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 is worth using for hospitals, health systems, and large medical groups that want patients to understand their bills and pay more of them without calling the billing office. Smaller groups and billing companies may do better with Inbox Health or PatientPay.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Cedar, based in New York City, makes patient billing and payment software for hospitals, health systems, and medical groups.
Florian Otto co-founded it in 2016 after a confusing medical bill of his own. He is a German-born physician who had run Groupon's Brazil business and worked at Zocdoc.
Its main product, Cedar Pay, sends patients bills they can read on paper or a phone. It offers payment plans and help with coverage and answers questions, so more balances are paid without a call to the billing office.
Large providers have adopted that approach. Customers include Allina Health, Novant Health, LCMC Health, Sanford Health, North American Partners in Anesthesia, and ApolloMD. In a Cedar case study, Novant Health gained 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. It also sells to practices on athenahealth's athenaOne.
Other tools fit smaller or more specific needs. Inbox Health suits a smaller group or billing company that wants patient billing and payments. Collectly suits a practice that wants AI to follow up on patient balances.
PatientPay suits buyers focused on statement costs and payment plans, and Rivia Health suits a specialty practice that wants estimates and payments.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Cedar | 7.9 | 7.4 |
| PayZen | 7.6 | 7.5 |
| 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 before you buy | Whether you pay per statement, per transaction, or a share of what is collected, and what setup costs. |
| Published pricing | Cedar does not publish a price list. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Cedar to function | |
| A leader for patient billing | This person owns the patient bill. |
| Data from your billing system | Cedar builds bills from it. |
| Policies for payment plans and discounts | Cedar puts them into each bill. |
| Patient contact data | Bills go out by text and email. |
| How much of what patients owe you collect today | You need it to show the change later. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Turn on text and email billing first | Most patients pay digitally. |
| Offer payment plans in the bill | More patients finish paying. |
| Track call volume to the billing office | Shows whether bills got clearer. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Your billing data is not clean | |
| You are a small practice on a tight budget | |
| You want help with claims first | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract and connecting your billing system | 2-4 months |
| 2 | Digital bills go out | 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.