Scribeable vs Heidi Health:
Scribeable offers superior note quality, comprehensive US billing support, and enterprise-grade security — built by clinicians for the US healthcare market.
Why Physicians Switch from Heidi Health
Australian-focused platform with weak US billing and compliance features
No HCC/RAF capture, E&M optimization, or CPT suggestions for US practices
Limited US EHR integrations compared to US-built solutions
Head-to-Head Comparison
Built for US Healthcare, Not Adapted for It
Heidi Health is an excellent product — in Australia. But the US healthcare market has unique billing codes (ICD-10-CM, HCC/RAF, CPT), compliance requirements (HIPAA, BAA, SOC 2), and note formats (H&P, ED Provider Notes, Discharge Summaries) that Heidi wasn't designed for. Scribeable was built from the ground up for US clinicians, by US clinicians, with every feature tuned for American healthcare workflows.
Revenue Capture You're Missing
Heidi saves time on documentation, but Scribeable goes further with comprehensive US billing intelligence. HCC/RAF code identification alone is worth $1,500-2,500 per code per year in Medicare Advantage revenue. E&M optimization ensures you're coding at the complexity your documentation supports. These features don't exist in Heidi because they're US-specific — but for American practices, they're worth $150K+ annually per provider.
US Compliance You Can Trust
While Heidi offers HIPAA compliance, Scribeable was built for US regulatory requirements from day one. Full BAA agreements, SOC 2 infrastructure, and data handling designed for US healthcare privacy standards. For practices that need to demonstrate compliance to health systems and payers, Scribeable's US-first approach provides confidence that an international adaptation cannot.
Same Patient. Same Encounter.
See why physicians say Scribeable notes are “actually usable” — with integrated risk scores, billing codes, and clinical reasoning that typical AI scribes simply don’t generate.
HPI
62 y/o male presents with chest pain for 2 hours. Substernal, pressure-like, radiating to left arm. Associated with diaphoresis and shortness of breath. Pain started while climbing stairs. Patient has history of HTN, DM2, and hyperlipidemia. Takes lisinopril, metformin, and atorvastatin. Denies recent illness or trauma.
Assessment & Plan
*Note examples are illustrative representations based on common AI documentation patterns. “Typical AI Scribe” represents composite characteristics of standard tools and does not depict any specific product. Patient scenarios are entirely fictional. Clinical notes should always be reviewed by a licensed provider.
AI Medical Scribe Note Quality Comparison
Scribeable produces clinically enriched notes with integrated risk calculators (HEART Score, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, Wells PE, PHQ-9, Caprini VTE), automated billing code optimization (E&M levels, HCC/RAF capture, CPT codes), dangerous diagnosis exclusion documentation, evidence-based prescribing citations, CMS compliance for operative reports, HEDIS care gap tracking, and MIPS quality measure documentation. Typical AI scribes produce basic notes without these advanced clinical features.
ED Chest Pain: 62-year-old male presenting with substernal chest pressure, diaphoresis, and exertional dyspnea
HPI: 62 y/o male presents with 2 hours of substernal chest pressure, rated 8/10, radiating to left arm and jaw. Onset during exertion (climbing stairs). Associated with diaphoresis and exertional dyspnea. Pressure-like quality, unrelieved by rest. No pleuritic component, no positional variation, no reproducibility with palpation. Risk factors: HTN (10 years), DM2 (8 years), hyperlipidemia, 30-pack-year smoking history (quit 5 years ago), family history of MI (father at age 58). Current medications: lisinopril 20mg daily, metformin 1000mg BID, atorvastatin 40mg daily. Denies cocaine use, recent immobilization, or prior VTE.
