  • Does this replace our EMR?

    No. It reads from it and watches the clock around it. Your clinicians keep working in the system they already know.

  • Our EMR says HOPE support is coming. Should we wait?

    Ask them for a date in writing. If it is close, wait. Agencies are filling this gap by hand today, and the cost of waiting is measured in missed windows.

  • What about EVV?

    Same shape of problem, so we usually build both. Marginal EVV data that was accepted last year is a denial risk this year, and that is worth catching before the claim goes out.

The evidence is already written down

Six sectors, one problem: the answer is in the notes.

A clinician wrote what happened in prose, because prose is how care is recorded. Every system downstream wants a code, a flag or a field, and none of them can read the sentence that would have answered them.

Six sectors, and in every one the answer was already in the record. If yours writes anything down in prose, it is there too.Show us what your notes say.

A missed window is a timing problem, so we build the timing.

A watcher that knows the clock. An app that works where there is no signal. A printed day sheet for the clinicians who prefer one.

See everything we build
  • Software
  • Hardware
  • Ways of working
  • Whole ventures

Is this happening to you? Tell us the size of it.

Twenty minutes. We will tell you honestly whether the numbers justify doing anything about it.