Revenue cycle · Patient billing & payments
Cedar
Cedar makes patient billing and payment software, Cedar Pay, that sends patients clear bills, offers payment plans and financial help, and answers questions for hospitals, health systems, and medical groups.
Strong fit
- Health systems and large medical groups that want patients to get clear bills and pay online
- Anesthesia, emergency medicine, and other groups that bill patients they rarely meet
- athenahealth practices that want patient payments tied into athenaOne
Weak fit
- Small practices that want a low-cost statement and payment tool
- Buyers who want claims and denial work from the same vendor
- Buyers who need a published price list
Bottom line
Cedar, based in New York City, makes patient billing and payment software for hospitals, health systems, and medical groups. Its Cedar Pay product sends patients clear bills, offers payment plans and financial help, and answers questions, so more balances are paid without a call to the billing office. It fits large providers that want to collect more from patients while making the bill easier to understand.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Florian Otto, a German-born physician who had run Groupon's Brazil business and worked at Zocdoc, co-founded Cedar in 2016 after a confusing medical bill of his own. Its main product, Cedar Pay, sends patients bills they can read on paper or a phone, offers payment plans and help with coverage, and answers questions, so more balances are paid without a call to the billing office.
Customers include Allina Health, Novant Health, LCMC Health, Sanford Health, North American Partners in Anesthesia, and ApolloMD. In a Cedar case study, Novant Health reported more than $30 million in added net profit in 12 months. Cedar raised a $200 million Series D led by Tiger Global Management in March 2020 and also sells to practices on athenahealth's athenaOne.
Compare Inbox Health when a smaller group or billing company wants patient billing and payments, Collectly when a practice wants AI to automate patient balance follow-up, PatientPay when statement costs and payment plans matter most, and Rivia Health when a specialty practice wants estimates and payments.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Cedar | 7.9 | 7.4 |
| Inbox Health | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Collectly | 7.4 | 7.2 |
| PatientPay | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Rivia Health | 6.5 | 6.4 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Custom contract quoted by Cedar. |
| What usually drives cost | Patient statement volume, the number of billing systems connected, and which products are used (Cedar Pay, coverage checks, financial assistance, patient support). |
| What to ask in diligence | Whether pricing is per statement, per transaction, or a share of collections, and implementation costs. |
| Published pricing | No public list price. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Cedar to function | |
| Patient financial services leader | Owns the patient bill. |
| Billing system data feed | Bills are built from it. |
| Policies for payment plans and discounts | Cedar applies them. |
| Patient contact data | Bills go out by text and email. |
| Baseline patient collection rate | Shows change later. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Turn on text and email billing first | Most patients pay digitally. |
| Offer payment plans in the bill | Raises completed payments. |
| Track call volume to the billing office | Shows whether bills got clearer. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No clean billing data feed | |
| Small practice on a tight budget | |
| Wants claims work first | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract and billing system connection | 2-4 months |
| 2 | Digital bills live | 3-5 months |
| 3 | Payment plans, coverage, and support tools | 6-12 months |
Leadership
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.