Prior authorization & UM · PA and referral automation
Valer
Valer automates prior authorization and referral management for provider organizations across many payer portals, with status checking and EHR synchronization. It is not a payer-side clinical UM policy engine.
Strong fit
- Mid-size provider organizations drowning in multi-payer prior auth and referral portals
- Teams that want one dashboard for submissions, status, and EHR updates
- Groups measuring staff time on portal work and authorized-days lag
Weak fit
- National payers buying a UM determination engine
- Tiny clinics with a handful of recurring authorizations
- Buyers who need proven scale stories at Fortune-scale health systems only
Bottom line
Valer earns a Conditional for provider organizations that need prior authorization and referral automation across many payer portals without standing up a full UM suite. Customer stories emphasize less staff time on submissions and better tracking. Product is earlier-scale and less visible in public market data than Infinitus or Agadia. Implementation still depends on EHR integration choices and payer mix. Pricing is unpublished. Score sits lower on this board because public proof and pricing clarity trail better-funded peers.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Valer (formerly Voluware) automates prior authorization and referral management for mid-to-large provider settings. It targets multi-payer portal submissions, status checking, verification, reporting, and EHR synchronization from one console.
It is a provider operations buy, not a payer clinical UM engine. Compare it with Silna and SamaCare when specialty auth burden is the problem, and with Infinitus when phone follow-up dominates.
Conditional score reflects useful automation stories with thinner public scale and pricing evidence than category leaders.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Valer | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| Silna Health | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| SamaCare | 7.1 | 7.0 |
| Infinitus | 7.7 | 7.4 |
| Xsolis | 7.8 | 7.3 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Prior authorization and referral automation software sold on quote to provider organizations. |
| What usually drives cost | Authorization volume, specialties and care settings, EHR integration depth, and reporting needs. |
| What to ask in diligence | Cost at your monthly auth and referral volume, with portal coverage and EHR write-back in the quote. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Valer to function | |
| Multi-payer prior auth and referral volume worth consolidating | A handful of recurring auths do not need a platform. |
| EHR integration owner on your side | Write-back and status sync need IT attention. |
| Referral and auth supervisors who will use the dashboard | Unowned queues recreate portal chaos. |
| Inventory of payer portals and fax paths in scope | Hidden portals leave gaps. |
| Willingness to retire duplicate portal logins after cutover | Parallel work kills ROI. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Measure staff hours on submissions and authorized-days lag | Those are Valer's outcome story. |
| Start with the noisiest service lines first | Boiling-the-ocean launches stall. |
| Monitor payer response SLAs from the consolidated dashboard | Visibility is half the product. |
| Keep HIM and referral teams in the same operating rhythm | Split ownership recreates paper delays. |
| Revisit portal coverage when payer mix changes | New plans reintroduce manual work. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You need a payer UM determination engine. | |
| You have almost no multi-portal auth burden. | |
| IT will not support EHR integration. | |
| Supervisors will not work a consolidated queue. | |
| You require Fortune-scale public proof before any mid-market vendor. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 2-6 weeks (payer inventory, security, EHR path) |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live workflow | 6-14 weeks for first service lines on the dashboard |
| 3 | First live workflow → steady value | 3-6 months before portal retirement feels complete |
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.