InQuery Pricing (2026): What Law Firms Need to Know About Usage-Based Medical Record Review Costs
For plaintiff law firms evaluating AI-powered medical record review platforms, understanding the true cost of a service means looking beyond headline pricing. InQuery describes per-chronology and volume-subscription pricing, which differs from flat fee alternatives like Codes Health, and the distinction matters for firms managing unpredictable caseloads and complex medical records. This guide covers what's known about InQuery's pricing, compares pricing models, and helps legal teams decide which approach fits their operational and financial needs.
Key Takeaways
InQuery describes per-chronology and volume-subscription pricing, with current rates available on request, so contact the company for rates, billing units, included services, and volume terms
InQuery offers both record retrieval and analysis, so ask whether a quoted package includes retrieval and how those services are billed
InQuery documents source-linked chronologies with page and Bates references, mandatory human QA on chronologies, and missing-record detection
Pricing structure affects budget predictability as much as the dollar amount, which matters for contingency-fee practices
Total cost of ownership includes setup requirements, remaining internal review time, and any provider charges, not just platform fees
Codes Health uses a flat fee with no per-page charges, covering retrieval, analysis, chronologies, completeness verification, and human review
Understanding InQuery's Pricing Model
InQuery's official comparison materials describe two main approaches: per-chronology pricing or a custom volume subscription, with pricing available on request. Its former pricing page currently redirects to its homepage, and no current official rate card was found.
What to Confirm in a Quote
Because dollar amounts aren't published, get these details in writing:
Billing unit: Per chronology, per case, per page, or subscription
Current rates for your anticipated volume
Included services: Which outputs, reviews, and retrieval services are covered
Volume terms: Commitments, minimums, and how large cases are handled
Additional charges: Anything billed outside the core quote
Why Quote-Based Pricing Needs Careful Comparison
Quote-based pricing is common among legal technology vendors. It can fit a firm's specific needs, but it takes more work to compare options side by side. Request a current quote that reflects your case volume and service requirements, and compare it against other vendors using the same assumptions.
What InQuery Offers
Understanding InQuery's services helps firms assess value beyond the raw cost per case.
Core Capabilities
InQuery's official materials document:
AI-powered chronology generation that organizes medical records by encounter
Source-linked citations that tie facts to specific pages and Bates numbers
Mandatory human QA on chronologies before delivery
Missing-record detection that identifies gaps in the dataset
Treatment recommendation extraction, including prognosis and future-care information
SOC 2 Type I attestation from a qualified third-party auditor, with the company stating it is progressing toward Type II
Service for plaintiff, defense, and insurance workflows
Retrieval Services
InQuery advertises a plaintiff-firm workflow covering retrieval, chronologies, gap analysis, and demand drafting. Its retrieval service includes provider identification, authorization preparation, follow-up, retrieval, indexing, deduplication, and missing-record flags. Ask whether your quoted package includes retrieval and how it's billed.
Processing Speed
InQuery's materials describe summaries delivered in hours with human QA. Ask for a service-specific turnaround commitment, and remember that processing time is separate from the time needed to obtain records from providers.
Capabilities to Confirm
Some capabilities weren't verified in the reviewed InQuery materials. Ask InQuery to demonstrate:
Pre-submission AI error checking on authorizations
Breach-of-care flagging for plaintiff malpractice cases
Extraction of documented future costs, or a dedicated future-expense calculation workflow
Comparing Pricing Models: Usage-Based vs. Flat Fee
A pricing model's structure affects budget predictability as much as its dollar amount. For plaintiff firms on contingency fees, cost certainty across a caseload can be as valuable as a lower per-case average.
Usage-Based Pricing Characteristics
Usage-based models, whether billed per page, per chronology, or through volume tiers, tie costs to how much you process.
Advantages:
Lower costs for simple cases
Pay only for the specific services needed
Potential savings on high-volume, low-complexity matters
Considerations:
Page-based charges rise with large record sets, which are common in medical malpractice
Total spend can be harder to predict without knowing page counts in advance
Adding services can raise per-case costs
Flat Fee Pricing Characteristics
Codes Health uses a flat fee with no per-page charges.
Advantages:
Predictable costs across a caseload
No per-page variability
Budget certainty for contingency-fee practices
Retrieval and analysis covered together
Considerations:
May cost more for very simple, low-page cases
Specific amounts require direct inquiry, and contractual scope should be confirmed
Which Model Fits Your Practice?
