Notable Pricing: Enterprise Platform Fees, Rate Cards and Partner Terms

As an annual enterprise agreement combining a platform fee with usage, on the evidence of the partner schedule and the customer profile. The platform fee covers access, the Flow Studio configuration environment, integrations and support. Usage is metered as credits consumed against a rate card that prices the components of an automated workflow, such as a patient message, an eligibility check, a document processed or an authorization submitted. Customers buy a credit allowance sized to the workflows in scope and true up or buy more when they exceed it.

The consequence is that a Notable quote is a forecast of workflow volume as much as a price, and the party that forecasts better sets the effective rate. Ask for the rate card itself, the credit consumption per workflow you intend to run, and the price of credits above the allowance. A platform fee that looks modest can carry a credit forecast that does not, and an allowance sized to the vendor's view of your volume rather than your own is where the money goes.

The workflows in scope are the other lever. Notable sells across patient access, clinical and revenue cycle workflows, and a health system that licenses the platform for one, such as intake, and then adds authorizations and care gaps, is buying a growing credit commitment. The patient intake agent use case and the prior authorization automation use case set out how to measure each workflow before it enters the forecast.

Included in an enterprise agreement of this type is the platform, the configuration environment, the connectors Notable maintains, standard support and the credit allowance. What to price separately:

• EHR integration on your side. Notable publishes Epic and MEDITECH integrations among others, and our Notable and Epic integration page and MEDITECH page cover what a live connection involves. The EHR vendor's interface or vendor programme fees are yours.
• Credits above the allowance, at the rate card price, and whether unused credits roll over.
• Additional workflows, each of which consumes credits at its own rate.
• Professional services. Whether workflow configuration is done by Notable, by a partner at the partner's rates, or by your own trained builders, and the training cost for the last option.
• Partner built skills, priced by the partner at or above rate card and carrying Notable's revenue share.
• Implementation, fixed price or time and materials, and the internal clinical and operational time to validate automated workflows before go live.

The last item is the largest hidden cost. Automating an authorization or intake workflow means someone clinical owns what the automation sends under your name, and that review time appears on no invoice.

Notable spans categories, which makes a single comparison misleading. On patient access it competes with Hyro, which has a reported 10,000 USD a month entry point from Software Finder, and with the intake platforms on our patient intake software comparison, most of which quote by size and modules. On prior authorization it competes with the provider side platforms on the prior authorization software comparison, including Waystar, which prices against claim volume with third party reports around 0.11 USD per claim.

The structural difference is that Notable meters usage across every workflow through one credit pool, where a point vendor prices one workflow on its own unit. That is cheaper when you run several workflows at scale on one platform and more expensive when you run one workflow lightly. A health system deciding between Notable and two point products should price the same workflow volumes both ways, and should assume the credit forecast is the number to scrutinise. The build versus buy post covers the case where the Builder programme itself is the alternative.

It is worth it when a health system intends to automate several high volume workflows and has the operational capacity to validate them, and rarely for a single workflow. A worked example. A health system processes 6,000 prior authorizations a month across its ambulatory clinics, with staff averaging 22 minutes per request across determination, packet assembly and status, which is 2,200 hours a month, about 13 full time equivalents at a loaded 5,000 USD a month each, so 65,000 USD a month.

If the platform automates determination and status entirely and halves packet assembly time, the per request time falls to about 9 minutes, 900 hours a month, a saving of roughly 1,300 hours or 32,500 USD a month on this workflow alone. Add intake, where the same system handles 40,000 visits a month and digital intake removes five minutes of front desk time on 60 percent of them, worth about 2,000 hours or 30,000 USD a month, and the two workflows together justify a substantial annual platform and credit commitment. The assumptions doing the work are the time removed per workflow and the credit consumption per workflow, and both should be measured in a pilot on one clinic before the enterprise forecast is signed. The prior authorization cost calculator builds the authorization side with your figures, and the denial rate benchmark tells you how much administrative denial reduction is realistically available on top.

• The rate card as a contract schedule, with credit consumption per workflow stated for the workflows you will run and a cap on rate card increases during the term.
• Credit allowance sized to your measured volume, not the vendor's forecast, with rollover of unused credits and a stated price for credits above the allowance.
• Workflow by workflow scope, with the right to add or remove workflows at renewal without repricing the platform fee.
• Pilot before enterprise commitment. One workflow, one clinic, six weeks of baseline and six weeks live, measuring minutes per item, error rate and credits consumed, with a purchase trigger agreed in advance.
• EHR integration named, fixed price, with your EHR vendor's fee identified.
• Human review ownership for any workflow that submits content to a payer or patient under your name.
• Model training, retention and subprocessors, checked against the HIPAA and AI compliance baseline and reflected in the business associate agreement.
• Renewal and exit. The partner schedule's one year renewal with 90 days notice is a guide to Notable's standard terms; negotiate a renewal cap and data export in usable formats.
• CMS-0057-F position for the authorization workflows, as explained on our CMS prior authorization rule page.

Credit metered platforms reward the party that understands workflow volume, and the vendor has seen hundreds of health systems' volumes while you have seen one. An independent review measures the workflows you intend to automate before the forecast is built, prices the same volumes against point products, reads the rate card and credit terms as the contract they are, and sequences the workflows so that the easy wins fund the harder ones. It also asks the question the platform sale skips: whether you have the clinical and operational capacity to validate several automated workflows at once.

Clunic takes no commissions or referral fees from Notable or any other vendor. Our vendor selection service covers the platform versus point product decision, and the deployment roadmap sequences a multi workflow programme so the credit commitment grows with proven results rather than ahead of them. Book a call if you have a Notable proposal and want the credit forecast checked.