---
library_name: transformers
license: mit
language:
- en
base_model: FacebookAI/roberta-base
pipeline_tag: token-classification
tags:
- token-classification
- ner
- insurance
- billing
- healthcare
- roberta
- clarioscope
metrics:
- f1
model-index:
- name: clarioscope-insurance-v1
  results:
  - task:
      type: token-classification
      name: Insurance / billing field extraction
    dataset:
      type: synthetic
      name: clarioscope-insurance-suite
    metrics:
    - type: macro-f1
      value: 0.7882
    - type: weighted-f1
      value: 0.8202
    - type: latency_ms_per_example
      value: 45.4
---

# ClarioScope insurance extractor v1

A 125M-parameter [RoBERTa-base](https://huggingface.co/FacebookAI/roberta-base) fine-tune that extracts **structured insurance and billing fields** from inbound patient text. It tags spans across 12 field types — carrier, plan type, member ID, group number, claim ID, copay, deductible, billed amount, and more — and produces output that downstream billing systems can ingest as JSON. This is **model 3 of the [ClarioScope SLM Suite](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js)** — a three-model intake intelligence pipeline for healthcare practices.

## TL;DR

| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Task | Token classification over 12 insurance / billing field types (BIO tags, 25 labels) |
| Base model | [FacebookAI/roberta-base](https://huggingface.co/FacebookAI/roberta-base) (125M params) |
| Training data | 8,086 synthetic examples (8,086 train / 897 val after cleanup) generated via `gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18` |
| Test data | 672 synthetic examples generated by Claude Haiku 4.5 with a deliberately different prompt style |
| Val macro F1 | 95.71% |
| Val weighted F1 | 97.06% |
| **Test macro F1 vs GPT-4o** | **78.82%** vs gpt-4o-2024-11-20 95.62% |
| **Where fine-tune ties GPT-4o** | `SUBSCRIBER_NAME` (89 vs 91), `CLAIM_ID` (95 vs 100), `MEMBER_ID` (91 vs 99), `CARRIER` (90 vs 96) |
| **Where it loses badly** | `AUTH_NUMBER` (30 vs 99), `PLAN_TYPE` (69 vs 96) — low-frequency fields with high format variance |
| **Test latency** | **45.4 ms/example on CPU** — 26× faster than GPT-4o |
| **Per-inference cost** | **$0** self-hosted vs $1.90 per 1K for GPT-4o |
| License | MIT |

> **Note on benchmark scope.** This release benchmarks against GPT-4o only. Anthropic API credit was exhausted during the development cycle before the Claude Haiku 4.5 / Sonnet 4.6 comparisons could be run. A subsequent revision of this card will add the Anthropic numbers.

![Macro F1 vs latency](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1/resolve/main/f1_vs_latency.png)

## Why this model exists

Patient inquiries about insurance, billing, and prior authorizations have a different shape from the rest of intake. The information value is in the structured fields — carrier name, member ID, group number, claim reference, copay amount — not in the surrounding prose. A practice's billing system can act on `{"carrier": "Aetna", "plan_type": "PPO", "member_id": "AET-998-2210"}` directly; it cannot act on "hi can you check if my Aetna PPO covers..." until those fields are extracted.

Frontier LLMs do this extraction well, with one consistent caveat — they cost real money per call, add ~1 second of latency, and send patient text to a third party. This model is the self-hosted alternative: 26× lower latency, $0 per inference after training, and patient text never leaves the host. It trails GPT-4o by 17 macro F1 points on aggregate, but it ties GPT-4o on the four fields with the most volume (`MEMBER_ID`, `CARRIER`, `CLAIM_ID`, `SUBSCRIBER_NAME`).

This is model 3 of the ClarioScope SLM Suite:

1. **Intent classifier** ([`clarioscope-intent-deberta-v1`](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-intent-deberta-v1)) — what does this message want?
2. **PHI detector** ([`clarioscope-phi-deberta-v1`](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-phi-deberta-v1)) — where is protected information in this message?
3. **Insurance extractor** (this model) — what billing-relevant structured data is in this message?

