Mercury AI Fraud Scoring for Policy & Claims Documents

Insurance operations run on documents: applications, endorsements, loss runs, medical records, invoices, photos, and handwritten notes. The challenge is that the same inbound channel that keeps work moving also creates opportunity for fraud. If every document looks equally urgent, teams either over-review (cost and cycle time) or under-review (leakage and compliance risk).

Mercury supports an AI-powered document fraud detection approach that assigns a clear 1–100 risk score to incoming policy and claims documents. The score is designed to help carriers, MGAs, and TPAs prioritize the right work—without forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all manual process.

Why a numeric score matters

In many organizations, “suspicious” is a subjective label. One examiner’s red flag is another examiner’s normal exception. A consistent, numeric signal makes it easier to:

• Standardize triage: route high-score items for additional validation while allowing low-score items to proceed.
• Focus human review: concentrate expert time where the likelihood of issues is highest.
• Track outcomes: correlate scores to confirmed fraud, SIU referrals, recoveries, and false positives.

Where fraud scoring fits in the Mercury workflow

Fraud scoring is most effective when it’s embedded in an operational workflow rather than treated as an isolated report. A practical pattern looks like this:

• Document intake: claims and policy documents arrive via portal upload, email ingestion, scanning, or third-party feeds.
• Classification and extraction: Mercury’s document imaging and NLP capabilities help identify document types and capture key data elements.
• Fraud signal generation: the AI fraud detection layer produces a 1–100 score based on anomalies, inconsistencies, and pattern indicators.
• Routing rules: underwriting and claims teams apply thresholds (for example, “send ≥ 80 to enhanced review”) that align to line of business and risk tolerance.
• Audit trail: decisions, overrides, and outcomes are tracked for operational transparency.

Reducing leakage without slowing cycle times

Every additional checkpoint adds time. The advantage of score-based triage is that it can reduce cycle time for low-risk items while improving controls on high-risk items. That balance is especially important for high-volume lines where adjusters and underwriters are already managing heavy workloads.

For MGAs and program administrators, fraud scoring also helps create consistency across delegated authority. A shared scoring approach can align reviews and reduce variability when multiple teams handle similar risks.

Operational tips for carriers, MGAs, and TPAs

Implementing fraud scoring is as much an operating model decision as it is a technology choice. A few practical guidelines:

• Start with routing thresholds: define what happens at 60, 80, and 95+ so teams don’t improvise under pressure.
• Measure false positives: if too many documents escalate, raise thresholds or refine downstream checks to keep the signal meaningful.
• Align to compliance: document handling should remain auditable, with clear reason codes for decisions and overrides.
• Keep humans in the loop: the score prioritizes; it doesn’t replace examiner judgment.

How Mercury helps teams act on the signal

The goal isn’t simply to detect anomalies—it’s to help teams act on them consistently. With Mercury, carriers and TPAs can combine fraud scoring with workflow automation and role-based access so that review steps are traceable and repeatable.

If you’re evaluating how to strengthen document controls without adding friction to every claim or policy change, a 1–100 fraud score is a straightforward way to introduce prioritization while keeping the process operationally realistic.