Honestly, I find the questions and explanations to the questions to be confusing to a layman, extremely wordy(and worded poorly, with spelling and grammar errors), and in some cases, just not accurate. Like this, for rejected claims: "From sloppy documentation to issues such as up-coding/under-coding, there are numerous reasons why your claim could get rejected."
Documentation and up-coding/under-coding are not two reasons claims get REJECTED...but they are two reasons why a claim that has been denied or pended for review and is being appealed/has an ADR out on it might not get paid, or might get paid at a different level then was submitted. There is a difference, and that difference is not accurately represented.
I have been in this business for over 20 years, and I can tell you that 99% of the providers I bill for would not understand most of what you have written in your post. They don't know an RVU from a hole in the ground. They just want to know in simple language that their claims will be paid. While I can appreciate the use of "industry nomenclature"(to be wordy myself) it doesn't necessarily translate to your target audience. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Sorry to be so harsh, but that is my honest opinion of what I read on your website. While I can appreciate what you are trying to convey to potential clients, it really is too much to take in, and needs some serious editing/proof-reading.