A clinical decision-support platform for national health systems — transferred once, so the Ministry owns the source code.
One acquisition, not a subscription. Evidence-based rules authored to named international guidelines — WHO, the American Diabetes Association, KDIGO, ACC/AHA, the USPSTF, the CDC and others — and certified by a named physician as a condition of delivery. Deployed inside your borders, on infrastructure you choose.
Ravisant Health, LLC is a company in Portland, Oregon, United States. It builds clinical decision-support systems and transfers them to national health authorities. It is a very small company, and that fact shapes the entire commercial model — stated plainly here rather than discovered in diligence.
What it does, and what a Ministry does with it.
Five capabilities. Each is a thing the delivered system performs, not a category we belong to.
Finds the patients who need attention first
The engine evaluates a live patient record against the certified rule set and returns what is due, what is overdue and what is deteriorating — ranked, so a clinician with fourteen minutes spends them on the right person. Clinical status is computed deterministically; there is no generative model in the decision path.
Shows the guideline behind every recommendation
Every result names the guideline and the threshold that produced it and, once certified, the clinician who certified that threshold. Where a Ministry sets its own national threshold, that value carries its own certifier's name rather than our shipped default's.
Closes the gap it just found
Findings become a risk-stratified outreach worklist with task assignment, coverage for absent colleagues and closed-loop dispositions, so a detected gap has somewhere to go. Access is role-scoped under your national health-data protection law. The worklist projection is built and tested; its production patient source is a national integration item — it ships empty and is connected to your care-gap feed during implementation, rather than inventing patients.
Lets the Ministry steer the system without reading a record
The measurement substrate is built: cohort evaluation, facility and regional roll-ups, the intervention log and the outcome tracker. The Ministry console that drives the six policy levers from those numbers is specified and demonstrated, and is not yet built — see The Helm below, where the two are separated line by line. The Minister never touches an individual record and never overrides a physician.
Reads the FHIR server you already run
HL7 FHIR R4 and SMART on FHIR: Patient, Condition and Observation resources keyed on standard LOINC and SNOMED codes, alongside an existing national health information system without forced migration. On 24 July 2026 the full SMART App Launch was driven end to end against the public SMART Health IT sandbox — provider single sign-on, OAuth authorisation code with PKCE, token exchange, live FHIR reads, evaluation, and the clinician screen rendered for a live sandbox patient — with thirteen measures mapped. The sandbox's own CapabilityStatement reported FHIR 4.0.0. The evidence file, the screenshots and the command that reproduces them are in the data room.
What transfers, what is restricted, and what stays your cost.
Every serious vendor in this market publishes capabilities and withholds terms.
The terms are the part a Ministry has to live with for twenty years, so they are set out here, in full, before you speak to anyone. Nothing below is softened. If a restriction is a problem for your Ministry, it is better established now than in month four.
| Transfers to the Ministry | What that means |
|---|---|
| The source code | The complete production-intended codebase as deployed at handover, with database schemas, API specifications and system architecture documentation. Yours to operate, maintain, extend and modify, permanently, for national use. |
| The clinical library | 46 evidence-based rules across 14 clinical domains — diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, chronic kidney disease, HIV and antiretroviral therapy, cardiology, maternal, paediatric, immunisation, preventive screening, behavioural health, nutrition, oncology, and suspected-diagnosis case-finding — with the tooling to add your own. Every rule names its guideline in the registry: WHO, the American Diabetes Association, KDIGO, ACC/AHA, the USPSTF, the CDC, ACOG, the American Academy of Pediatrics, ESPEN and the RECIST Working Group among them. Two thresholds carry no guideline body, because none states a number; those are labelled Ravisant Health — not a guideline body in the registry itself and are put to the certifying physician as questions. |
| The models | Any analytical or assistive models trained on national patient data up to handover are the Ministry's property and remain inside your borders, along with the training data and the inference outputs. |
| Escrow | Source code is held in escrow and released on your acceptance at user-acceptance testing. The escrow fee sits inside the one-time price; it is not billed separately. |
| The documentation and the knowledge transfer | Technical, clinical, governance and assurance documentation, test suites, and training materials, followed by a structured knowledge-transfer period. After it closes, our role ends. Nothing obliges you to buy anything further from us — and nothing obliges us to be there, which is the point. |
| Restricted | The exact restriction |
|---|---|
| National use only | The platform, its models, schemas and clinical protocols are licensed for deployment and use within the purchasing nation's sovereign borders. All servers, databases and compute reside in-country. No data, model inference or system output may be processed outside the nation. |
| No resale, export or sublicensing | The Ministry may not sell, license, sublicense, transfer or export the platform — in whole or in part — to any other government, health system, international organisation, NGO or private entity, domestic or foreign, nor to any entity outside the Ministry's direct national health administration, and may not use it as the basis of a commercial product or service offered to third parties. |
