Evidence-based guidance, explainability, and prioritization — designed for national health systems.
Transfer world-class clinical intelligence to national health systems — permanently, sovereignly, at scale.
A single intellectual-property transfer gives the Ministry permanent ownership of the source code for its territory. No subscription. No licence. No renewal. No fees after the Knowledge Transfer period closes.
Evidence-based clinical rules, authored to named international guidelines, each certified by a named physician before it can reach a clinician. Ravisant does not self-certify: certification of the reference set is a condition of delivery, and your Ministry's own designated physician certifies before go-live.
Architected so patient data never leaves your country. Your encryption keys. Artificial intelligence designed to train inside your borders. Ravisant holds no standing access — by architecture, not by policy alone.
The data is unambiguous — and the gap in solutions is equally clear.
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 noncommunicable-disease deaths — before the age of 70 — occur in low- and middle-income countries.
All three figures: World Health Organization, Noncommunicable diseases fact sheet, 25 September 2025 (2021 data). We publish the source so that you can check it, and we would rather you did.
The full intellectual property for your territory — yours to own, modify, and deploy permanently within your sovereign borders, together with database schemas, test suites and the complete technical transfer materials.
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.
Clinical status is computed by the deterministic engine; no generative model sits in the clinical decision path. Separately, where analytical or assistive models are deployed, they are designed to train inside your borders, and both the national data and the resulting models remain national property. No model output may influence clinical care without a physician's sign-off, and the inference engine for those capabilities is procured by the client and runs in-country.
There are no recurring fees to Ravisant. There are, honestly, costs that are not ours to charge: national hosting and infrastructure; the inference engine if you adopt the assistive capabilities, which is client-procured and runs in-country; your own clinical certification capacity for national thresholds and for every rule added after transfer; and escrow. We would rather you build the five-year figure accurately than be surprised by it.
The engine reads a live FHIR R4 server directly — Patient, Condition and Observation resources — keyed on standard LOINC and SNOMED codes, and integrates alongside an existing national health information system without forced migration. Validated on 24 July 2026 against the public SMART Health IT R4 sandbox (FHIR 4.0.1): a live patient read with thirteen measures mapped, and the clinician screen render-verified against the demonstration build. The evidence file and the command that reproduces it are in the data room.
This is the difference between a national health information system and a national health system that can actually be steered. See everything, steer everything, own everything — without ever browsing a citizen's record.
The Ministry operates a set of policy levers at population altitude — clinical policy, prioritisation, care coordination, financing, equity and allocation — then watches the effect propagate and adjusts. The Minister never touches an individual record and never overrides a physician.
Where a health authority purchases through private insurers, the same certified engine that runs the public system is designed to provide the independent evidence against which each of them is measured — and an insurer cannot manage a number it does not control. The drill ends in obligations on the insurer, never in a member's record.
Every regulatory action is designed to be reason-required, versioned, and written to a decision log, with independent certification required for the most serious of them. Clinical authority remains with the clinician; there is no record-browsing, and lawful exceptions require dual approval.
National thresholds are configured under your own clinical certification. New rules and domains are added with the delivered extension tooling and certified through the same path the reference set itself is certified under. Breadth is added to an engine you already own, not bought again. The oversight capability ships 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.
Trust in clinical software cannot rest on assurance given; it has to rest on assurance demonstrated. These are the mechanisms a technical evaluator can run against the delivered source.
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. This is a structural property of the architecture, not a policy promise.
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 it. You can regenerate it from the delivered source and diff it against the copy we sent.
Every result names the guideline and the threshold that produced it, and — once certified — the clinician who certified that threshold. Where a Ministry configures its own national threshold, that value carries its own certifier's name rather than the shipped default's. And 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, and put to the certifying physician as an explicit question rather than published under a guideline body's name. Stale or unattributed data is gated, not silently scored.
Conformance runs inside a continuous quality gate on every change — the same machine that blocks the code if any test fails — so "tested" can never quietly become "untested." Counts published in our documentation are generated from a register, not typed by a person.
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.
Clinical certification of the reference set is a condition of delivery — a thing we contract for, not a property of what exists this morning. As at 19 August 2026, medical review of the 46-rule set is under way with our consulting physician and is not complete. 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. We would rather you read that here than discover it in diligence.
We hold a full classification analysis and will share it with your regulatory affairs team. How this platform is classified under your national framework is a determination for your regulator and your counsel; we will support that work with whatever evidence it requires, and we will not pre-empt it. The platform supports clinical decision-making and does not replace clinical judgement: a clinician remains the decision-maker on every finding it surfaces.
The package states plainly what it is not, and lists the documents deliberately withheld together with the reason for each. What we acquire from that discipline is the only thing worth having in a sovereign transaction: a buyer who can check.
Clinical certification authority
Dr. Siemienczuk previously served as 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 delivery. 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.
Portland, Oregon, United States
Thirty-five years in healthcare technology across six continents, spanning Intel, 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.
We return a signed mutual non-disclosure agreement within 48 hours of receipt. It enables full technical and commercial disclosure.
A ninety-minute walkthrough of the working platform with your clinical and technical leads.
Your team reviews the complete documentation set in a virtual data room, including the reproducible conformance evidence.
Source code held in escrow, released on acceptance, with full assignment of the intellectual property — followed by a structured Knowledge Transfer period, after which our role ends permanently.
We welcome enquiries from Ministries of Health, national health authorities, and the institutions that advise them. Correspondence is treated in confidence.
Commercial terms, pricing and the complete technical documentation are disclosed following execution of a mutual non-disclosure agreement.