## The 12 field types

| Label | What it captures |
|---|---|
| `CARRIER` | Insurance company name (Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, Medicare, Medicaid, Kaiser Permanente, Humana, Anthem) |
| `PLAN_TYPE` | Plan format or tier (PPO, HMO, EPO, HDHP, POS, Gold / Silver / Bronze / Platinum) |
| `MEMBER_ID` | The patient's subscriber / member ID on the insurance card |
| `GROUP_NUMBER` | Group / employer group number |
| `POLICY_NUMBER` | Distinct policy or contract number when separate from member ID |
| `SUBSCRIBER_NAME` | Name of the primary subscriber on the policy |
| `RELATIONSHIP` | Relationship to subscriber (self, spouse, child, dependent, parent) |
| `CLAIM_ID` | Claim reference number |
| `AUTH_NUMBER` | Prior authorization / pre-cert number |
| `COPAY` | Copay dollar amount (includes the `$`) |
| `DEDUCTIBLE` | Deductible dollar amount (includes the `$`) |
| `BILLED_AMOUNT` | Total amount billed, owed, or charged (includes the `$`) |

The model outputs BIO token labels (25 total: `O` + 12 × `{B-, I-}`), which downstream code converts back into character-offset spans and then into a JSON object.

## Architecture

Standard RoBERTa-base encoder with a token-classification head: a linear layer over each token's contextualized representation, producing 25 logits per token. All 125M parameters are fine-tuned. Training uses fp32 (not mixed precision — see the PHI detector's card for the NaN-gradient story that motivated this), `adamw_torch` optimizer, `max_grad_norm=1.0`, an explicit classifier-head re-init (`std=0.02` normal, zero bias), batch size 8, sequence length 256, learning rate 1e-5 with cosine schedule and 10% warmup, weight decay 0.01, and early stopping (patience 2 on macro F1). Five epochs run in ~10 minutes on a single RTX A4000.

## Training data — synthetic, transparent about it

All training and evaluation data is **synthetic**. There is **no real patient billing data** in this model or its evaluation.

**Training set (8,086 examples after cleanup, from 8,120 originally).** Generated via the OpenAI API (`gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18`, JSON-object response format, temperature 1.0) across 12 field types × healthcare practice types × channels. The generation prompt enforces a 40/40/20 realism mix (polished / casual / messy) and channel-specific scaling (SMS messiest, voicemail second messiest, email and web forms cleaner).

**Data cleanup.** Same cue-word noise pattern observed in the PHI detector: `gpt-4o-mini` sometimes returns entity texts that include the cue word (`"member ID AET-998-2210"` instead of `"AET-998-2210"`, `"copay $35"` instead of `"$35"`). `clean_data.py` in the repo strips these cue-word prefixes and re-locates the cleaned text in the source. 1,393 entities (~7.4% of all spans) were normalized during cleanup; 256 entities became empty after stripping and were dropped.

**Test set (672 examples).** Generated by Claude Haiku 4.5 with a deliberately different prompt style and abbreviation set (`w/`, `&`, `ins`, `mbr`, `grp` versus the train prompt's more formal style). This cross-generator split mitigates benchmark leakage from training the model on one generator's style.

**Anti-leakage validation.** The cross-generator split produces a large val/test gap (val macro F1 0.96; test macro F1 0.79). The val set comes from the same `gpt-4o-mini` distribution as training; the test set comes from a different generator. The 17-point gap is the cost of generalizing across generators — and a useful proxy for the gap that would exist between this model and a real-world distribution. Val numbers from same-generator splits routinely overstate real-world generalization on tasks like this.

