Prior authorization & UM · Desktop AI for specialty PA
Linear Health
Linear Health provides desktop operational AI for specialty prior authorization and related access workflows on top of tools clinics already use. It is not a health-plan UM suite.
Strong fit
- Specialty practices that still complete prior auth and referral paperwork across EMR, portals, and PDFs
- Ops teams that want a desktop AI layer on tools they already use rather than a multi-month platform install
- Buyers willing to pilot month-to-month usage pricing on a narrow authorization queue
Weak fit
- Health plans building enterprise UM determination infrastructure
- Organizations that require a mature SOC 2 public trust center and large reference list on day one
- Buyers who need a full RCM outsourcing partnership rather than workflow automation
Bottom line
Linear Health earns a Conditional for specialty practices experimenting with desktop AI on prior authorization and referral coordination. Outcomes can show up in faster packet assembly when staff already live in EMR and payer portals, but the company is early (founded 2024, lean headcount, self-funded) and diligence should treat reference depth and security paperwork as open items. Product strength is operational AI on existing screens rather than a payer UM suite or lab-scale PA network. Implementation is light if you accept usage-based pricing and a narrow first queue. Public revenue is not disclosed; usage marketing in the roughly $1k to $8k per month band implies a sub-$5M class business if widely adopted, under the hard cap. Score sits with Rhyme and Valer at the Conditional end of this board until scale and proof points thicken.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Linear Health is an operational AI company that automates prior authorization, referral coordination, and related desk work on top of EMR, payer portals, and documents staff already use. Founder and CEO Sami Malik started the firm in 2024.
It is not a payer UM engine. Compare Valer when you want a shared authorization and referral work surface, SamaCare or Silna when specialty medical-benefit PA is the lane, and Careviso when lab-scale submission networks matter.
Score reflects early-stage product promise with Conditional marks until customer proof, security packaging, and scale are clearer.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Linear Health | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Valer | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| SamaCare | 7.1 | 7.0 |
| Silna Health | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| Develop Health | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| Careviso | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Rhyme | 6.5 | 6.3 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Month-to-month usage-based packaging for operational AI on prior auth and related workflows. |
| What usually drives cost | Seats or usage volume, workflows automated (PA, referrals, scheduling), and support expectations. |
| What to ask in diligence | Monthly cost at your authorization volume, cancellation terms, and what security review artifacts you receive. |
| Published pricing | About $1k-$8k per month usage-based (company-described marketing bands as of research date). |
Public materials describe roughly $1,000 to $8,000 per month usage bands; confirm current packaging.
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Linear Health to function | |
| Named prior-auth or access owner with authority to change submission workflows | Software without owners becomes shelfware. |
| Baseline authorization turnaround and denial or abandonment rates captured | You cannot prove value without a before number. |
| EHR, ordering, or practice-management feed inventory documented | Missing feeds recreate portal swivel-chair work. |
| Staffing plan for exception queues after go-live | Unowned exceptions age into delayed care. |
| Top payers and service lines by PA volume listed | Generic configs miss your real bottlenecks. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track median days-to-authorization weekly for 90 days | Login counts are not outcomes. |
| Start with one specialty or lab channel first | Narrow wins beat empty enterprise banners. |
| Retire duplicate spreadsheet trackers after a parallel month | Dual entry doubles cost. |
| Review stalled exceptions in a standing huddle | Silent aging hides failure. |
| Publish a monthly access digest to clinical and revenue leaders | Hidden delays surprise everyone. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Nobody will own prior-auth exception queues. | |
| You refuse the interface or enrollment work the product needs. | |
| You expect a full EHR replacement from a PA tool. | |
| Leadership will not measure authorization turnaround. | |
| Compliance blocks the data path required for submissions. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scope & baseline | 2-4 weeks - Metrics, payer mix, feed inventory. |
| 2 | Configure | 4-10 weeks - Rules, templates, interfaces; test cases. |
| 3 | Pilot | 2-6 weeks - One specialty or site; exception playbook. |
| 4 | Scale | 1-3 months - Add payers/sites; retire shadow trackers. |
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 actually 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.