Industries · Healthcare
One unverified clinical claim disqualifies the bid.
Health systems and IDNs buy on evidence. A single RFP runs through clinical efficacy, integration and interoperability, security posture, data handling, BAA terms and implementation commitments — owned by four different people, and arriving in a different format from every system. The answers exist. They get rewritten anyway.
Built for proposal and bid teams, security and compliance, clinical and regulatory affairs.
Respond answering a HIPAA questionnaire — control evidence cited on each answer
Where the health system deal actually stalls.
Not for want of a good product. The clinical evidence exists, the controls are in place and the questions have been answered before. They are answered again, by hand, for every system that asks.
-
01
The health system RFP desk
Health systems, IDNs and group purchasing organisations issue long, structured RFPs, and the clinical, security, integration and implementation sections each belong to someone different.
Every response gets rebuilt from the last one, because nobody can be sure which parts of the last one are still true.
The deal waits on people who were never meant to be a bottleneck.
-
02
Security and compliance review
HIPAA, HITRUST, SOC 2, BAA terms, PHI handling and breach commitments — a security questionnaire arrives with every serious opportunity, usually late, and usually from a reviewer who will not accept a paraphrase.
The control evidence is already written and already approved. Finding the current version of it is the slow part.
Security review lands at the end of the cycle and decides the timeline.
-
03
Clinical and product claims
What the product does clinically, what has been validated, what is regulated and what may not be said — answered by the smallest and scarcest group of people in the company.
A claim that drifts from what was approved is not a typo in healthcare. It is a disqualification, and sometimes a regulatory problem.
The people who can answer safely are the people you can least afford to interrupt.
What Tribble does about it.
One place the approved answer lives, with the source attached and an owner’s name on it — and every response you finish makes the next one cheaper.
- 1
Load it
Your approved sources come in with their permissions and versions intact, so every answer can be traced back from day one.
- 2
Answer from it
Answers are worked out before anyone asks. Each one shows the document it came from, who owns that document and when it was last changed.
- 3
Keep what you learn
Every edit a reviewer makes becomes the approved answer next time. Your experts see the 10–20% that is genuinely new, not all of it. The tenth submission is faster than the first.
Sources in, cited answer out, reviewer edits folded back.
The documents a health technology vendor actually files.
All of them run the same way. Follow any one through to see it.
- Health system RFPs and RFIs Clinical, integration, implementation and pricing sections, in each system’s own format. RFP automation →
- HIPAA and security questionnaires HITRUST, SOC 2, PHI handling, breach and BAA commitments, with cited control language. Security questionnaires →
- Vendor risk and procurement diligence Third-party risk packs, GPO and IDN vendor onboarding, control evidence. DDQ automation →
- Clinical and evidence narratives Validation summaries and outcomes write-ups where the buyer wants prose, with a source behind every claim. Longform →
- Product and clinical questions The standing Q&A behind a live deal — what is validated, what integrates, what is approved to say. Portal & chat intake →
Chat tools draft. A health system buyer needs the source.
A wrong answer here is not a typo. It is a disqualified bid, and occasionally a regulatory problem.
| Generic AI | Tribble | |
|---|---|---|
| Answers from | Public training data | Your validated claims and current control set |
| Clinical claims | No link to what regulatory approved | Cited to the approved claim, with its owner |
| PHI and patient context | Staff paste it into consumer tools | Permissioned on intake |
| Security evidence | Paraphrased from memory | Linked to the current SOC 2 or HITRUST artefact |
| When a control changes | Nothing propagates | Change once, applies to the next response |
| Review | All or nothing | Routes what is genuinely new to the owner |
| What the auditor sees | No trail | The same evidence the buyer saw |
What we would measure.
Agreed up front, and measured against how the work runs today, so the result is judged on your numbers.
Proof, and where it comes from.
DeepScribe and Arcadia both run on Tribble. Both are health technology companies answering health system RFPs. We have not deployed inside a health system or a payer.
Named customers in this industry, cleared for use.
The first engagement: one workflow, four to six weeks.
Narrow scope is what makes that real rather than aspirational. One team, one workflow, and we measure how it works today before changing anything.
- 1
Connect · week 0
Scope and owners named. Sources ingested from past RFP responses, your control set and BAA language, and validated clinical and product claims. We measure how the work runs today first.
- 2
Build · weeks 1–2
The answer set assembled from your own records, scoped to the questions that actually recur. Your experts review and approve it.
- 3
Pilot · weeks 3–4
Live with a named team, on real work. Our team works alongside yours, tuning against what reviewers actually change.
- 4
Prove · weeks 5–6
Measured against the baseline, with a clear read on where value landed and a go or no-go on expanding.
What people ask
Some are worth putting to your own team first.
How do we stop a clinical claim drifting from what regulatory approved?
Answers are produced only from approved sources, and each one carries the document it came from, who owns it and when it last changed. If regulatory changes what may be said, you change it once and it applies to the next response rather than requiring a note to every seller. Anything new or sensitive routes to the claim owner before it ships, not after a buyer has already read it.
Does anything touch PHI?
Nothing in this workflow needs to. The material is your proposal content, control evidence, validated claims and prior submissions. Sources carry their permissions in from intake, so access follows the boundaries you already set rather than creating a looser copy of them.
Security questionnaires arrive late and blow up the timeline. Does this actually help?
That is the most common first workflow for exactly that reason. Control language, SOC 2 and HITRUST evidence, PHI handling and BAA positions come back cited from approved sources, and the security owner reviews the small share that is genuinely new for this buyer instead of re-approving the same forty answers. The measure worth agreeing up front is days from questionnaire received to questionnaire returned.
We are a small team. Is a pilot realistic?
It is more realistic on a small team than a large one, because the scope is naturally narrow and the baseline is easy to capture. DeepScribe took a 36-page proposal from twelve hours to four. That is a team small enough that one person felt the whole difference.
How is this different from the response library we already pay for?
A library stores answers. It does not know which are stale, which contradict a control that changed, or which a clinical reviewer edited last time. Every answer here carries source, owner and version, low-confidence answers route to the accountable person, and reviewer edits fold back in so the next system’s RFP starts ahead.
Bring one health system RFP and one HIPAA questionnaire.
We will map your validated claims and your current control set, run both together, and leave you with drafts your clinical and security owners can review rather than rewrite.
Book a demo