Collectly
AI patient billing and revenue cycle platform focused on the patient responsibility portion of provider revenue, which the company notes has risen from roughly 5 percent of provider revenue in 2010 to about 20 percent today and is projected toward 30 percent by decade end. Billie is the AI billing agent, engaging patients across chat, text, email, and voice to answer billing questions, explain what is owed, and take payment, with the company stating it handles the majority of cases and staff step in for exceptions. The platform covers intelligent statements, personalized outreach, payment plans, card on file, autopay, and refunds, plus an eligibility and benefits agent. Positioning is deliberately complementary rather than displacing: the company frames the EHR as the system of record and itself as the system of action on top of it. Integrated with more than 20 leading EHRs via API or FHIR, with a bidirectional Epic integration listed in Connection Hub on the Epic Showroom as of July 2026. Reported footprint is more than 3,000 healthcare facilities with over $1 billion in patient payments processed. Customer reported results include collections increases in the 75 to 300 percent range and average days to collect as low as 12.6. Holds HIPAA, SOC 2 Type 2, PCI DSS, and HITRUST i1 compliance. Backed by Sapphire Ventures and Y Combinator; CEO and co-founder Levon Brutyan.
Capability Axes
Billie is a genuine conversational agent handling billing questions and taking payment across chat, text, email, and voice. Held back from A because a substantial part of the platform is payments infrastructure, statement delivery, and plan management that functions without AI. The company's own framing is accurate: the EHR is the system of record, and this is the system of action layered on top.
Stated design is that the agent handles the majority of cases and staff step in for exceptions, which is the correct shape. Held back from A because no escalation criteria or confidence threshold is published, and the consequence surface deserves it: a patient asking why they owe an amount is receiving an explanation with financial consequence, and an incorrect answer can produce either an unwarranted payment or an avoidable escalation to collections.
Scale is substantial: more than 3,000 healthcare facilities and over $1 billion in patient payments processed, which is a hard number rather than an engagement metric. Held back from A because performance claims, collections increases of 75 to 300 percent and days to collect as low as 12.6, are vendor and customer reported without baselines, and a range that wide suggests results depend heavily on what the organization was doing before.
The most complete certification stack among the patient financial vendors in this index: HIPAA, SOC 2 Type 2, PCI DSS, and HITRUST i1. PCI DSS matters specifically here and is often missing from comparable claims, since this product takes card payments directly, and card data handling is a separate risk surface from protected health information.
Integration breadth is the strongest element: more than 20 leading EHRs via API or FHIR, spanning ambulatory and enterprise systems, plus a bidirectional Epic integration listed in Connection Hub on the Epic Showroom as of July 2026, meaning live Epic customers and pre built integration rather than a claimed capability. EHR agnostic deployment matters here because patient billing sits across every system a group runs.
No rate card, but the model is disclosed as monthly subscription rather than a percentage of collections. That distinction matters more than the number: contingency pricing on patient collections aligns a vendor with collecting more from patients, while subscription pricing does not, and this is the same structural question raised for Lyric on the payer side.
Pricing
Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.
| Entry Price | Pricing Basis | BAA Tier | Implementation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contact the vendor
|
Monthly subscription; not a percentage of collections | — | — | Third Party Estimated |
No rate card published, but third party review describes a monthly subscription model rather than a percentage of collections. That structural point deserves weight in evaluation: contingency pricing on patient balances aligns a vendor with extracting more from patients, while subscription pricing does not. Given that this product engages patients directly about money they owe, incentive alignment is a patient experience question as much as a commercial one.