Delegated Utilization Management
Most conventional delegated UM vendors are not designed for the speed, transparency, and provider experience health plans need today. See how a clinically intelligent, AI-assisted model delivers better outcomes across medical expense, provider satisfaction, and decision accuracy.
Cohere in action.
96%
provider digital adoption rate
69
provider NPS score
64%
reduction in plan call volume vs. previously delegated vendors
45%
savings from withdrawals and nudges, not denials
>50%
fewer overturns vs. prior vendors
Delegated UM
Traditional delegated UM vendors
How decisions are supported
Clinician-trained AI extracts evidence, supporting faster reviewer workflows and real-time approval rates of 50–90% depending on specialty.
Rules-based workflows with limited clinical data extraction. Heavy reliance on clinical assessment questions and manual review.
Role of clinical expertise
A same-specialty, board-certified physician conducts peer-to-peer reviews. AI is never used to deny care.
Peer-to-peer reviews by non-specialty physicians can lower review quality and increase the chance of appeals.
Reviewer workload and efficiency
ML-assisted review extracts clinical data and maps it to guidelines, reducing review time by 40% and error rates by 30%.
Relying on clinical assessment questions, not ML, increases FTE dependency and causes delays from missing information.
Provider experience
96% digital provider adoption, 69 NPS score, 64% reduction in call volume & 40% reduction in provider time spent on authorizations.
Provider portals with manual data entry, fax follow-up, and low NPS scores. High provider call volume driven by process friction.
Source of medical expense savings
Drive savings with efficiency and clinical accuracy. 45% of savings come from provider nudges and withdrawals, not denials. AI is never used to deny care.
change to: Savings tied to denial volume and restrictive criteria application. Downstream costs–appeals, overturns, provider abrasion, and member delays–erode net savings regardless of whether the model is risk-based, payer-owned, or shared-savings.
Appeals and overturns
More than 50% fewer overturns vs. prior vendors. Technology prevents denials due to missing information before they occur.
Higher appeal rates stemming from denials based on missing or incomplete information.
CMS-0057-F readiness
Production-ready FHIR APIs, including a single API that supports both in-house and delegated UM across a plan's full ecosystem.
Vendor-specific API surfacing without the ability to create a single integration point across a plan's full UM ecosystem.
Business model and incentives
Admin fee pricing model that avoids incentivizing denials and supports MLR attribution as a quality improvement program.
Revenue structures that can misalign with plan goals–risk-based contracts that incentivize denials, payer-subsidiary models with limited operational independence, or shared-savings arrangements that prioritize throughput over accuracy. Each creates friction between vendor economics and plan compliance, quality, and provider trust objectives.
Why health plans choose Cohere Health
Cohere streamlines the prior authorization process, making it efficient and effective. With our platform, health plans can leverage automation to enhance clinical decision-making.
