Revenue cycle · Out-of-network therapy billing
Mentaya
Mentaya helps therapists submit out-of-network insurance claims so clients can seek reimbursement without the practice joining panels. It is not a hospital RCM platform.
Strong fit
- Solo and small-group therapists who want help submitting out-of-network claims so clients can seek reimbursement
- Practices that do not want to join insurance panels but still want an easier way for clients to get reimbursed
- Buyers comparing billing help made for therapy rather than outsourcing all medical billing
Weak fit
- Multi-specialty medical groups that need hospital or physician billing platforms
- In-network therapists who only need ordinary clearinghouse billing
- Buyers who need automated coding AI for hospital charts
Bottom line
Mentaya is worth using for therapists who want help running out-of-network insurance reimbursement for their clients. It suits practices that stay off insurance panels. Medical groups needing patient billing or broader revenue cycle tools should look at Collectly, PatientPay, or Inbox Health.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Mentaya is a therapy billing company founded by Christine Li after product roles at Google. Maria Lulo is now chief executive.
Therapists use it to submit out-of-network claims and help clients seek insurance reimbursement, without the practice joining panels. The team is still small.
It is a narrow billing tool for out-of-network therapy, not a hospital documentation platform or automated medical coding.
Getting started means setting up the practice and its client claims, not replacing an EHR.
Mentaya posts its pricing: a low monthly fee per therapist plus processing.
Among the billing tools we review, Mentaya scores below broader platforms because it is narrow by design. It does not cover wider medical billing needs.
Collectly or PatientPay suit medical groups that need patient billing and payment plans. Inbox Health suits patient statements, and SmarterDx suits documentation AI for hospital stays.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Inbox Health | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Collectly | 7.4 | 7.2 |
| Enter Health | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Candid Health | 7.2 | 6.9 |
| Aptarro | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| PatientPay | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Mentaya | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| MD Clarity | 6.9 | 6.7 |
| Rivia Health | 6.5 | 6.4 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | A posted subscription per therapist, plus processing fees on client reimbursements. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of therapists, claim volume, and processing fees. |
| What to ask before you buy | The monthly fee for your number of clinicians, plus expected processing fees per claim. |
| Published pricing | Mentaya lists about $39 a month per therapist plus processing. Confirm current rates. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Mentaya to function | |
| A list of therapists and your fee schedule | Claims need the right details on who provided care. |
| Client consent for out-of-network billing help | Reimbursement help needs consent. |
| Superbills or visit records | No clinical data means no claims. |
| Bank and payout setup | Reimbursements need a way to pay out. |
| Someone to answer client questions | Clients will ask about their explanation of benefits. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Onboard one clinician first | Starting every site on day one floods support. |
| Track reimbursement success at 60 days | Shows whether out-of-network billing pays off. |
| Share client instructions early | Confused clients abandon claims. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You are in-network only, with no out-of-network clients | |
| You need full billing for a medical group | |
| You will not use reimbursement tools that clients see | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Practice setup | 1 week |
| 2 | First claims | 2-4 weeks |
| 3 | Routine | Ongoing |
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.