The right model depends on your case mix:
High-volume PI with consistent case size:
Better model fit: Either
Reason: Predictable volume supports accurate budgeting under both models
Medical malpractice with large record sets:
Better model fit: Flat fee
Reason: Page-based costs can compound on very large cases
Mass tort with variable complexity:
Better model fit: Flat fee
Reason: Removes the need to forecast page counts across a plaintiff portfolio
Defense-side review (narrow scope):
Better model fit: Usage-based
Reason: Often reviewing specific record portions, not complete sets
Hidden Costs to Consider in Medical Record Review Pricing
Platform fees are only one part of total cost.
Retrieval Arrangements
If a platform's quoted package covers analysis only, firms must obtain records through other channels first. That can mean:
Managing a separate retrieval relationship
Paying retrieval charges on top of analysis costs
Coordinating two workflows instead of one
Waiting for retrieval to finish before analysis begins
Confirm what each vendor's quote covers so you're comparing like with like.
Remaining Internal Review Time
Human QA is documented for both InQuery and Codes Health. Still, firms should validate outputs and measure remaining review time using representative cases rather than assuming a particular error rate. Other vendors, including Supio and Wisedocs, also document human review of relevant outputs, so compare review scope, turnaround, pricing, and contractual accuracy commitments directly.
Integration and Implementation
How a platform connects to existing case management systems affects ongoing costs:
InQuery describes itself as API-ready and documents exports into downstream tools
Codes Health offers an embedded Filevine workflow, announced by Filevine on July 13, 2026
Custom integrations with CRM platforms and other medical software are available from Codes Health for high-volume customers
Ask each vendor to confirm setup requirements, support, and any additional charges.
Authorization Rejection Delays
Incomplete authorizations are a leading preventable cause of denied requests, and they can delay retrieval and require correction. Applicable deadlines depend on the request's legal basis and state law. HIPAA generally requires action on qualifying individual access requests within 30 calendar days, subject to a permitted extension.
Codes Health's AI review catches authorization errors before submission, automatically flagging misspellings, missing dates of service, and signature issues that would otherwise cause provider rejections.
Why Fast Isn't Always Complete
Some vendors advertise same-day retrieval. According to Codes Health, services built around same-day turnaround often return only the records that are immediately available, not the complete set, which then requires client involvement to track down the rest. Codes Health says that added back-and-forth frustrates clients and contributes to churn. Its approach aims for complete records in weeks, not months.
Total Cost of Ownership: Beyond the Price Tag
Comparing platforms means calculating total cost of ownership, not just platform fees.
Baseline: Manual Review Costs
As an illustration, a paralegal spending 15 hours at $35 per hour on a single case costs $525 in labor. For a firm handling 20 cases a month, that's $126,000 a year in review labor before any platform spending. Your own figures will differ, so use your actual hours and rates.
One-Year TCO Comparison Framework
For a firm processing 240 cases a year (20 a month), compare:
Platform Fee Component:
InQuery: Per-chronology or volume-subscription pricing (requires a quote)
Codes Health: Flat fee (requires a quote, with no per-page charges)
Internal Review Component:
Measure remaining review time on representative cases for each platform
Integration Component:
Confirm setup requirements, support, and any charges with each vendor
Retrieval Component:
Confirm whether retrieval is included in each quote, and what provider charges may apply
ROI Considerations
Platform capabilities affect case capacity as well as cost. Codes Health reports that firms using its platform see up to 80% less manual review time and 50% more case capacity (company-reported figures; individual results may vary). Accurate medical analysis supports stronger demand preparation and case valuation.
Choosing the Right Platform for Your Practice
Pricing alone doesn't determine the best fit. The right platform depends on your workflow, case types, and priorities.
When InQuery May Be the Right Choice
InQuery can suit firms that want:
Source-linked chronologies with Bates-number traceability
A vendor serving plaintiff, defense, and insurance work
SOC 2 Type I attestation as a vendor requirement
An API-ready platform with exports into downstream tools
When Codes Health May Be the Better Fit
Codes Health addresses different priorities:
Retrieval and analysis under one flat fee, with no per-page charges
Pre-submission AI authorization validation
Completeness verification against the original request before delivery
Flags for potential breaches of care and documented future expenses, for attorney review
An embedded Filevine workflow that keeps retrieval inside case management
Decision Framework
Ask these questions when evaluating platforms:
Do you need retrieval and analysis in one quoted package, or do you already have a reliable retrieval process?
