Contract PDF
Warranty, AMC, or CMC clauses define uptime, response times, exclusions, remedies, and notice periods.
Medical-equipment contract recovery
Find the contract value your hospital may already be owed.
Lotuspond Health reviews warranty, AMC, and CMC terms against complaints, service visits, downtime, and invoices. Your team decides which evidence-backed candidates become vendor claims.
Software-assisted contract operations. No autonomous vendor contact, legal decision, clinical authority, or guaranteed recovery.
What counts as proof
A candidate is not a recovery.
- 01
Candidate
The system finds a possible entitlement and shows every source and assumption.
- 02
Hospital approved
Biomedical, contracts, or finance reviewers confirm the clause, timeline, and calculation.
- 03
Sent
An authorised hospital user sends the reviewed evidence packet or debit note.
- 04
Vendor acknowledged
The vendor confirms receipt. This is not acceptance or recovery.
- 05
Disputed or accepted
The response, counter-evidence, and agreed remedy remain attached to the case.
- 06
Realized
Finance records the credit, deduction, reimbursement, or contract extension.
Vendor acceptance still becomes realized only after the hospital records the agreed financial or contract benefit.
The missed entitlement
The evidence exists. It rarely meets in one place.
An MRI may be unavailable for days while the complaint sits in a message thread, the service report stays on paper, the contract lives in a PDF, and finance receives the full invoice. The gap is reconciliation—not another maintenance screen.
Complaint trail
An authorised WhatsApp export, email, helpdesk ticket, or biomedical log establishes when the incident began.
Service evidence
Engineer reports, job sheets, standby records, and restoration notes explain what happened and when.
Invoice and settlement
Finance records show what was billed, deducted, credited, extended, disputed, or finally realized.
How the system works
From contract language to a reviewable case.
Private document extraction can make selectable source text easier to review. Approved rules and people control the decision. Every candidate keeps the clause, source timeline, formula, missing evidence, reviewer, and eventual outcome together.
01
Build a reviewed clause library
An authorised signed source is uploaded first. A hospital reviewer records the exact clause page, text, uptime or service threshold, exclusions, and remedy rule before it can be used.
02
Join the incident timeline
Complaints, biomedical logs, engineer visits, restoration records, service reports, and invoices are linked to the correct equipment and contract period by a hospital operator.
03
Calculate from visible rules
Deterministic calculations apply the approved clause, contract dates, recorded exclusions, caps, and rounding. Selectable documents can be privately extracted for review, but people confirm every operational fact and match.
04
Prepare the evidence case
The case workspace keeps the clause citation, incident timeline, formula, missing-evidence list, supporting records, approvals, and next action together for hospital review.
05
Track the actual outcome
Acknowledgements, disputes, revised evidence, vendor acceptance, credit notes, invoice deductions, reimbursements, and extensions stay visible until finance confirms realization.
Source-linked casefile
Show the evidence, not a magic score.
A reviewer should be able to challenge the clause, dates, exclusions, match, or calculation without asking how the system reached its answer.
Illustrative synthetic case
MRI-02 · CMC restoration delay
Candidate · needs hospital review
- Equipment
- MRI-02 · Radiology
- Vendor
- Northstar Imaging · fictional
- Clause
- Restoration within 72 hours; synthetic example
- Sources
- Contract p.14 · complaint export · SR-0182 · invoice
Matched timeline
- 04 Jan · 09:10
Complaint opened in authorised message export. - 04 Jan · 16:45
Vendor acknowledgement linked to the same serial number. - 14 Jan · 12:00
Restoration recorded in engineer service report.
Reviewable calculation
Total downtime − approved grace − exclusions
Apply only the formula, cap, calendar, and rounding rule approved from this hospital's contract.
Before approval
Confirm serial-number match, exclusions, restoration timestamp, notice deadline, remedy formula, and whole-day rounding.
No vendor action yet
Configured for each client
One recovery core, shaped around your hospital.
Custom delivery should not mean a separate codebase for every hospital. The shared evidence model remains stable while hospital identity, source mappings, source-backed rules, approval gates, enabled modules, and allowlisted dashboard labels and ordering are configured around each operating model.
Stable, governed core
- Equipment, vendor, contract, and clause records
- Incident timelines and source-linked evidence
- Versioned formulas, exclusions, and calculations
- Stage-based review, approval, and audit history
- Recovery state and vendor-response tracking
Configured per hospital
- Hospital identity, program name, currency, and timezone
- Approved source mappings and manual evidence intake
- Source-backed clause rules, remedies, and caps
- Biomedical, contracts, and finance approval gates
- Enabled modules plus dashboard labels and ordering
Team review lenses
Biomedical engineering
Equipment identity, complaint history, downtime, service visits, standby use, and restoration evidence.
