What Krasyn Does Not Do
Every EMR vendor publishes what their software can do. This is the other list.
If you have bought an EMR before, you already know the problem with vendor websites: everything is a checkmark. You find out what the software actually does in month three of implementation, when it is too late and too expensive to change your mind.
We built an internal system to stop ourselves doing that. Every public claim about Krasyn has to carry evidence — the code that implements it, the automated tests that keep it working, and a review status. A build step recomputes which claims are allowed to be published and fails our release if our own marketing copy exceeds it. Right now that system permits 13 claims and withholds 11.
This page is generated from that same file. It is not written by our marketing team alongside the enforcement mechanism — it is written by it. When a claim changes, this page changes or the build breaks.
You do not have to take our word for the mechanism either. We extracted it and released it under an MIT licence as claim-guard, so you can read exactly what our build enforces — or point the same tool at your own site, including at a vendor you are comparing us against.
Things we do not have
If one of these is essential to your practice, Krasyn is the wrong choice today. We would rather you find that out on this page than in month three.
We could have claimed
AI-assisted lesion assessment.
What is actually true
PROHIBITED. Krasyn has no dermatologic diagnostic or lesion-assessment capability of any kind, and any such capability would be a regulated device claim requiring FDA review. Do not publish a softened version of this claim. The automated clinical rubric has reviewed this content and found no blocking defect; that is not a licensed clinician's attestation, which tier 3 requires.
We could have claimed
AUDIT-C, Columbia/C-SSRS, ASCVD, ORT and SOAPP screening instruments are built into the product.
What is actually true
PROHIBITED. Krasyn administers and scores PHQ-9 and GAD-7 only (see the 'phq9-gad7-screening' row). Every other instrument named in this row's proposedClaim is absent from the product in any form — no items, no scoring, no storage. Two of them would additionally be clinical-risk-assessment capability (suicide-risk screening and a cardiovascular risk calculation) and must not be published in a softened form either. Deliberately not restating those names here: the reverse capability check treats a name used in approvedWording as sanctioned for publication.
We could have claimed
Therapy treatment plans hold measurable goals, objectives, interventions and review dates as structured items that live with the client chart.
What is actually true
Implemented but not yet cleared for public marketing. An active treating clinician can keep goals, measurable objectives, measurement criteria, interventions, review dates, client-participation evidence, and dated progress updates as structured chart items. Active goals and the latest clinician-entered progress appear in the next unsigned therapy note and can be inserted as explicit clinician-review-required prompts. Krasyn does not autonomously set goals, measure outcomes, or assess progress. Do not publish this claim until production verification and claims/legal review are complete.
We could have claimed
Krasyn documents caloric targets, macronutrient ratios, meal plans and dietary compliance as structured clinical data rather than free text.
What is actually true
Not built as structured data. What exists is documentation prompts: weight-management Progress notes get a dedicated 'NUTRITION & ACTIVITY' lead section placeholdered '[Dietary pattern, activity level, behavioral goals, adherence and barriers]', and the weight-management note templates carry free-text 'Nutrition/activity plan:' and 'Nutrition/activity progress:' lines. There is no nutrition, diet or meal domain model anywhere in the core domain library, no calorie-target or macronutrient field, and nothing that can be queried, trended or reported on. Say 'nutrition and activity are documented in a dedicated note section'; do not say the data is structured, and do not contrast it against free text - free text is exactly what it is.
We could have claimed
Note Check catches every error in an AI-drafted note.
What is actually true
We publish no accuracy figure for Note Check. It has not been measured against a clinician-adjudicated reference set, so we do not state how often its verdicts are right, and we do not state that it catches all errors, any share of errors, or any class of error completely. The published faithfulness benchmark measures the Krasyn scribe drafting path, not Note Check. Say: Note Check is a review aid that reports what it found against the transcript, the clinician reads the whole note, and no accuracy figure is published for it.
Things we will not claim yet
These are different. The work may exist, but the outside review that would let us say it publicly does not — so we do not say it. Feature existence is not evidence of superiority, and a claim about clinical capability needs more than an engineer being satisfied with it.
We could have claimed
Record a manual isotretinoin/iPLEDGE safety handoff with patient-bound external evidence, authorization-window dates, a named next owner, and prescriber attestation.
Why we are not saying it
Krasyn records a manual isotretinoin safety handoff: staff-entered evidence of what was confirmed in the external iPLEDGE program, the externally reported authorization window, pregnancy-test provenance when applicable, a named next owner, and prescriber attestation. Krasyn is not connected to iPLEDGE and does not authorize or confirm dispensing.
We could have claimed
Biopsy and pathology results flow back into the chart with an acknowledgment lifecycle.
Why we are not saying it
Limited-preview capability: biopsy status is tracked from planned through result reviewed, and staff can securely attach a received PDF, JPEG, or PNG pathology report to the exact lesion and specimen. Report presence does not close follow-up: clinician acknowledgment, a pathology summary, patient notification, and recall or resolution remain required. Krasyn does NOT integrate with a pathology laboratory; there is no automated specimen or result feed. Do not publish this capability until licensed clinical, security/privacy, claims/legal, usability, and production verification for the exact claim are complete.
We could have claimed
Clinical photography and dermoscopy image capture with side-by-side comparison.
