Requirement Determination
Authorization checking establishes whether a service requires approval for that plan, since requirements vary by payer, product, and service in combination.
Custom Software
AI Agent for Clinical Authorization
Authorization submissions assert that requested care meets medical necessity criteria. An agent can match documentation against payer criteria and assemble what a submission requires, but it must not manufacture clinical justification the record does not support, because that shifts an administrative shortcut into a misrepresentation about a patient’s condition.
Authorization delay is the most common reason scheduled care does not happen on time. Taction Software builds AI clinical authorization agents that assemble and track, with the clinical assertions in any submission traceable to the record. Where the focus is transactional authorization submission, our prior authorization automation work covers that.
Tell Us Your Requirements
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
Trusted Partners
Trusted by Industry Leaders Worldwide
Recognition
Awards & Recognitions
What Is an AI Clinical Authorization Agent
An AI clinical authorization agent handles the clinical side of authorization: determining whether a service requires authorization for a given plan, matching available documentation against the payer’s medical necessity criteria, identifying gaps before submission, assembling the clinical package, tracking status, and coordinating peer to peer review when a determination is adverse. It prepares submissions rather than asserting necessity independently. This work sits inside our broader healthcare AI practice.
Criteria Matching
Criteria comparison maps available documentation against payer medical necessity policy, identifying what supports the request and what does not.
Gap Identification
Gap flagging surfaces missing documentation before submission, since incomplete requests are denied on completeness rather than clinical merit.
Clinical Package Assembly
Package preparation assembles records the payer requires, built on our HL7 integration services work for record retrieval.
Status Tracking
Authorization status is tracked to determination, since requests pending without visibility are how scheduled care gets cancelled late.
Peer to Peer Coordination
Peer review scheduling is coordinated when a determination is adverse, since the window for that conversation is frequently short.
Core Clinical Authorization Services
Our AI clinical authorization services cover requirement checking, criteria matching, gap identification, submission assembly, and status tracking. The design boundary is that the agent surfaces what documentation exists and where it falls short of criteria, without generating clinical content to close the gap. If the record does not support necessity, that is a clinical documentation question rather than a drafting one. Engagements typically open by measuring authorization turnaround and cancellation rates.
01
Payer Requirement Rules
Requirement configuration covers payer, plan, and service combinations, since blanket rules produce both unnecessary requests and missed requirements.
02
Criteria Library
Policy matching maintains payer criteria, since medical necessity policies differ materially and change without much notice.
03
Documentation Retrieval
Record assembly pulls clinical documentation, connecting with our clinical decision support practice where criteria interact with care planning.
04
Gap Workflow
Gap handling routes to clinicians when documentation does not support criteria, since the answer is clinical rather than administrative.
05
Submission and Tracking
Status monitoring follows requests to determination, connecting with our AI insurance eligibility verification work on coverage detail.
06
Scheduling Coordination
Schedule protection flags cases where authorization will not complete before the appointment, allowing proactive rescheduling.
Benefits of an AI Clinical Authorization Agent
The benefits concentrate in submission completeness, turnaround visibility, and fewer late cancellations. Incomplete submissions are denied on paperwork rather than clinical grounds and then resubmitted, which doubles the delay. We publish no figures on approval rates, turnaround, or cancellation reduction, because those depend entirely on payer mix, service lines, and documentation practice.
More Complete Submissions
Gap identification before submission reduces denials on completeness, which are the most avoidable category of authorization failure.
Fewer Late Cancellations
Status visibility flags authorizations that will not complete in time, allowing rescheduling rather than a cancellation on the day.
Reduced Staff Effort
Package assembly removes the record gathering that dominates authorization coordinator time.
Faster Gap Resolution
Clinical routing gets documentation questions to clinicians quickly, since only they can address a genuine necessity gap.
Better Peer to Peer Preparation
Adverse determination handling prepares the clinician for peer review with the criteria and documentation already assembled.
Denial Prevention Upstream
Authorization accuracy prevents downstream denials, complementing our AI claim denials prevention work.
Our Clinical Authorization Process
We deliver AI clinical authorization projects in gated phases so clinical, revenue cycle, and IT stakeholders approve direction before engineering cost accumulates. Discovery measures turnaround and same-day cancellations attributable to authorization. The boundary between assembling documentation and generating clinical justification is documented explicitly, since that distinction determines whether the system supports accurate submissions or manufactures them.
Discovery and Turnaround Measurement
Discovery measures authorization turnaround and related cancellations, which establishes whether the constraint is assembly, payer response, or documentation.
Requirement Configuration
Payer rules are configured per plan and service, since requirement variation is where blanket assumptions produce both waste and misses.
Criteria Implementation
Policy criteria are implemented with clinical input, since matching documentation to necessity standards requires clinical interpretation.
Boundary Documentation
Assembly versus generation is documented explicitly, since the agent must not create clinical justification the record does not carry.
Gap Routing Design
Clinical routing is designed with clinicians, since documentation gaps require their input rather than administrative workaround.
Rollout and Ongoing Support
Rollout expands by service line with turnaround monitoring and continuing support as payer criteria change.
