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 the tools clinics use now. It is not a health-plan UM suite.
Strong fit
- Specialty practices that still do prior authorization and referral paperwork across the EMR, payer portals, and PDFs
- Operations teams that want desktop AI on tools they use now, rather than a platform that takes months to install
- Buyers willing to try month-to-month usage pricing on one narrow authorization queue
Weak fit
- Health plans building large systems for utilization management decisions
- Groups that need a mature public SOC 2 trust center and a long reference list from day one
- Buyers who want to outsource billing entirely rather than automate tasks
Bottom line
Linear Health is worth considering for specialty practices testing desktop AI on prior authorization and referral work. It suits teams that start with one narrow queue and accept usage-based pricing. Practices wanting a shared authorization work surface may prefer Valer, and lab-scale submitters should look at Careviso.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Linear Health is an AI company that automates prior authorization, referral coordination, and related desk work. It runs on top of the EMR, payer portals, and documents staff use.
Founder and CEO Sami Malik started the self-funded company in 2024, and its team is small.
It works on the screens staff use now. It is not a payer utilization management suite or a lab-scale prior authorization network.
Practices can put together authorization packets faster when staff work in the EMR and payer portals.
Because the company is young, buyers should treat its reference customers and security paperwork as open questions.
Setup is light if you accept usage-based pricing and start with one narrow queue. Linear Health lists roughly $1k to $8k per month.
Among the prior authorization tools we review, Linear Health scores near Rhyme and Valer at the lower end. It will stay there until customer proof, security paperwork, and scale are clearer.
Valer suits a shared work surface for authorizations and referrals. SamaCare or Silna suit specialty medical-benefit authorizations, and Careviso suits lab-scale submission networks.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Latent | 7.9 | 7.4 |
| Careviso | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Silna Health | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| SamaCare | 7.1 | 7.0 |
| Develop Health | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| Valer | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| Linear Health | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Rhyme | 6.5 | 6.3 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Month-to-month, usage-based pricing for AI on prior authorization and related tasks. |
| What usually drives cost | Seats or usage, which tasks are automated (prior authorization, referrals, scheduling), and support needs. |
| What to ask before you buy | Monthly cost at your authorization volume, how to cancel, and what security documents you get. |
| Published pricing | Linear Health lists about $1k-$8k per month, based on usage. |
Linear Health describes usage tiers of roughly $1,000 to $8,000 per month. Confirm current packages.
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Linear Health to function | |
| A named prior authorization or access lead who can change how submissions work | Software with no owner goes unused. |
| Current numbers for authorization turnaround, denials, and abandoned orders | You cannot show value without a starting number. |
| A written list of data coming from the EHR, ordering, or practice management systems | Missing data sends staff back to retyping into payer portals. |
| A staffing plan for problem cases after launch | Problem cases no one owns turn into delayed care. |
| A list of the payers and services with the most prior authorizations | A generic setup misses where you really get stuck. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track the typical days to authorization every week for 90 days | Counting logins does not show results. |
| Start with one specialty or one lab | A small real win is worth more than a broad launch with nothing behind it. |
| Drop duplicate tracking spreadsheets after one month running both | Entering everything twice doubles the cost. |
| Review stuck cases in a regular short meeting | Unpaid balances that quietly grow older hide problems. |
| Send clinical and finance leaders a monthly access summary | Delays no one reports surprise everyone later. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No one will own prior authorization problem cases. | |
| You will not do the connection or enrollment work it needs. | |
| You expect a prior authorization tool to replace your EHR. | |
| Leaders will not measure how long authorizations take. | |
| Your compliance team blocks the data sharing that submissions need. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Plan and measure the starting point | 2-4 weeks. Agree on measures, list payers, and list data sources. |
| 2 | Set up | 4-10 weeks. Build rules, templates, and connections, and test real cases. |
| 3 | Pilot | 2-6 weeks. Run one specialty or site and write down how to handle problem cases. |
| 4 | Expand | 1-3 months. Add payers and sites, and stop using side trackers. |
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.