Best prior authorization software in 2026
Photo: Md Jawadur Rahman on Pexels
Type "prior authorization software" into a search bar and the results cover at least four different products, each solving a different problem and sold in a completely different way. A health plan evaluating a utilization management platform, a health system drowning in fax-based submissions, and a pharmacy that just needs to confirm whether a drug needs sign-off before it fills a script are not shopping for the same thing, even though every vendor's homepage uses the same three words. This guide separates the categories, compares named vendors on what they have actually published rather than what their marketing implies, and sets out the due-diligence questions worth asking before any contract gets signed.
Key takeaways
- "Prior authorization software" spans four categories: submission platforms, network utilities, AI-assisted utilization management platforms, and narrower coverage-lookup tools — conflating them is the most common buying mistake.
- CoverMyMeds, Surescripts and Availity get compared as rivals, but solve different jobs: submission, network plumbing, and multi-payer admin respectively.
- Cohere Health, Rhyme and Myndshft all sell some form of AI-assisted automation, but Cohere sells to health plans, Rhyme connects both sides of a request, and Myndshft spans medical and pharmacy benefits together.
- Almost none of these vendors publish standard pricing; every number in this guide is a specific published figure, not an estimate.
- AHIP reports the health-plan industry eliminated 6.5 million prior authorizations, about 11%, under its 2025 voluntary reform pledge — real movement, at a slower pace than any vendor's marketing suggests.
- Benefily answers a narrower question, whether a Medicare Part D payer requires prior authorization for a given drug, and is not a substitute for a full submission or utilization management platform.
What "prior authorization software" actually covers
"Prior authorization software" gets treated as one product category, when it actually spans at least four different jobs, each sold to a different buyer. Submission platforms, such as CoverMyMeds, let a prescriber's office fill in a request on-screen and send it straight to a payer or PBM. Network utilities, such as Surescripts, are the plumbing other companies' software builds on top of: a transaction moves between two systems, and most people relying on it never see its name on a screen. AI-assisted utilization management platforms, such as Cohere Health, Rhyme and Myndshft, sit closer to the actual decision, checking a request against medical policy and either auto-approving it or routing it to a clinician. And coverage-lookup tools, the category Benefily falls into, answer a narrower question before any of that starts: does this specific payer require prior authorization for this specific drug at all, and on which of its plans.
Buyers routinely compare across these categories as though they compete on the same axis, and it costs real evaluation time. A health plan comparing Cohere Health against CoverMyMeds is comparing a utilization management engine against a submission form; the two solve different halves of the same transaction, and in plenty of health systems both run for the same request without anyone treating that as unusual. For a closer look at how the best-known network names actually differ from each other, see our comparison of CoverMyMeds, Surescripts and Availity.
The main vendors compared
The table below sets out what each vendor or category actually solves, who it suits best, and one specific, checkable detail each has published, rather than a marketing claim taken at face value. Where a vendor has not disclosed a figure, usually pricing, that is stated outright instead of estimated.
