Audit preparation software organises the evidence behind an incentive programme attestation, tracks what is missing, and manages the response when an audit letter arrives. It collects, organises, and retains evidence. It does not create evidence, backdate anything, or make an attestation defensible that was not supported at the time.
Audits of these programmes are documentation exercises with financial consequences, and they usually turn on two things: whether a security risk analysis was genuinely performed, and whether measure evidence was captured contemporaneously. Taction builds the evidence discipline that makes an audit answerable. Where evidence was never captured, we will tell you that plainly rather than helping construct it afterwards.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
It is evidence management built around attestation periods: which measures were attested, what evidence supports each one, where that evidence lives, and whether it was captured at the time. It also handles the response process when an audit arrives, with deadlines that are short and unforgiving. It sits inside a wider healthcare compliance programme rather than functioning as a standalone product. It also connects to your wider compliance and security programme, because the security risk analysis at the centre of these audits is a security obligation you carry independently of any incentive programme.
Each attestation period holds its measures, numerators and denominators, reporting dates, and the certified technology version used. Period records must remain intact long after the period closes. Staff turnover makes retention harder.
Every attested measure needs supporting evidence: dated reports, configuration proof, and screenshots showing the values as they stood. Contemporaneous evidence is the only kind an audit accepts. Regenerated reports frequently differ.
The analysis, its findings, the risk management plan, and the remediation actions taken are all required. Risk analysis evidence is the most frequently cited deficiency in these audits. A template alone is insufficient.
Certification identifiers and version records for the technology used during each period, with change history retained. Version evidence matters when an upgrade occurred mid-period. Mid-period upgrades complicate an attestation more than teams expect.
Letters arrive with short deadlines, specific document lists, and named contacts, and the response has to be assembled fast. Response deadlines are the operational pressure here. Extensions are rarely granted in practice.
It does not create evidence, backdate records, interpret programme rules, or represent you in an audit. Those things belong to your compliance team and your counsel. We say that before an engagement.
The useful work is contemporaneous capture and honest gap identification. An organisation that captures dated evidence as each period closes has an easy audit; one that plans to assemble it later frequently discovers it cannot. We build capture into the reporting cycle and produce a gap register that names what is missing per period. Where the analysis itself is the weakness, our HIPAA risk assessment work covers that separately and properly. Reporting on evidence completeness runs through our data analytics practice, so the gap register is a live view rather than a document somebody compiled once.
Dated reports, configuration evidence, and measure values captured automatically as each reporting period closes. Capture at close is the single most valuable control here. Retrospective assembly is where organisations discover what they never captured.
Missing or weak evidence identified per period and per measure, with the gap stated rather than approximated. Honest gaps let you take advice while there is still time. Approximation would defeat the purpose.
Analysis records, findings, risk decisions, and remediation tracked over time, connected to our security audit practice. Remediation history is what auditors examine. Analysis performed as a service is available elsewhere rather than from us.
Certification identifiers, versions, and upgrade dates recorded per period, drawing on our certified health IT work. Upgrade timing frequently complicates an attestation. Certification identifiers are recorded per period rather than once overall.
Programme reports retained in original form alongside our MIPS and MACRA reporting work where periods overlap. Original retention avoids regenerated reports that differ. Reports are kept exactly as produced rather than exported again later.
Request tracking, document assembly, deadline monitoring, and a record of exactly what was submitted. Submission records matter if a determination is appealed. Every submitted document is retained precisely as it was sent.
We publish no figures on audit outcomes, recoupment avoided, or preparation time, because those depend entirely on what you captured at the time and how your programme was run. What we deliver is instrumentation so your team measures impact against its own data. The benefit is knowing where you stand before an audit letter arrives, which is worth having even when the answer is uncomfortable. Software that produced reassurance instead would be worse than nothing. Read the items below as evidence discipline rather than as any claim about how an audit will conclude for you.
Dated evidence accumulates as periods close rather than being assembled retrospectively. Contemporaneous capture is what makes an audit straightforward. The capture timestamp is part of the evidence rather than metadata.
Weak or missing evidence is identified per period while advice is still useful. Advance knowledge lets you act rather than react. Options narrow considerably once a letter has already arrived.