Technology and Compliance
Clinical authorization handles PHI and produces submissions asserting medical necessity. Taction holds ISO 27001 certification and follows HIPAA-aligned engineering practice. The boundary requiring explicit statement is between assembling documentation and generating clinical content. An agent that writes justification the record does not support is producing a misrepresentation about a patient’s condition, which is a materially different activity from organizing evidence that already exists.
HIPAA-Aligned Engineering
Builds apply encryption, role-based access, and complete audit logging. Our HIPAA compliance software development practice defines these controls.
Assembly Versus Generation
The agent assembles documentation and identifies gaps. It does not generate clinical justification the record lacks, which would misrepresent the patient’s condition.
Clinical Gap Ownership
Documentation gaps route to clinicians, since insufficient support for necessity is a clinical question rather than an administrative one.
Criteria Currency
Payer policies change, so criteria libraries require maintenance rather than one-time configuration that silently goes stale.
Determination Authority
The payer determines authorization. The agent prepares submissions and tracks status without predicting or asserting outcomes to clinicians or patients.
Deployment Security
Deployments run in your cloud tenancy or hybrid, with network segmentation and documented penetration testing before release.
Why Choose Taction Software
Taction Software was founded in 2013 and has spent over 12 years building healthcare software, delivering more than 200 healthcare projects from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with ISO 27001 certification. Our relevant boundary is that we assemble evidence rather than generate justification, since an authorization agent that writes clinical content to satisfy criteria has crossed from administrative support into misrepresenting a patient’s condition. Our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field.
01
Assembly, Not Invention
We organize existing documentation rather than generating clinical justification, since manufacturing necessity misrepresents the patient’s actual condition.
02
Gaps Go to Clinicians
We route documentation gaps to clinicians, since a genuine necessity gap is a clinical matter that administrative drafting cannot resolve.
03
Turnaround Visibility
We flag authorizations that will miss appointment dates, allowing rescheduling rather than day-of cancellation.
04
Established Healthcare Focus
Founded in 2013, we have concentrated on healthcare rather than treating it as one vertical among several, producing depth in revenue cycle operations.
05
Clinical Systems Depth
Our Voyant Health EHR and EMR work means documentation retrieval is handled by engineers with direct clinical systems experience.
06
Certified Security Posture
ISO 27001 certification means security controls are documented and auditable, supporting your vendor risk assessment efficiently.
Pricing
AI clinical authorization pricing depends on payer count, service line breadth, criteria library scope, and clinical record integration depth. Criteria maintenance is an ongoing cost rather than a build item, since payer policies change and stale criteria produce submissions that fail on current standards. Discovery produces an itemized, fixed-scope estimate with phase-level breakdown. Payer transaction fees and infrastructure are separate from engineering cost and itemized clearly.
MVP or Single Module
An MVP covering requirement checking and status tracking typically runs $40,000 to $80,000.
Full Platform Build
A full platform with criteria matching, gap identification, and package assembly typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000.
Enterprise Deployment
Enterprise engagements covering health system service lines and broad payer coverage start at $200,000.
Discovery Phase Scoping
Discovery is a paid, time-boxed phase producing an itemized estimate, architecture plan, and authorization turnaround baseline.
Cost Drivers to Expect
Criteria library scope, payer count, service breadth, and record integration are the largest variables, identified during discovery.
Ongoing Support Costs
Post-launch criteria maintenance, payer changes, and support are quoted separately as a retainer sized to authorization volume.
Get Started
If you are evaluating AI clinical authorization for criteria matching, documentation assembly, or status tracking, the fastest next step is a discovery call with our team. We will measure turnaround and related cancellations, then return an itemized, fixed-scope estimate. Contact us to schedule that conversation.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
Revenue cycle and clinical leaders evaluating AI clinical authorization usually ask what gets automated, how documentation gaps are handled, and whether criteria stay current. The answers below reflect how we scope these projects.
No. It assembles documentation that exists and identifies where the record falls short of payer criteria. Generating clinical content to close a gap would assert facts about a patient’s condition that the chart does not support, which is a different and unacceptable activity.
It routes to the clinician, since that is a clinical question. Either the documentation is incomplete and can be supplemented accurately, or the care genuinely does not meet criteria and that is a clinical and financial conversation rather than a drafting problem.
Through maintained libraries rather than one-time configuration. Payer medical necessity policies change, and stale criteria produce confidently incorrect matching. Criteria maintenance is an ongoing retainer component rather than something the build settles permanently.
An MVP covering requirement checking and tracking runs $40,000 to $80,000. A full platform typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000. Enterprise deployments start at $200,000. Criteria library scope drives cost most.
We do not build that, and we would be cautious about anyone who does. A prediction shown to clinicians or patients shapes decisions about care based on a guess about payer behavior. Status tracking tells you where a request is; that is the useful answer.
Scope and emphasis. Transactional automation handles submission and status mechanics across service types. This focuses on the clinical side: criteria matching, documentation gaps, and peer to peer support where necessity is contested.