Manual workflow vs
HaloPA optimized.
Same patient, same payer, same therapy. Two workflows. See where automation can reduce rework, waiting, and staff effort.
The way it's always been done.
Order placed Friday 4:50 pm. PA-required not flagged till Monday.
Staff gather chart data, complete payer fields, and prepare the submission.
45-minute call to confirm receipt. Transferred twice.
Form rejected. PD-L1 result missing. Re-pull required.
Resubmit complete packet. Confirmation via fax - wait, again.
Status checks every 4 hours. No update. More hold music.
Lack of medical necessity. Need to schedule peer-to-peer.
Provider spends 28 minutes defending guideline-aligned therapy. Approved.
The way it should work.
Intake agent flags PA-required in 2 minutes of EHR order.
Relevant notes, labs, imaging, and chart data organized with source links.
Payer-specific evidence requirements are checked before submission.
Payer-ready bundle routed through supported channels. Confirmation: AUTH-7841.
Payer responses and status updates appear in one clinic workflow.
Staff focus on exceptions that need review instead of routine follow-up.
Across every dimension that matters.
| Manual | HaloPA | Advantage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PA identification | Manual-dependent | Automated detection | Earlier start |
| Evidence gathering | Manual chart search | Source-linked extraction | Less rework |
| Payer requirements | Look up manually | Rules surfaced upfront | Better readiness |
| Submission workflow | Multiple channels | One managed workflow | Fewer steps |
| Status tracking | Calls + portals | Centralized tracking | Less chasing |
| Appeals | Rebuild manually | Evidence-backed drafts | Faster response |
| Auditability | Fragmented history | Traceable actions | Clear oversight |
Run it on your numbers.
15 minutes. Live calculator. Tested benchmarks.
Book a Call →