Security risk analysis records, findings, and remediation are traceable across years. Analysis continuity answers the question auditors ask most often. Continuity across years is what auditors examine most closely here.
Certified technology versions and upgrade dates are recorded per period. Version records resolve a question that otherwise requires reconstruction from memory. Reconstruction from memory is not evidence an auditor will accept.
Audit requests map to evidence already organised by period and measure. Fast assembly is what a short deadline actually requires. Deadlines are short and assembly time is the binding constraint.
If evidence was never captured, nothing recovers it. We will not construct or backdate documentation, and we say so before an engagement rather than during one. That conversation happens before contracting.
We start with a look at what evidence exists for your most recent periods, because that determines whether this is a forward-looking capture project or a problem needing legal advice. Discovery is paid and time-boxed and produces an itemised fixed-scope estimate. Where the honest finding is that a prior attestation cannot be supported, we say so and recommend you consult counsel rather than proposing a documentation exercise. Where a prior attestation cannot be supported, the honest step is legal advice about your options rather than a documentation exercise that makes the position look better than it is.
Existing evidence for recent periods assessed against what an audit would request, per measure. Position review is the most useful early output. Recent periods are assessed first because exposure is usually there.
Whether a genuine analysis was performed and documented, with findings and remediation, is assessed honestly. Analysis quality is the usual audit failure point. This is where the majority of these audits are actually decided.
Automated evidence capture designed into your reporting cycle so future periods close with evidence attached. Forward capture prevents the problem recurring. Future periods then close with their evidence already attached.
Evidence capture, gap register, retention, and response workflow built in increments through our EHR and EMR integration services. Integration pulls reports automatically. Programme reports are pulled and dated automatically at period close.
A simulated audit request runs through the response workflow against real evidence. Simulation shows where assembly actually breaks down. Assembly under a realistic deadline exposes problems a checklist never would.
Live capture with gap reporting, then handover with retention schedules and named owners per period. Retention ownership is the part organisations lose track of. Retention ownership is the thing organisations most often lose.
We build evidence management and response workflow. We are not your counsel, we provide no legal advice or audit representation, and we do not interpret programme rules on your behalf. Compliance covers HIPAA safeguards where evidence contains patient information, retention aligned to programme requirements, and audit trails showing when each piece of evidence was captured. That capture timestamp is the point: evidence created later is evidence created later, and the system records it as such. Where your counsel advises a particular retention period or evidence approach, our HIPAA compliance practice implements it.
Every evidence item records when it was captured and by whom, immutably. Capture timing is visible rather than adjustable, deliberately. An auditor can see when each item entered the system.
We decline to build any feature that backdates, generates, or reconstructs evidence. Fabricated evidence in a federal programme audit is fraud rather than preparation. That refusal is stated before any engagement begins.
An attestation is a statement made by a named provider or organisation. The software organises supporting evidence and attests nothing on anyone’s behalf. Supporting evidence and the statement itself are different things.
Programme requirements are interpreted by your compliance team and counsel. We implement their reading and record which interpretation was applied. Recording which interpretation applied protects you if guidance later changes.
Evidence is retained for the period programme rules and your counsel require, with disposal controlled. Retention is configured rather than left to individual habit. Premature disposal while exposure remains open is a real risk.
Evidence access is role-based and logged, with response submissions retained exactly as sent. Submission records matter if a determination is later appealed. Appeals frequently turn on precisely what was submitted and when.
We have been building healthcare software since 2013, which is over 12 years, and we have delivered more than 200 healthcare projects. We are ISO 27001 certified, which means we maintain evidence for our own certified management system and understand contemporaneous capture from the inside. Our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field, and we work from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento. We will also tell you when the honest answer involves your counsel rather than a software project, which happens more often in this category than in any other.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, so capturing evidence as it happens rather than before an audit is practice we live with continuously. Surveillance audits mean we cannot assemble evidence retrospectively either.
We report what is missing rather than what looks complete. Uncomfortable findings are the point of the exercise rather than a failure of it. A reassuring dashboard here would be actively dangerous.
We will not build backdating or evidence generation. That refusal loses work from organisations looking for exactly that and protects you from far worse. The exposure from fabricated evidence dwarfs the original problem.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, with documented access control, encryption, immutable audit logging, and change control that survives review. Evidence access is role-based, logged, and reviewed on a fixed cadence.