| Operated by the Ministry | Deployed and operated by the purchasing Ministry and the national health facilities under its direct administration — not by a third-party operator on its behalf. If your national system is run by a state e-health agency or a state IT provider, say so early: that is a normal arrangement and the permitted operators are scoped with you rather than left for you to discover. |
| Models you train after transfer | Models the Ministry trains later on national data using the delivered architecture carry the same national-border and no-resale restrictions, and model weights, training data and inference outputs may not be exported or published externally. If your Ministry intends to publish research from this data, raise it before signature so the agreement can accommodate it. |
| Stays your cost | Why we do not charge for it |
|---|---|
| National hosting and infrastructure | It runs on infrastructure you choose, inside your borders. We do not host it, so we cannot bill you for it — and we could not guarantee it if we did. |
| The inference engine, if you adopt the assistive capabilities | The assistive capabilities are analytical and summarisation aids that sit outside the clinical decision path — they never compute a clinical status and no model output may influence care without a clinician's sign-off. They need an inference engine, which is client-procured and runs in-country. The deterministic clinical engine does not require it, and the platform is complete without them. |
| Your own clinical certification capacity | For national thresholds, and for every rule you add after transfer. This is the capability that makes the platform genuinely yours; it is not one we can hold on your behalf. |
There are no recurring fees to Ravisant. Breach of the national-use or no-resale restrictions is a material breach of the acquisition agreement. We state the consequence because a restriction whose consequence is hidden has not really been disclosed.
This sits closest to what the World Bank's GovTech Procurement Practice Note (January 2021) calls the Government Owned and Operated model — with two qualifications that cut against us. The Bank's canonical case is a system a government builds with its own ICT team; ours is acquired, and Ravisant retains the right to license the platform to other nations. And the Bank notes that a government on this model “may need to make special financial arrangements for retaining experts” — a burden that is larger for an acquired system than a self-built one, because you do not start with the team that wrote it. That is the strongest argument against buying from us, and it is why the knowledge transfer is the deliverable rather than the afterthought. Build the ten-year total cost of ownership accurately; ask us for our working model and argue with it.
Why we sell the platform outright instead of licensing it to you forever.
Ravisant Health is a very small company. That is the most useful thing we can tell a Ministry about ourselves, because it determines everything else about how we do business.
A national health system runs for decades. We cannot honestly promise that a company this size will be there to support one for decades — and a Ministry that builds its clinical infrastructure on that promise has taken a risk nobody told it it was taking. So we do not ask you to take it. We transfer the platform, the source code, the clinical library and the documentation, and we train your people to run it without us. After the knowledge-transfer period our role ends.
Our smallness is not a disclaimer at the bottom of this page. It is the reason the commercial model is what it is.
Three things we will not do
We will not offer round-the-clock first-line support for a national deployment.
A company our size cannot honestly staff it. Nor should you accept that promise from anyone who cannot show you the rota.
We will not ask you to accept our clinical content on our word.
Our clinical rules are authored and signed by a named physician who is engaged as an independent contractor and who is to hold equity in Ravisant. That is a conflict, we do not pretend otherwise, and it is disclosed on the face of every certification he signs and again in the governance section below. It is why your own designated physician certifies independently before go-live, and why we will fund an external clinical review by a reviewer of your choosing if you want one.
We will not tell you how your regulator will classify this platform.
We hold a full classification analysis and will give it to your regulatory affairs team. The determination is your regulator's and your counsel's, and we will not pre-empt it.
The burden is not in dispute. The ability to act on it consistently is.
Ministries do not need to be told that noncommunicable disease is the dominant cause of death. They need an instrument that applies the guideline the same way in every facility, on every visit.
of non-pandemic deaths worldwide are caused by noncommunicable disease — at least 43 million people a year.
of those deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
of premature deaths from noncommunicable disease — before the age of 70 — occur in those same countries.
All three figures: World Health Organization, Noncommunicable diseases fact sheet, 25 September 2025 (2021 data). The source is named so that you can check it.
There are four ways to get this capability. Here is an honest account of all four.
Including the two cases in which you should not buy from us.
Licence a global platform
- You never own it. The vendor controls access, roadmap and price at renewal.
- Patient data may be processed outside your borders, depending on the deployment model offered.
- Models are typically trained on foreign demographics and disease patterns.
- Choose this if you want a large vendor's balance sheet behind the system and can accept the dependency.