| Vendor / category | What it actually solves | Best fit for | Notable published detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CoverMyMeds (submission platform) | Digitises the request itself: a prescriber or pharmacy fills in or auto-populates a form and sends it to the relevant payer or PBM | Prescribers' offices and pharmacies needing a single, EHR-embedded place to submit and track requests | Owned by McKesson since 2017; says its network reaches 50,000+ pharmacies and 900,000+ prescribers |
| Surescripts (network utility) | Carries e-prescribing, medication history and prior authorization transactions between EHRs, pharmacy systems and payers, invisibly rather than as a destination | Vendors and health systems needing a compliant connection already built into their EHR, not a portal to log into | Reports a median approval time of 18 seconds for prior authorizations completed through its fully automated path |
| Availity (multi-payer portal) | Gives a provider's billing and admin staff one login to handle authorizations, eligibility and claims for several payers that jointly own it | Practices juggling multiple regional payers that each mandate their own portal | Reports 3 million credentialed providers and over 13 billion transactions a year network-wide (not authorization-specific) |
| Cohere Health (AI-assisted utilization management) | Sells to the health-plan side: reviews incoming requests against medical policy, auto-approves routine cases, routes the rest to a clinician | Health plans and Medicare Advantage payers automating their own review queue, not providers submitting requests | Humana case study cites a median approval time of 0 minutes for 89% of requests across 12 states (self-reported, 2021 data) |
| Rhyme, formerly PriorAuthNow (touchless PA automation) | Connects both sides of the transaction: providers submit, payers review, and both track the same case through a shared dashboard | Health systems and payers with an existing relationship wanting to cut manual back-and-forth jointly, rather than digitising just one side | Says it processes 4 million+ authorizations a year across 300+ payers and 83 large health systems |
| Myndshft, now part of DrFirst (medical + pharmacy benefit PA) | Automates submission, verification and tracking across both medical and pharmacy benefits from one platform | Specialty pharmacies and providers wanting one system instead of separate medical and pharmacy tools | Says its payer network covers 94% of U.S. covered lives for submissions; pricing not publicly disclosed |
| Infinitus (voice AI agent) | Automates the follow-up phone call itself, for when a transaction cannot be completed electronically, to chase payers for PA status and requirements | Provider organisations still making manual calls for specialty drugs, procedures or diagnostics | Names live payer relationships including HCSC, Cigna, UnitedHealthcare, Humana, Optum Rx and Express Scripts; reports a 10% average improvement in data accuracy over manual calls |
| Benefily (coverage-lookup tool) | Answers a narrower question before submission: does this Medicare Part D payer require prior authorization for this drug, cited to the CMS filing behind it | Anyone needing a fast, sourced answer before committing staff time to a request, not a platform to submit or track one through | Free tier: 5 cited lookups a day; Pro is $39/month with bulk checks, CSV export, the REST API and MCP server |
Three of these already have a full write-up on this site. See the Cohere Health review for its published turnaround-time claims and its role in CMS's WISeR Medicare pilot, and the CoverMyMeds vs Surescripts vs Availity comparison for ownership structure and network reach in more depth. This guide treats all of them as one part of a wider field, rather than repeating that detail here.
The pledge versus the reality
None of this is happening in a vacuum. In June 2025, more than 50 health insurers, coordinated through AHIP, publicly committed to reduce unnecessary prior authorization and expand real-time electronic approvals starting in 2026. Ten months on, the trade group reported real, if modest, movement: participating plans say they have eliminated 6.5 million prior authorizations, about 11% of the volume in scope, since the pledge began.
“Health plans have taken important initial steps to support patients and are working toward the shared goal of delivering answers at the point of care whenever possible—a goal that will require both plans and providers to eliminate manual processes and adopt real-time electronic data sharing.”
Read plainly, that is an industry moving in the direction ePA vendors have promised for years, at a pace slower than any single vendor's marketing would suggest on its own. It is also the backdrop against which every figure in the table above should be read: a vendor's self-reported turnaround time describes what its software can do technically, not what every payer on the receiving end has actually agreed to honour.
Due diligence before you sign anything
Every vendor above will show a demo built around its best case. The questions that actually separate a good fit from an expensive mistake are duller than a demo, and worth asking before anyone signs anything.
Ask before you buy
- Which of your specific payers and PBMs does the vendor already connect to today, named individually rather than described as "most major payers"? A platform that is excellent for one insurer may have no connection to another at all.
- Is pricing per-transaction, per-seat, or a flat platform fee, and does it change once your volume grows? Almost none of these vendors publish a rate card, so get the structure confirmed in writing before you get a number.
- Are the vendor's published turnaround-time or auto-approval figures independently audited, or self-reported from a single client relationship? One impressive case study is not a company-wide average.
- How much integration work does your existing EHR or pharmacy system genuinely need, and who owns that work: the vendor, your own IT team, or a third-party implementation partner billed separately?
- If the vendor's contract ties any part of its payment to savings identified or denials avoided, as some Medicare pilots now structure vendor compensation, ask exactly how that incentive is calculated and whether it is disclosed to regulators.
A worked example: verifying a request versus submitting one
Picture a mid-sized regional health system running a specialty pharmacy alongside several outpatient clinics. This is an illustrative scenario, not a real named customer, but it is a genuinely common shape. Its pharmacists spend part of every morning working out, drug by drug and plan by plan, whether a new Medicare Part D prescription needs prior authorization at all before anyone starts the paperwork; today that means logging into several payer portals in turn. Its clinic staff have a separate, larger problem: once a request genuinely needs submitting, they are re-entering the same clinical detail into different payer systems by hand, and losing track of which requests are still open.