We build software and provide no legal advice, audit representation, or programme interpretation. Role clarity protects you from relying on us for the wrong thing. We refer you elsewhere for those services.
Four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with delivery overlapping your hours through evidence review and mock request exercises. Escalation reaches a named delivery lead rather than a shared support queue.
Pricing turns on how many periods and providers are in scope, how much integration is needed for automated capture, and whether historical evidence must be consolidated. The tiers below cover engineering. Third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure, data subscriptions, and hardware are separate from engineering cost and itemised clearly. Legal advice, audit representation, security risk analysis performed as a service, and any appeal support sit outside our engineering estimate entirely. Where historical evidence must be consolidated from systems you no longer run, that work is quoted separately because its cost depends entirely on what still exists.
$40,000 to $80,000 for evidence capture at period close, a gap register, and retention for one organisation and current periods. Historical consolidation is scoped separately where prior periods remain exposed.
$80,000 to $200,000 for automated capture, historical consolidation, risk analysis documentation, certified technology register, gap reporting, and audit response workflow. This tier covers most single-organisation programmes that we are asked to scope.
Starting at $200,000 for multi-entity or multi-provider programmes with per-provider evidence, inherited history consolidation, and integrations across several systems. Provider count and inherited history drive the figure more than period count.
A paid, time-boxed discovery phase produces an evidence position review, risk analysis assessment, gap register for recent periods, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. The gap register is yours whether or not we build.
Period count, provider count, historical consolidation scope, and source system availability. Historical consolidation costs most where the original systems are gone. Evidence held only in a decommissioned system may be unrecoverable.
Budget annually for support, capture maintenance as reports change, retention review, and integration monitoring. Report format changes are the usual maintenance trigger. Retention review matters while any period remains within an audit window.
If your last attestation’s evidence lives in a folder nobody has opened since, start with an evidence position review. A paid discovery phase gives you an assessment of what evidence exists for recent periods against what an audit would request, an honest read on your security risk analysis documentation, a gap register you can take to counsel if needed, a capture design for future periods, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. You keep the review regardless.
These are the questions compliance officers and health IT leaders raise before scoping this work, often after an audit letter has already arrived. Several concern something we will not do, which is help construct evidence after the fact. Others concern where audits actually turn, which is the security risk analysis. Where an answer depends on your participation history, the evidence position review settles it quickly. We would rather deliver an uncomfortable finding early than build a system that helps you look prepared for an audit whose questions you cannot actually answer.
No. We will not build backdating or evidence generation features, and we will not assist in constructing documentation for a period after the fact. Fabricated evidence in a federal programme audit is fraud. Where evidence is genuinely missing, the honest step is to take legal advice rather than to produce paperwork.
Because it is a substantive requirement that many organisations satisfied with a document rather than an analysis. Auditors ask for the analysis, its findings, the risk decisions taken, and evidence of remediation over time. A one-page template with no findings and no follow-through is the most commonly cited deficiency we see.
We will tell you that in the evidence position review and recommend you consult counsel, because the options involve legal and financial judgement rather than documentation work. We would rather deliver an uncomfortable finding early than build a system that helps you appear prepared for an audit you cannot answer.
No. We build software that organises evidence, tracks requests, monitors deadlines, and records exactly what was submitted. Audit representation, response strategy, and any appeal are matters for your compliance leadership and counsel, and we make no claim to provide or substitute for those services. That boundary is stated in our proposals.
Longer than most organisations assume, and the specific period depends on programme rules and your counsel’s advice about audit and appeal windows. We configure retention to what they specify rather than applying a default, and we control disposal so evidence is not lost while exposure remains open.
Usually, yes, and that is the highest-value part. Programme reports, configuration evidence, and measure values can be pulled and dated at period close rather than assembled by hand later. Capability depends on your system and version, which we verify during discovery rather than assuming. Capture design is the highest-value part of this work.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Our expert reaches out shortly after receiving your request and analyzing your requirements.
If needed, we sign an NDA to protect your privacy.
We request additional information to better understand and analyze your project.
We schedule a call to discuss your project, goals. and priorities, and provide preliminary feedback.
If you're satisfied, we finalize the agreement and start your project.