## Benchmark — entity-level F1, span boundaries matter

Evaluated on the 672-example held-out test set using [seqeval](https://github.com/chakki-works/seqeval), which requires both the entity type AND the exact span boundary to match for a true positive.

| Model | Macro F1 | Weighted F1 | Latency / example | Cost / 1K inferences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **`raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1` (CPU)** | **0.7882** | **0.8202** | **45.4 ms** | **$0.00** |
| `gpt-4o-2024-11-20` | 0.9562 | 0.9572 | 1202.3 ms | $1.90 |

![F1 and cost comparison](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1/resolve/main/f1_vs_cost.png)

GPT-4o wins on aggregate, but the per-entity breakdown shows the gap is concentrated in a few low-frequency fields.

## Per-field breakdown

![Per-field F1: fine-tuned vs GPT-4o](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1/resolve/main/per_entity_f1.png)

**High-volume fields where fine-tune is competitive:**

| Field | Fine-tune | GPT-4o | Test support |
|---|---|---|---|
| `CLAIM_ID` | 0.954 | 0.997 | 146 |
| `MEMBER_ID` | 0.914 | 0.990 | 431 |
| `CARRIER` | 0.905 | 0.964 | 685 |
| `SUBSCRIBER_NAME` | 0.894 | 0.906 | 196 |
| `COPAY` | 0.864 | 0.954 | 179 |
| `BILLED_AMOUNT` | 0.847 | 0.971 | 219 |

`SUBSCRIBER_NAME` is essentially tied with GPT-4o (0.89 vs 0.91). The four highest-volume fields (`CARRIER`, `MEMBER_ID`, `CLAIM_ID`, `BILLED_AMOUNT`) collectively cover ~70% of the test entities, and the fine-tune is within 5–13 points of GPT-4o on each.

**Mid-volume fields with moderate gaps:**

| Field | Fine-tune | GPT-4o | Test support |
|---|---|---|---|
| `POLICY_NUMBER` | 0.827 | 0.985 | 97 |
| `GROUP_NUMBER` | 0.804 | 0.995 | 216 |
| `DEDUCTIBLE` | 0.758 | 0.964 | 190 |

`GROUP_NUMBER` has a 19-point gap despite 216 training-supported examples in test. The format variance for group numbers is wide (`4421`, `001428`, `GRP-882044`, `Group #44210`) and the cross-generator split exposes the train-set format bias.

**Low-volume / low-F1 fields:**

| Field | Fine-tune | GPT-4o | Test support |
|---|---|---|---|
| `RELATIONSHIP` | 0.703 | 0.802 | 207 |
| `PLAN_TYPE` | 0.688 | 0.956 | 359 |
| `AUTH_NUMBER` | 0.300 | 0.991 | 115 |

`AUTH_NUMBER` is the headline weakness — 0.30 vs 0.99. The training set has only 770 AUTH_NUMBER spans total, and the format space is wide (`PA-4421`, `auth #998-2210`, `AUTH998212`, etc.). A v2 with more AUTH_NUMBER coverage in training would likely close most of this gap.

`RELATIONSHIP` is a hard category for both models — short string ("self", "spouse", "child"), often overlapping with other entity contexts, with a tight span boundary that's easy to miss by one token.

## Recommended production pattern: hybrid

For a billing pipeline that processes inbound patient messages:

1. **Run this model first** on every message. Captures `CARRIER`, `MEMBER_ID`, `CLAIM_ID`, `SUBSCRIBER_NAME` with near-frontier F1 at ~45 ms / message on CPU.
2. **Add regex for high-value structured patterns**: dollar amounts (`\$[\d,]+(?:\.\d{2})?`), member ID format checks specific to your top carriers (Aetna IDs, BCBS IDs all follow distinct patterns).
3. **Use GPT-4o as a fallback** for messages where the fine-tune is uncertain or for AUTH_NUMBER / PLAN_TYPE detection. The fallback should fire on ~10–20% of messages, not 100%.

This pattern is the same architecture recommended for the PHI detector. The fine-tune does the bulk-volume linguistic work; frontier APIs handle the long tail. Together they cost an order of magnitude less than running frontier on every message.