Procurement and contracts
Approved clauses, exceptions, notice windows, entitlement candidates, disputes, and vendor obligations.
Finance
Invoices, proposed deductions, credit notes, reimbursements, extensions, and realized value.
Hospital leadership
Reviewed candidate value, ageing, vendor outcomes, unresolved evidence, and realized benefits by status.
Start in shadow mode
A six-week pilot before any live recovery claim.
Begin with one hospital, one equipment class, one contract type, one or two vendors, and five to twenty machines. Prove the evidence and review workflow retrospectively before connecting live systems or contacting vendors.
Week 1
Map one real workflow
Choose one equipment class, one contract type, one or two vendors, and the hospital owners for biomedical, procurement, and finance review.
Week 2
Review the contract rules
Extract a small clause library and have hospital owners approve the dates, exclusions, formulas, caps, and notice requirements.
Weeks 3–4
Run a retrospective match
Join six to twelve months of authorised incident and invoice records in shadow mode. Nothing is sent to a vendor.
Week 5
Review candidate cases
Hospital teams inspect source links, missing evidence, calculations, and draft packets; rejected candidates remain recorded with reasons.
Week 6
Decide the next rollout
Report confirmed candidates, preparation time, evidence gaps, and integration needs. Live vendor contact starts only with explicit hospital approval.
Safeguards
Useful automation, visible authority.
The system should accelerate evidence work without hiding uncertainty, transferring hospital authority, or turning a draft into an external action.
Human-reviewed clauses
A recorded contract rule remains inactive until an authorised hospital reviewer verifies it against the exact signed source.
Deterministic calculations
The case snapshot preserves its dates, exclusions, formula inputs, cap, result, and contract citation for review.
Authorised source handling
WhatsApp means a hospital-authorised export or approved integration—not hidden access to personal accounts.
Tenant-scoped access
Hospital records, evidence, configuration, and audit history remain tenant-scoped for each client deployment.
No autonomous vendor contact
The workspace records a sent state only after an authorised user cites the external delivery evidence.
Clear authority boundary
The system supports contract operations. It does not make legal decisions, provide clinical advice, or certify a recovery.
A separate patient experience
Patient claims and hospital connections remain distinct.
Patients can use their own consent-based portal for insurance claim evidence, status, and participating hospital connections. Equipment-contract recovery is a hospital operational workflow and does not expose its records or controls to patients.
Questions before a pilot
Clear scope builds trust.
These boundaries separate evidence assistance from hospital approval, vendor agreement, financial realization, and legal or clinical authority.
Is this another equipment-maintenance or asset-management app?
No. Existing CMMS and asset systems remain useful sources of equipment and service history. Lotuspond Health focuses on the missed contract benefit: matching approved clauses to operational evidence, preparing a reviewable recovery case, and tracking the vendor and finance outcome.
Does the system guarantee that a hospital will recover money?
No. It identifies evidence-backed candidates. Hospital reviewers decide what is valid, the vendor may dispute a claim, and the result counts as realized only when finance records a credit, deduction, reimbursement, or contract extension.
How can one system handle different hospital contracts?
The evidence, approval, and outcome model stays consistent. Hospital identity, source mappings, source-backed clause rules, approval gates, modules, and allowlisted dashboard labels and ordering are configured during onboarding.
What happens when the contract language is ambiguous?
The clause stays in a review queue with its source page and uncertainty. The system does not silently convert ambiguous language into an executable rule or a confirmed entitlement.
Can it work with WhatsApp messages and paper reports?
Yes, when the hospital provides an authorised export, scan, or upload. Private text extraction can help with selectable documents; scans remain a manual-review source, and reviewers still confirm equipment identity, timestamps, exclusions, and material facts.
Will the system contact equipment vendors automatically?
No. It assembles a source-linked case and calculation for hospital review. An authorised hospital user prepares and sends any notice, debit note, or extension request outside the automated workflow, then records the delivery evidence.
Does this workflow require patient or clinical data?
The initial equipment-contract audit should not require patient records. Deployment should minimise collected data and redact unrelated patient identifiers if they appear in service material.
Bring one contract into view
Start with a bounded recovery audit.
Choose one equipment class and a retrospective record set. We will map the workflow, configure the evidence model, and show what the hospital can confirm before any vendor action.