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-sized provider groups buried in prior authorization and referral portals from many payers
- Teams that want one screen for submissions, status, and EHR updates
- Groups that track staff time on portal work and delays in getting days approved
Weak fit
- National payers buying a utilization management decision engine
- Very small clinics with a handful of repeat authorizations
- Buyers who only accept proof from the largest health systems
Bottom line
Valer is worth considering for mid-sized and large provider organizations that want to automate prior authorization and referrals across many payer portals from one console. It suits groups whose EHR integration and payer mix fit. Specialty practices may prefer Silna or SamaCare, and teams needing phone follow-up should look at Infinitus.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Valer, formerly Voluware, automates prior authorization and referral management for mid-sized and large provider organizations.
From one console it handles submissions across many payer portals, status checks, verification, reporting, and syncing with the EHR, without a full payer review suite. Valer says customers spend less staff time on submissions and track requests better.
It is a provider operations purchase, not a payer clinical review engine.
The company is earlier in its growth and less visible in public market data than Infinitus or Agadia.
Setup depends on EHR integration choices and payer mix, and pricing is not published.
Among the prior authorization tools we review, Valer scores lower because its public proof and pricing clarity trail better-funded peers.
Silna and SamaCare suit practices whose main burden is specialty authorizations. Infinitus suits teams whose main need is phone follow-up.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Latent | 7.9 | 7.4 |
| Infinitus | 7.7 | 7.4 |
| Careviso | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Silna Health | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| SamaCare | 7.1 | 7.0 |
| Valer | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| Linear Health | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Rhyme | 6.5 | 6.3 |
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, how deep the EHR integration goes, and reporting needs. |
| What to ask before you buy | Cost at your monthly authorization and referral volume, with portal coverage and EHR updates written into the quote. |
| Published pricing | Valer does not publish prices. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Valer to function | |
| Enough prior authorization and referral volume across payers to be worth combining | A handful of repeat authorizations do not need a platform. |
| EHR integration owner on your side | EHR updates and status sync need IT attention. |
| Referral and authorization supervisors who will use the dashboard | Queues with no owner bring back portal chaos. |
| A list of the payer portals and fax lines covered | Hidden portals leave gaps. |
| Willingness to drop duplicate portal logins after the switch | Doing the work twice wipes out the return. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Track staff hours on submissions and delays in getting days approved | Those are the results Valer points to. |
| Start with the busiest service lines | Launching everything at once stalls. |
| Watch payer response times from the combined dashboard | Visibility is half the product. |
| Keep health records and referral teams on the same schedule | Split ownership recreates paper delays. |
| Revisit portal coverage when payer mix changes | New plans bring back manual work. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You need a payer utilization management decision engine. | |
| You have almost no authorization work across portals. | |
| IT will not support EHR integration. | |
| Supervisors will not work from one combined queue. | |
| You require public proof from the largest companies before buying from a mid-sized vendor. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 2-6 weeks to list payers, review security, and plan the EHR connection |
| 2 | From kickoff to first use | 6-14 weeks until the first service lines are on the dashboard |
| 3 | From first use to steady results | 3-6 months before old portal work is fully gone |
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.