Behavioral Health Automation
We build behavioral health automation with Part 2 as a design constraint. Each consent is stored with its scope, Part 2 records stay tagged as they move between systems, and every downstream integration is checked against what the patient authorized.
What breaks today
Part 2 consent is stored as a yes or no
A patient can consent to some disclosures and not others, and one consent for treatment, payment, and operations covers only those purposes. A yes-or-no flag loses that scope.
Authorization volume is punishing
Behavioral health carries some of the highest prior authorization and concurrent review burden in healthcare, on thin administrative staffing.
Group and recurring scheduling breaks
Practice management systems built around one-to-one visits handle group therapy and intensive outpatient schedules badly.
No-shows are structurally high
Attendance is part of the clinical picture, and generic reminder tooling does not reflect that.
What we build
Scoped during the assessment, then delivered in one to three week increments against your real systems.
Consent-aware data flows
Each consent modeled with its scope, with automated checks before any record leaves the boundary that consent allows.
Authorization and concurrent review automation
Initial authorization, continued stay review, and expiration tracking with escalation before coverage lapses.
Group and program scheduling
Recurring group, IOP, and PHP schedules with attendance capture that feeds both the chart and billing.
Attendance-aware outreach
Reminder and re-engagement sequences tuned for the population, with clinical escalation on disengagement patterns.
Part 2 audit reporting
A disclosure log that answers who received which Part 2 record, under which consent, on what date.
What changes
We measure your baseline during the assessment and set targets against it. We do not promise a figure before that number exists.
- Consent handling that survives a Part 2 review
- Authorization lapses caught before the coverage gap creates a write-off
- Group and program scheduling that reflects how the programs run
- Attendance and disengagement visible to clinical staff, not just billing
Systems this touches
Integration channel is chosen on verified capability in your environment, not on what is easiest to document.
- Kipu
- Netsmart
- Qualifacts
- Valant
- TherapyNotes
- 42 CFR Part 2
Not sure this is the right workflow to start with? The $24,997 assessment exists to answer exactly that, and it frequently points somewhere other than where leadership expected. New to the topic? Read the practical guide to healthcare workflow automation.
Common Questions
Do you understand 42 CFR Part 2 or just HIPAA?
Both, and we treat them as separate constraints. Part 2 limits when substance use disorder records can be disclosed, with narrower rules than HIPAA for legal proceedings and for consent outside treatment, payment, and operations. Any build touching substance use disorder records is designed against Part 2 first.
Can automated messaging be used with this population?
Yes, with care. Message content is constrained hard, consent is tracked per channel, and escalation to a clinician is built in. We do not ship generic marketing sequences into a behavioral health population.
Talk it through with an engineer.
Tell us what this workflow costs you today and we will tell you honestly whether automating it is worth the engagement.
Start with a conversation, not a proposal.
A 45-minute call with a senior engineer. We will tell you honestly whether automation is the right answer for the workflow you have in mind.