Why we are not saying it
Internal-preview capability: Krasyn stores JPEG and PNG clinical or dermoscopic images as patient- and lesion-bound records, requires staff attestation that practice-required consent or authorization is documented, preserves capture date, modality, location, consent provenance, and original bytes, and provides audited side-by-side comparison. It performs no diagnostic analysis, annotation, risk scoring, or AI lesion assessment. Do not publish this capability until licensed clinical, security/privacy, claims/legal, usability, and production verification are complete.
We could have claimed
The best-in-class dermatology EMR.
Why we are not saying it
Built for outpatient dermatology workflows. 'Best-in-class' stays a target, not a claim, until comparative research against named competitors, clinical review, claims review, security/privacy review, usability evidence from real dermatology users, and production verification are ALL complete. Feature existence is not evidence of superiority. The automated clinical rubric has reviewed this content and found no blocking defect; that is not a licensed clinician's attestation, which tier 3 requires.
We could have claimed
Krasyn integrates with ECG devices, echo reporting systems, insulin pumps, CGMs, state immunization registries, and point-of-care lab analyzers.
Why we are not saying it
Krasyn supports ORDERING these studies and REVIEWING their results once filed to the chart. It has no device, registry, or analyzer connection: no ECG device feed, no echo reporting-system link, no insulin-pump or CGM data feed, no IIS submission, and no point-of-care analyzer interface. Say 'ordering and result review', never 'integration'.
We could have claimed
Krasyn grounds AI-drafted notes against the visit transcript, removes and lists what it cannot trace, reports when the check could not cover the whole visit, scores each section's confidence, and keeps per-section AI-versus-clinician authorship in the signed note.
Why we are not saying it
Krasyn checks the statements in an AI-drafted note against the visit transcript and removes what it cannot trace, listing what was removed under its section. The check is fail-open and bounded: a very long draft or a very long transcript can leave it covering only part of the visit, and a judge timeout or unusable response leaves the draft unchecked. When that happens the note reports it rather than presenting partial coverage as full, and the signed note keeps that outcome. Each section carries its own confidence score with review guidance and links back to the transcript spans it drew on, and the signed note keeps per-section attribution of what the AI drafted versus what the clinician changed. An unreviewed AI section blocks signing until the clinician edits or explicitly accepts it. Describe this as grounding, review and attribution. Evidence links are SECTION-level: the signed note does not bind an individual statement to an individual transcript line, so do NOT describe sourcing at the granularity of the single statement or sentence. Do NOT state the check unconditionally - it does not run on every note. Do NOT claim it prevents all errors, detects hallucinations, guarantees accuracy, or reduces documentation time by any figure - no such measurement exists.
What we do claim, and why you can check it
Each of these passed the same gate: implementation, automated tests that keep it working, and a review appropriate to the claim.
- Krasyn ships dermatology note templates: a focused skin-visit SOAP scaffold and a problem-oriented template for tracking multiple skin problems.
- Dermatology practices capture Fitzpatrick skin type and primary skin concern as structured fields at registration, and see them on the patient's dermatology chart view.
- A dermatology practice opens the chart and the note already shaped for dermatology — derm surfaces lead the tab strip and new progress notes open with skin exam, procedure/specimen, and follow-up-interval sections.
- Track a lesion across visits with body location, morphology, size, biopsy status, treatment response, and a next-review date.
- A dermatology clinic can be demonstrated end to end on a seeded dermatology organization with a realistic patient panel.
- Krasyn administers and scores PHQ-9 and GAD-7 in the patient chart and trends the scores across visits.
- Dermatology practices get derm procedure and diagnosis codes in the box — biopsy, destruction, excision, repair — with a starting fee schedule.
- As published on August 29, 2026, Krasyn Therapy Practice is $79 per clinical provider with AI documentation included; SimplePractice Starter is $49 and its Note Taker add-on is $35, or $84 at standard monthly prices.
- A clinician can paste a visit transcript and the note any scribe drafted from it into the free Krasyn Scribe account and get a Note Check report on that note, whichever vendor wrote it.
- Note Check labels the statements in a note Supported, Unsupported, Contradicted, Scaffolding, or Unverified against the transcript, flags a number the transcript never contained, a denial about a topic raised and never denied, and content filled in over an inaudible marker, and lists the key facts the transcript stated that the note left out.
- Within an account, the same transcript and note always return the same Note Check report, because the deterministic layer is pure code that always runs and the finished report is stored under a fingerprint of the transcript, the note, the engine version, and the judge model.
- A Note Check report states when the model judge did not run, failed, or saw only part of the transcript, and every statement the judge did not assess is labelled Unverified rather than Supported.
- Krasyn's founder, Ben Krasin, is a physician: he holds an MD, so Krasyn is physician-founded.
Use this against every vendor you evaluate
You do not have to take our word for any of this. Ask every EMR vendor on your shortlist — including us — the same four questions:
- Which of the capabilities on your website are live today, and which are roadmap? Show me where your site says which is which.
- For your three headline claims, what is the evidence? Not a demo — the test or the reference customer.
- What does your product not do that competitors do? Name three.
- What would make you tell me not to buy your software?
A vendor who cannot answer the third and fourth questions is not being modest.
If none of the gaps above are dealbreakers for your practice, the rest of the product is worth twenty minutes of your time.
Ready to Leave Your Legacy EMR Behind?
See how Krasyn reduces documentation friction and helps surface missed billing opportunities for review.