Assessment & Plan: 1. Acute Chest Pain — High-risk presentation HEART Score: 7 (High Risk) - History: moderately suspicious (2), EKG: non-specific ST changes (1), Age: >65 (2), Risk factors: ≥3 (2), Troponin: pending initial (0) - Risk stratification: >12% 6-week MACE event rate → full ACS workup - Serial troponins q3h, 12-lead EKG (initial + repeat at 60 min) - ASA 325mg PO administered, heparin drip per ACS protocol - Cardiology consulted for probable cath lab activation Dangerous Diagnosis Exclusion: - STEMI: No ST elevation on initial EKG — serial monitoring - Aortic dissection: No tearing quality, no pulse differential, no mediastinal widening on CXR - PE: Low pretest probability (Wells PE: 1.5) — no immobilization, no prior VTE, no hemoptysis 2. Hypertension — BP 168/94 on arrival, improved to 142/88 post-NTG - Continue home lisinopril, recheck prior to disposition 3. DM2 — Glucose 186 on arrival - Hold metformin (contrast exposure risk), sliding scale insulin PRN
Cardiology Consult: 71-year-old female with new-onset atrial fibrillation and decompensated heart failure
HPI: 71 y/o female with known HFrEF (EF 35% on TTE 6 months ago), HTN, DM2, and CKD Stage 3a (baseline Cr 1.4), consulted for new-onset atrial fibrillation with RVR. Progressive exertional dyspnea (NYHA II → IV over 2 weeks), 3-pillow orthopnea (new), PND, and 4+ pitting edema to knees bilaterally. Weight gain of 8 lbs over 2 weeks. Triggers explored: dietary indiscretion (holiday meals), medication non-adherence (ran out of furosemide 10 days ago). No prior AF history, no palpitations previously. Denies chest pain, syncope, or presyncope.
Assessment & Plan: Reason for Consult: New-onset atrial fibrillation with RVR in setting of acute decompensated HFrEF. Requesting Service: Internal Medicine (Dr. Patel) 1. New-onset Atrial Fibrillation with RVR CHA₂DS₂-VASc Score: 5 (Female sex, age ≥75, HTN, DM, HF) - Stroke risk: 6.7%/year → strong anticoagulation indication - Rate control: avoid diltiazem (negative inotropy in HFrEF) → amiodarone 150mg IV bolus then 1mg/min × 6h - Anticoagulation: apixaban 5mg BID (preferred over warfarin given age + fall risk) - TEE prior to any cardioversion attempt if AF duration uncertain - HAS-BLED: 2 (HTN, age) — acceptable bleeding risk 2. Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) NYHA Functional Class: IV (dyspnea at rest) - IV furosemide 80mg BID (2.5× home oral dose), net negative 1-1.5L/day - Carvedilol held (acute decompensation), restart when euvolemic - Add sacubitril/valsartan when stable (PARADIGM-HF indication: EF ≤40% on ACEi) - BNP trend: 1,840 → monitor for response to diuresis 3. CKD Stage 3a — Cr 1.4 (baseline), monitor with aggressive diuresis - KDIGO risk: moderate — monitor Cr/K daily with diuresis
Operative Note: Right total knee arthroplasty in 68-year-old male with severe tricompartmental osteoarthritis
Operative Note: Preoperative Diagnosis: Right knee severe tricompartmental osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade IV) Postoperative Diagnosis: Same Procedure: Right total knee arthroplasty Surgeon: Dr. James Morrison (attending — present and scrubbed for entire case) Assistant: Dr. Chen (PGY-4) Anesthesia: Spinal with sedation (Dr. Rivera) Implants: Smith & Nephew Legion CR, Size 5 femoral / Size 4 tibial / 10mm poly insert EBL: 150 mL Tourniquet Time: 62 minutes (pneumatic, 275 mmHg) Specimens: Femoral and tibial bone cuts — to pathology Complications: None Findings: Severe tricompartmental degenerative changes with exposed subchondral bone medially, grade III chondromalacia laterally, intact PCL
Post-Operative Plan: 1. Weight Bearing: WBAT right LE with front-wheeled walker 2. DVT Prophylaxis: Enoxaparin 40mg SQ daily × 14 days + mechanical (SCDs while inpatient) 3. Pain: Multimodal — scheduled acetaminophen 1g Q6h, meloxicam 15mg daily, tramadol 50mg Q6h PRN (max 14 days) 4. Antibiotics: Ancef 2g IV × 24h post-op 5. PT: Initiate POD0 PM — CPM machine, active/passive ROM, gait training 6. Follow-up: 2 weeks (staple removal + wound check), 6 weeks (X-ray + ROM assessment) 7. VTE Risk: Caprini Score 7 (High Risk) — extended pharmacologic prophylaxis indicated
Primary Care: 55-year-old female Medicare Advantage patient with DM2, HTN, depression, and overdue preventive care
HPI: 55 y/o female Medicare Advantage patient presenting for chronic disease management follow-up. Last visit 3 months ago. Diabetes (DM2, 8 years): A1c 8.2% (up from 7.6%), reports adherence but dietary indiscretion during holidays. Home glucose logs show fasting 140-180 range. No hypoglycemic episodes. Denies polyuria, polydipsia, vision changes, or foot numbness. Last diabetic eye exam: 14 months ago (overdue). Last podiatry visit: never. Hypertension (12 years): Home BP readings averaging 135-145/85-90. Taking lisinopril 20mg daily consistently. Depression (MDD, recurrent): PHQ-9 score today: 14 (moderately severe). Persistent low mood, anhedonia, poor sleep (initial insomnia), decreased concentration. On sertraline 50mg × 6 months with partial response. Denies SI/HI, denies alcohol or substance use. Columbia Suicide Severity: negative for ideation and behavior.