These are not the same problem, and one tool rarely solves both well. For the first, a coverage-lookup API that answers whether a specific payer requires prior authorization for a specific drug, cited to the current CMS formulary filing, removes the guessing before anyone commits time to a request. For the second, the health system still needs a submission or utilization management platform, along the lines of CoverMyMeds, Rhyme or Myndshft, capable of carrying a request through to an actual decision and keeping every clinic's queue visible in one place. Buying only the first tool and expecting it to replace the second, or the reverse, is exactly the category confusion this guide opened with.
How to choose, by who's buying
A quick way to narrow the field before booking a single demo:
- Health plans and Medicare Advantage payers running their own utilization management queue are usually choosing between AI-assisted platforms like Cohere Health, or building policy rules into whatever system already receives requests. If evaluating anything tied to a CMS pilot such as WISeR, ask directly how the vendor's compensation is structured.
- Health systems and large provider groups submitting requests at volume typically need either a submission platform wired into their EHR, such as CoverMyMeds or Rhyme, or, if the actual bottleneck is a phone call rather than a form, a voice-automation tool like Infinitus.
- Specialty pharmacies handling both medical and pharmacy benefit requests are the audience Myndshft built its unified platform for specifically.
- Anyone who just needs a fast, sourced answer to whether a specific Medicare Part D plan requires prior authorization for a drug, before committing staff time to a request, can use a coverage-lookup tool such as Benefily's API, and treat that as step zero rather than a replacement for whichever submission platform the request itself still needs.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between "prior authorization software" and an "ePA vendor"?
"ePA vendor" usually refers narrowly to the electronic submission and network layer, companies like CoverMyMeds and Surescripts that move a request from prescriber to payer electronically. "Prior authorization software" is the wider umbrella, and also covers AI-assisted utilization management platforms that make the actual coverage decision, plus narrower coverage-lookup tools that check requirements before any request is filed.
Which prior authorization software is best for health plans?
Health plans automating their own utilization management review queue are the audience for AI-assisted platforms such as Cohere Health. Plans simply choosing which submission or network channel to accept requests through are more likely comparing CoverMyMeds, Surescripts and Availity integrations instead. There is no single "best"; the right answer depends on what is already wired into your existing claims and EHR systems.
Does any prior authorization software publish real pricing?
Rarely, for the full submission and utilization management platforms named in this guide; those contracts are negotiated per health plan or health system and not published. Benefily is the exception among the vendors covered here: its free tier and $39/month Pro plan are both listed on its pricing page, though it solves a narrower lookup problem, not full submission or case management.
Does AI prior authorization software increase denial rates?
It is a live concern in the industry, not a settled fact about any one vendor. Physician groups have raised worries this year about higher denial rates when AI reviews requests with little human oversight, and CMS's WISeR Model pays some vendors partly on savings identified, which is worth scrutinising rather than dismissing. We found no source alleging Cohere Health's own denial rate is out of line, but it is the context to hold in mind when reading any vendor's self-reported approval figures.
Can Benefily submit or track a prior authorization request for me?
No. It answers whether a specific Medicare Part D payer requires prior authorization for a specific drug, cited to the underlying CMS formulary filing. Actually submitting, tracking or appealing a request still needs a platform built for that job, such as the submission and utilization management vendors compared above.
Related on Benefily
Administrative information only. Benefily reports what a payer has published in its own prior-authorization policy as of the effective date shown. It is not medical advice, not a coverage or payment guarantee, and not an authorization. Requirements vary by plan, place of service and member benefits — always verify with the payer before rendering service.
More from Reviews
CoverMyMeds vs Surescripts vs Availity Compared
CoverMyMeds, Surescripts and Availity get lumped together as one thing. They're not. What each actually does, who owns it, and what to check first.
Cohere Health Review: An Honest Look
An evidence-based review of Cohere Health's prior authorization platform: what it does, published outcomes, and what's still unanswered.