## How to use

```python
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForTokenClassification
import torch

model_id = "raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForTokenClassification.from_pretrained(model_id)
model.eval()

text = ("Hi, I'd like to verify my coverage before tomorrow's appointment. "
        "My carrier is Aetna PPO, member ID AET-998-2210, group #4421. "
        "I'm the subscriber. My copay should be $35 — is that right?")

enc = tokenizer(text, return_offsets_mapping=True, return_tensors="pt", truncation=True, max_length=256)
offsets = enc.pop("offset_mapping")[0].tolist()
with torch.no_grad():
    pred_ids = model(**enc).logits.argmax(dim=-1)[0].tolist()

id2label = model.config.id2label
spans = []
i = 0
while i < len(pred_ids):
    label = id2label[pred_ids[i]]
    if label.startswith("B-"):
        ent_type = label[2:]
        start = offsets[i][0]
        end = offsets[i][1]
        j = i + 1
        while j < len(pred_ids) and id2label[pred_ids[j]] == f"I-{ent_type}":
            end = offsets[j][1]
            j += 1
        spans.append({"text": text[start:end], "label": ent_type})
        i = j
    else:
        i += 1

# Convert to structured JSON for downstream billing system
extracted = {span["label"]: span["text"] for span in spans}
print(extracted)
# {'CARRIER': 'Aetna', 'PLAN_TYPE': 'PPO', 'MEMBER_ID': 'AET-998-2210',
#  'GROUP_NUMBER': '4421', 'RELATIONSHIP': 'subscriber', 'COPAY': '$35'}
```

## Limitations

- **All training and evaluation data is synthetic.** No real patient billing data was used. Production deployment should include calibration against real-world inbound messages.
- **`AUTH_NUMBER` is materially weaker than frontier** (0.30 vs 0.99). Do not rely on this model alone for prior-auth extraction.
- **Format brittleness on structured IDs.** When a member ID, group number, or claim reference uses a format outside the training distribution, the model often produces a span boundary off by one token, which is a miss under strict matching.
- **English only, healthcare practice domain only.**
- **`RELATIONSHIP` accuracy is moderate** (0.70). The category overlaps with other named entities and short-span detection is fragile in cross-generator evaluation.
- **Benchmark scope.** Only GPT-4o was benchmarked in this release; Anthropic API credit was exhausted before Haiku 4.5 / Sonnet 4.6 could be run.

## Intended use

A first-pass insurance / billing field extractor in a hybrid intake pipeline for healthcare practice software. Strongest on high-volume fields (`CARRIER`, `MEMBER_ID`, `CLAIM_ID`, `SUBSCRIBER_NAME`). Should be paired with regex matchers (for dollar amounts and known ID formats) and a frontier-API fallback (for `AUTH_NUMBER` and `PLAN_TYPE` edge cases).

## Out-of-scope use

- **Sole reliance for prior-auth processing.** The model misses 70% of AUTH_NUMBERs on test data.
- **Direct downstream billing without validation.** Any extracted member ID, group number, or claim reference should be validated against the carrier's verification endpoint before being relied on for payment routing.
- **Adversarial inputs.** Not hardened against prompt injection or adversarial text crafted to manipulate extraction.

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{sikder2026clarioscope_insurance,
  author = {Sikder, Akteruzzaman Raihan},
  title  = {ClarioScope insurance extractor v1: a 125M-parameter RoBERTa fine-tune for structured insurance and billing extraction},
  year   = {2026},
  publisher = {HuggingFace},
  howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/raihan-js/clarioscope-insurance-v1}},
}
```

## Read more

The full ClarioScope SLM Suite writeup — methodology, cost ledger, and per-model interpretation — is on dev.to. Each model has its own post; the suite-level summary is at the GitHub profile [github.com/raihan-js](https://github.com/raihan-js).

## Author

Built by [Akteruzzaman Raihan Sikder](https://huggingface.co/raihan-js) — CTO, [ClarioScope AI](https://clarioscope.ai). Part of the broader ClarioScope SLM Suite (intent classifier, PHI detector, insurance extractor) — a three-model intake intelligence pipeline.