Assessment & Plan: 1. DM2, Uncontrolled (A1c 8.2%) — HCC 19 - Add empagliflozin 10mg daily (SGLT2i — CV and renal benefit, EMPA-REG OUTCOME indication) - Continue metformin 500mg BID (not escalating given GI intolerance history) - Diabetic eye exam referral (overdue 2 months — HEDIS measure) - Podiatry referral for initial foot exam - Recheck A1c in 3 months, target <7% 2. Hypertension, Suboptimally Controlled — HCC (when with CKD/DM) - BP today 138/86 — above target of <130/80 (ACC/AHA for DM patients) - Increase lisinopril to 40mg daily - Home BP log review in 4 weeks 3. Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate — HCC 59 - PHQ-9: 14 (moderately severe) — partial response to sertraline 50mg - Increase sertraline to 100mg daily - Safety plan reviewed, crisis line provided (988) - Follow-up in 4 weeks, recheck PHQ-9 - If inadequate response → consider augmentation or psychiatry referral 4. Preventive Care Gaps Addressed: - Mammogram ordered (last: 26 months ago — HEDIS BCS measure) - Colonoscopy referral (age 55, average risk, never screened — HEDIS COL) - Tobacco screening: former smoker, quit 3 years — MIPS measure 226 - Annual flu vaccine administered today — MIPS measure 110
Feature-by-Feature Comparison
Documentation
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | ||
| AI note generation | ||
| SOAP notes | ||
| US note formats | ||
| Multi-patient rounding modeRecord entire rounds, get all notes at once |
Billing (US)
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 coding | ||
| E&M level suggestions | ||
| HCC capture | ||
| CPT suggestions |
Platform
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| iOS app | ||
| Apple Watch | ||
| Web app | ||
| US EHR integration |
Compliance
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA compliant | ||
| US-based BAA | ||
| SOC 2 |
*Feature comparisons reflect publicly available information as of February 2026. Competitor capabilities may change. Revenue figures represent potential outcomes reported by select users and are not guaranteed. Individual results vary based on practice type, specialty, and patient volume.
Pricing Comparison
Heidi Health
Free tier, paid plans available
Contact for pricing
Both offer free tiers. Scribeable provides superior US billing and compliance features.
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Heidi Health if you...
- Australian and international practices
- Practices needing EU or Australian data residency
- Clinicians wanting Heidi's specific international note formats
Frequently Asked Questions
Compare Other Alternatives
vs Nuance DAX
Scribeable delivers superior note quality at 50-75% less cost. Built by clinicians who understand documentation pain points, with faster setup and no enterprise complexity.
vs Nabla
Scribeable offers superior note quality, more features, and better pricing — all built by clinicians who understand documentation needs. More note types, better billing, and lower cost.
vs Abridge
Scribeable delivers superior note quality built by clinicians, with more specialty support, comprehensive billing features, and transparent pricing accessible to all practitioners.
Try Scribeable Free — 15 Notes, No Credit Card
See why physicians switch from Heidi Health. Generate your first note in under 5 minutes.
Scribeable vs Heidi Health - AI Medical Scribe Comparison
Scribeable offers superior note quality, comprehensive US billing support, and enterprise-grade security — built by clinicians for the US healthcare market.