Adopt an academic or donor-funded project
- Often excellent, often free, and often a pilot rather than a production system at national scale.
- Care-coordination workflow is frequently out of scope.
- Intellectual property usually remains with the institution.
- Choose this if a global public good already covers your requirement. DHIS2, OpenMRS and OpenHIE are mature, ministry-proven and free; if one of them meets your need, use it.
Build it in-house
- Years, not months, before the first patient is seen — and the estimate is ours, not an independent one.
- You start from zero on clinical content — the rule library is the expensive part, not the software.
- It needs deep clinical and engineering competence in the same team, which is rare anywhere.
- Choose this if you already hold that team and the timeline is acceptable.
Acquire the platform outright
- The complete production-intended source code, transferred once, permanently, for national use.
- All data in-country. No standing Ravisant access — by architecture, not by policy.
- A 46-rule reference set certified as a condition of delivery, and yours to extend.
- Choose this if sovereign ownership and a fixed, one-time cost matter more than a vendor's size.
A dashboard shows what happened. A Ministry needs the controls to change what happens next.
What is built today is the measurement layer. What is specified and demonstrated — and not yet built — is the console that acts on it. Here they are, separated.
The measurement substrate
Cohort evaluation across a population, facility and regional adherence roll-ups, an intervention log and an outcome tracker — the numbers a policy lever would act on. Running code with tests; your engineers can exercise all of it against the delivered source.
The Ministry console
The six policy levers, the drill-down and the governance decision log are specified in the control-plane specification and shown in the demonstration environment. They are not implemented in the delivered backend today. If your transfer includes them they are scoped and priced as build; if it does not, you receive the substrate and build the console yourself — which you can now do, because you hold the source.
The insurer accountability layer
Where a health authority purchases through private insurers, the same engine that runs the public system is designed to provide the evidence each insurer is measured against, with the drill ending in obligations on the insurer and never in a member's record. It exists as a reference implementation on synthetic insurer data. Claims, medical-loss-ratio and actuarial feeds are national integration items, scoped with you rather than assumed.
Control, with the guardrails that make it certifiable
Every regulatory action is reason-required, versioned and written to a decision log, with independent certification required for the most serious. No record-browsing; lawful exceptions require dual approval.
Configure, extend and re-certify without us
National thresholds are configured under your own clinical certification. New rules and domains are added with the delivered extension tooling, through the same certification path the reference set itself uses. Breadth is added to an engine you already own, not bought again.
How would you check that any of this is true?
Every mechanism below can be run by your own engineers against the source code we deliver. That is the whole point of them.
A deterministic engine
Clinical status is computed by a deterministic, versioned and audited engine. There is no live generative model at the point of care that could hallucinate a finding. That is a structural property of the architecture, not a policy promise.
A registry generated from the code
The reviewer registry a physician certifies is emitted from the running engine — one row per rule, with its parameter, threshold, source, and the question it puts to the reviewer. Because it is a projection of the code it cannot drift from the code undetected: regenerate it from the delivered source, diff it against the copy we sent you, and a build gate fails if the two disagree.
Provenance, and the honest edge of it
Where a guideline recommends an action but is silent on how often, the engine still needs an interval — so that interval is declared a Ravisant operational parameter, named as ours in the registry, and put to the certifying physician as an explicit question rather than published under a guideline body's name. Missing data is gated rather than scored: eight of eight real care gaps return “no data available” instead of a false green. Two edges are open on our register and we name them here — a future-dated result, and a value arriving in unexpected units, are currently scored rather than refused. Both are fixed before transfer.
Gates that block the build
Conformance runs inside a continuous quality gate on every change — the same machine that blocks the code if any test fails — so “tested” cannot quietly become “untested.” Counts published in our documentation are generated from a register, not typed by a person.
A million patients we did not hand-pick
Every clinical rule is metamorphic-property-tested against a generated population of over a million synthetic patients — 1,245,031 at the last seal, making 6,449,976 comparisons across 11 invariants, with all 46 rules driven. A metamorphic property asserts a relationship that must hold for every patient, so it can catch a defect its author did not anticipate; on its first run it found five, including a rule that read a corrupt lab as “at target”. Two invariants hold on all 46 rules and three are narrower; the registry states which, because rounding that up was itself an audit finding.
Reproducible evidence
The delivery package includes the assurance runs together with the exact commands that produced them. Re-run them against the delivered source and you should obtain the same numbers. If you do not, that is a defect and we want to hear about it.
Disclosed limits
The package states plainly what the platform is not, and lists the documents deliberately withheld together with the reason for each. What we get from that discipline is the only thing worth having in a sovereign transaction: a buyer who can check.
