Evidence status: the capacity and additional-revenue headlines are conditional models. The ancillary-revenue improvement is a founding practice outcome reported by Scryber, with independent verification and supporting financial documentation pending. The visibility headline is a product capability whose complete coverage remains under review. Published research below provides context, not proof of these exact outcomes.
+3 more patient visits per day
Illustrative Scryber Model — conditional scenario; time-saving assumption requires validation
Updated scenario: 1.77 hours × 60 minutes = 106.2 minutes of documentation burden. Retaining the original model's assumed 60% recovery rate gives 106.2 × 60% = 63.72 minutes. Capacity formula: usable time recovered during the clinical day ÷ appointment length. If 63.72 minutes can actually be freed within the clinical day, 63.72 ÷ 20 = 3.186 slots: three whole additional 20-minute visits with 3.72 minutes remaining. At 30 minutes per visit, this yields two whole slots instead.
The 1.77-hour input comes from Gaffney et al.'s analysis of the 2019 National Electronic Health Records Survey: mean self-reported documentation outside office hours among US office-based physicians, not total daily documentation, an in-clinic time saving, or a neurology-specific result. The 60% recovery rate and 20-minute slot are model assumptions, not findings from that study. After-hours documentation savings do not automatically become in-day appointment capacity; the +3 scenario requires separately validated, usable in-clinic time savings.
Sinsky et al. observed 57 physicians in four specialties, none neurology: 49.2% of office time was EHR and desk work. This is not all documentation or all recoverable time. Ma et al.'s Stanford pilot of another ambient scribe included 45 physicians and no neurologists: median daily documentation time fell by 6.89 minutes and total EHR time by 19.95 minutes. These overlapping measures must not be added together. Neither finding substantiates 63.72 usable in-clinic minutes recovered or three extra visits.
Neurology context: Nuwer et al.'s historical analysis of 1998 Medicare services inferred 15–25 minutes per follow-up and 50–60 minutes per new patient/consult from service levels. It is not a current appointment-duration study. A 20-minute assumption fits that historical follow-up range, not a typical mixed new/follow-up schedule. Three new visits at those historical durations would require 150–180 minutes.
Review: confirm actual in-day time savings and appointment mix before treating +3 as achievable. The evidence supports “reduced documentation burden,” not a guaranteed visit increase. This scenario assumes recovered time can be scheduled, staffed, and filled; after-hours savings alone do not create clinical slots. Actual capacity depends on practice workflow, appointment length, patient complexity, and provider scheduling.
Additional Visit Capacity
Illustrative Scryber Model — $187,500 in potential additional annual revenue
Increased patient capacity represents a separate revenue opportunity and should be calculated as:
Additional annual revenue = Additional completed visits per day × Average collected revenue per visit × Annual clinical days
Using the revised scenario of three additional visits per day and the original assumption of $1 million in annual revenue at 16 visits per day:
- Current annual revenue: $1,000,000
- Current daily visits: 16
- Potential daily visits: 19
- Potential incremental annual revenue: $187,500
$1,000,000 × (19 ÷ 16 − 1) = $187,500
This assumes consistent reimbursement, patient mix, and clinical working days. It represents potential additional revenue, not profit, and excludes incremental operating expenses and product costs.
Source: CMS Neurology Office Visit Costs ↗, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Current fee schedules and payer contracts should be used for practice-specific projections.
+30% ancillary revenue improvement — actual outcome observed at Scryber's founding neurology practice.
Classification — Measured Scryber Founding Practice Outcome
The 30% improvement was an actual result achieved by the neurology practice that helped develop and validate Scryber. It is a practice-specific outcome, not an industry benchmark, third-party research finding, or projected financial model.
Evidence classification: Founding practice outcome, reported by Scryber. Independent verification and supporting financial documentation remain pending.
The supporting evidence should establish the baseline and comparison periods, ancillary revenue categories included, whether the improvement reflects billed charges or collected revenue, and how much of the improvement can be attributed to Scryber.
Measurement methodology:
Ancillary revenue improvement (%) = [(Post-implementation ancillary revenue − Baseline ancillary revenue) ÷ Baseline ancillary revenue] × 100
Relevant supporting research:
Approved marketing wording:
“30% improvement in ancillary revenue achieved at Scryber's founding neurology practice.”
Qualification: This represents a reported result from one practice, not a guaranteed outcome or independently validated industry-wide benchmark. Results may vary by practice, payer mix, service mix, and billing operations.
100% visibility into every patient visit
Scryber Product Capability — claimed scope; complete coverage requires product validation
Intended workflow: connect encounter records with available billing, claim, payment, and reimbursement data so practices can follow each captured encounter's financial lifecycle across providers. Visibility depends on the data sources actually integrated into Scryber, their completeness, and successful matching and reconciliation.
Encounters, claims, or payments not integrated into Scryber are outside this scope. Missing feeds, failed imports, unmatched records, and payment delays can leave gaps; an unpaid or pending claim is not proof of missing data, and a captured encounter alone does not establish complete payment visibility.
Review required: this marketing website does not include the Visualyzer ingestion/reconciliation system or coverage audit needed to verify the 100% statement. Retain it as a verified capability only after confirming every in-scope encounter is accounted for, with missing or unmatched financial records explicitly surfaced. No academic study can establish Scryber's integration coverage. If not confirmed, proposed wording is “Visibility into patient encounters captured by Scryber,” without a percentage, subject to approval.
Financial and capacity estimates are illustrative and based on published industry data and stated assumptions. They are not guarantees of Scryber customer performance. Actual results vary based on provider schedules, patient mix, reimbursement, coding practices, payer mix, workflows, and services offered.