Why Physicians Switch from Heidi Health
- Australian-focused platform with weak US billing and compliance features
- No HCC/RAF capture, E&M optimization, or CPT suggestions for US practices
- Limited US EHR integrations compared to US-built solutions
Why Choose Scribeable Over Heidi Health
- Superior note quality for US clinical documentation standards
- Comprehensive US billing (ICD-10, HCC, E&M optimization)
- Apple Watch support for hands-free recording
- US-based HIPAA compliance with BAA
- More specialty support (15+ specialties)
- Better EHR integration for US systems
- Unique Rounding Mode: record an entire round, get all notes at once — no competitor has this
Built for US Healthcare, Not Adapted for It
Heidi Health is an excellent product — in Australia. But the US healthcare market has unique billing codes (ICD-10-CM, HCC/RAF, CPT), compliance requirements (HIPAA, BAA, SOC 2), and note formats (H&P, ED Provider Notes, Discharge Summaries) that Heidi wasn't designed for. Scribeable was built from the ground up for US clinicians, by US clinicians, with every feature tuned for American healthcare workflows.
Revenue Capture You're Missing
Heidi saves time on documentation, but Scribeable goes further with comprehensive US billing intelligence. HCC/RAF code identification alone is worth $1,500-2,500 per code per year in Medicare Advantage revenue. E&M optimization ensures you're coding at the complexity your documentation supports. These features don't exist in Heidi because they're US-specific — but for American practices, they're worth $150K+ annually per provider.
US Compliance You Can Trust
While Heidi offers HIPAA compliance, Scribeable was built for US regulatory requirements from day one. Full BAA agreements, SOC 2 infrastructure, and data handling designed for US healthcare privacy standards. For practices that need to demonstrate compliance to health systems and payers, Scribeable's US-first approach provides confidence that an international adaptation cannot.
Feature Comparison: Scribeable vs Heidi Health
Documentation
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient recording | Yes | Yes |
| AI note generation | Yes | Yes |
| SOAP notes | Yes | Yes |
| US note formats | Yes | Partial |
| Multi-patient rounding mode | Yes | No |
Billing (US)
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| ICD-10 coding | Yes | Partial |
| E&M level suggestions | Yes | No |
| HCC capture | Yes | No |
| CPT suggestions | Yes | No |
Platform
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| iOS app | Yes | Yes |
| Apple Watch | Yes | No |
| Web app | Yes | Yes |
| US EHR integration | Yes | Partial |
Compliance
| Feature | Scribeable | Heidi Health |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA compliant | Yes | Yes |
| US-based BAA | Yes | Partial |
| SOC 2 | Yes | Partial |
Pricing Comparison
Scribeable: Free tier, then $89-149/month
Heidi Health: Free tier, paid plans available
Both offer free tiers. Scribeable provides superior US billing and compliance features.
What Physicians Say
I liked Heidi's free tier, but when I compared the notes side by side, Scribeable's were much more aligned with how we document in the US. The billing codes alone made it worth switching — I was missing HCC codes on almost every Medicare patient.
Dr. R. Williams, Geriatric Medicine, Group Practice
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Scribeable for US healthcare with comprehensive billing, better EHR integration, and US-focused compliance. Choose Heidi if you practice in Australia or need their specific international features.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Heidi Health good for US physicians?
Heidi Health is a solid documentation tool, but it was built for the Australian market. US physicians will miss critical features like HCC/RAF code capture, E&M optimization, CPT suggestions, and US-specific note formats. Scribeable was purpose-built for US healthcare workflows and billing standards.
Does Heidi Health offer HCC coding like Scribeable?
No. Heidi Health does not offer HCC/RAF code identification, E&M level optimization, or CPT suggestions — all features that are critical for US physician revenue. Scribeable captures these codes automatically, worth $150K+ per provider annually.
How do the free tiers compare between Scribeable and Heidi Health?
Both Scribeable and Heidi Health offer free tiers. Scribeable provides 15 notes per month with full US billing features. Heidi's free tier offers basic documentation but lacks the US-specific billing optimization that makes Scribeable's free notes genuinely revenue-generating.
Is Scribeable more expensive than Heidi Health?
Pricing is comparable. Scribeable starts at $89/month for Pro. When you factor in the $150K+ in annual revenue capture from billing optimization, Scribeable delivers a dramatically higher ROI for US practices, effectively paying for itself many times over.
Explore More
Discover how Scribeable can help your practice with AI-powered clinical documentation