Where certification actually stands, today
Clinical certification of the reference set is a condition of delivery — something we contract for, not a property of what exists this morning. As at 19 August 2026 the 46-rule set is in medical review with our consulting physician: 25 rules have received a first ruling — 17 accept, 6 amend, 2 reject — and none is yet signed as certified. Thirteen rulings await re-confirmation after amendment and twenty-one rules are still to be reviewed. Certification of all 46 is a condition of delivery. Technical and legal certifications are likewise conditions of delivery, each by a named external expert, each annexed to the transfer, and each disclosing any commercial relationship with Ravisant on its own face. This belongs on the front page, not in a data room.
No rule may reach a clinician without a named physician behind it.
That is the rule the platform is built to enforce, and certification of the reference set is a condition of delivery rather than a description of today. Where it stands today is stated above, with the date and the count.
Consulting physician · Clinical certification authority
Joseph Siemienczuk, MD
Dr Siemienczuk was previously Chief Medical Officer of Enli Health Intelligence, where he led the translation of evidence-based clinical guidelines into codified algorithms designed to reduce unwarranted variation in care. Earlier he was Chief Executive Officer of Providence Medical Group, with operational and financial accountability for more than 700 physicians and 80 clinics, and received Providence's President's Award for Excellence for disease-management outcomes. He received his MD from Oregon Health & Science University and completed his residency at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. His peer-reviewed publications address team-based care, hypertension and cholesterol management, and clinical informatics.
Disclosure, in full. Dr Siemienczuk is an independent medical professional, not an employee. The advisory agreement under which he acts as consulting physician and acting Chief Medical Officer is agreed in substance and not yet executed — we say so rather than let the present tense imply otherwise. Under it he holds clinical authority over and accountability for the rule content, and can refuse a rule; the certifications themselves are assigned to Ravisant as they are created, which is what allows them to be conveyed to you. He is to receive an equity participation in Ravisant, half of which vests on completing the certification work needed to support the first sale. That is a real conflict: the certifier has a financial interest in certification completing. It is disclosed on the face of every certification he signs, it is why your own designated physician certifies independently before go-live, and it is why we will fund an external review by a reviewer you choose.
Founder & Chief Executive Officer
Jaime J. Saavedra
Thirty-five years in technology and health technology across six continents — fourteen of them at Intel, then IBM, Kryptiq (which he founded), Surescripts and Enli Health Intelligence. MBA in International Management from Thunderbird, with master's and bachelor's degrees in engineering. Ravisant Health exists to transfer that accumulated knowledge to national health systems permanently, rather than to rent it to them indefinitely.
Sixty seconds, silent, and written out in full below.
Text is the primary medium on this page. The sequence exists because some people prefer it, not because the argument needs it.
Four steps, and the Ministry is protected at every one.
No step commits you to the next. The first one costs you ninety minutes.
Mutual non-disclosure
We return a signed mutual non-disclosure agreement within 48 hours of receipt. It enables full technical and commercial disclosure — including price.
Live demonstration
A ninety-minute walkthrough of the working platform with your clinical and technical leads. We will also help you write a vendor-neutral specification, even if you then tender it openly and we lose.
Technical due diligence
Your team reviews the complete documentation set in a virtual data room, including the reproducible conformance evidence and the commands that generate it.
Transfer and knowledge transfer
Source code is released from escrow on your acceptance at user-acceptance testing; the permanent rights vest on full payment. With the permanent national-use rights set out above — followed by a structured knowledge-transfer period, after which our role ends.
If any of these is true of your Ministry right now, we are probably worth ninety minutes.
- A donor-funded health information programme ends within the next two years and nobody has budgeted for what follows.
- A new national digital-health or data-protection act requires health data to stay inside the country.
- A clinical decision-support licence has been renewed at a price nobody modelled.
- You have been asked to demonstrate sovereign capability rather than sovereign intent.
- Guideline adherence varies so much between facilities that national averages have stopped meaning anything.
You are not evaluating a proposal. You are evaluating a working platform your Ministry would own.
We welcome enquiries from Ministries of Health, national health authorities, and the institutions that advise them. Correspondence is treated in confidence, and we correspond in English, French and Spanish.
Commercial terms, pricing and the complete technical documentation are disclosed following execution of a mutual non-disclosure agreement. The dossier puts every claim on this page, its evidence and its limitations in one document, so your technical committee does not have to reconcile ten sources.
Two things procurement offices ask us before anything else. Governing law and forum are negotiable — we do not require a Ministry to submit to Oregon courts, and neutral-seat arbitration is our normal expectation. And we will help you write a vendor-neutral specification and then compete for it openly, or not compete at all, if that is the route your procurement law and your audit office require.