Can your budget absorb per-page or volume variability, or do you need cost certainty?
Does your practice focus on plaintiff work requiring liability and damages analysis, or do you need multi-market capability?
What setup and integration work does each option require for your case management system?
Is SOC 2 attestation a hard requirement for your vendors?
Why Flat Fee Pricing Matters for Plaintiff Law Firms
Contingency-fee practices face financial pressures that make pricing predictability especially valuable.
Budget Certainty Across Caseloads
When income depends on case outcomes, operational costs need to be predictable. A flat fee lets firms plan costs across their caseload without forecasting page counts or service usage.
Protection Against Large Record Sets
Medical malpractice and catastrophic injury cases routinely involve thousands of pages. Under a per-page model, those cases can become disproportionately expensive. A flat fee with no per-page charges keeps costs steady on the cases that matter most.
Simplified Vendor Management
Codes Health's flat fee covers retrieval, analysis, chronologies, completeness verification, and human review, so firms manage one relationship and one invoice. Confirm contractual scope before signing.
Evaluating Platform Value Beyond Price
Completeness Verification
Does the platform verify that returned records match the original request before closing the retrieval? Codes Health's Missing Record Review cross-references delivered materials against the request to identify gaps before the record set reaches your desk.
Plaintiff-Specific Analysis
For plaintiff work, standard chronologies may not surface every fact that drives case value:
Potential breaches of care for malpractice liability analysis
Documented future medical expenses for damages calculations
Pre-existing conditions for anticipating defense arguments
Missed appointments for treatment compliance questions
Codes Health flags these for attorney review.
Workflow Integration Depth
Integration depth affects daily efficiency:
Export-based integration: Upload files, download results, and manage files manually
Embedded workflow: Submit requests, track status, communicate with the service team, and receive completed records without leaving your case file
Codes Health's Filevine partnership follows the embedded model.
Beyond General AI Tools
General AI platforms like ChatGPT are not designed for litigation-grade medical record review. Legal teams need platforms purpose-built for the accuracy, auditability, and security requirements of plaintiff work, with human verification and source checking for case-critical outputs.
Codes Health's MIT-educated engineering team continuously builds additional workflows and products, so the platform keeps evolving and becoming more comprehensive to meet the changing demands of modern legal practices.
Bottom Line
The costliest surprises in medical record review usually come from things the quote didn't cover: retrieval billed separately, page-based charges on a large malpractice file, authorizations that bounce back for correction, record sets that arrive incomplete, and review time nobody measured.
Request detailed quotes, confirm what each one includes, ask for references in your practice area, and pilot with real case files before committing. Codes Health combines retrieval, pre-submission validation, completeness checks, and human-verified analysis under a flat fee with no per-page charges. For a wider view, see our three-way platform comparison.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does InQuery's pricing work for large medical malpractice cases?
InQuery describes per-chronology and volume-subscription pricing, but current rates and billing units aren't published. Ask how large cases are handled under your quote, including any page-based components. Firms with frequent large record sets often prefer flat fee models with no per-page charges.
Does InQuery include medical record retrieval in its pricing?
InQuery offers retrieval services, including provider identification, authorization preparation, follow-up, retrieval, indexing, deduplication, and missing-record flags. Ask whether your quoted package includes retrieval and how it's billed.
How does InQuery's human QA compare with other platforms?
InQuery documents mandatory human QA on chronologies before delivery. Other vendors, including Supio, Wisedocs, and Codes Health, also document human review of relevant outputs. Compare review scope, turnaround, pricing, and contractual accuracy commitments directly, and test outputs on representative cases.
Can I get InQuery pricing without contacting sales?
No current official rate card was found. InQuery's materials describe per-chronology and volume-subscription pricing with rates available on request, so contact the company for current pricing.
How do I compare InQuery pricing to flat fee alternatives?
Calculate total cost across your anticipated annual caseload under each model using actual quotes. Factor in whether retrieval is included, any provider charges, setup requirements, and measured internal review time for each approach.
