ABA practice management software built around authorizations

The authorization is the spine

An authorization grants a number of 15-minute units of a specific CPT code, to a specific client, over a date range. Everything downstream, what can be scheduled, who may deliver it, what can be billed, is a consequence of that grant.

Take a simple illustration. An authorization grants 1,040 units of a technician-delivered code over six months, 40 units a week. By week ten, the schedule shows 400 units booked to date but the session log shows 352 delivered: cancellations ate 48 units nobody is tracking. Left alone, the period ends with delivery well under the authorized amount, and the shortfall becomes the payer’s argument at re-authorization. The burn-down exists so that gap is visible in week ten, when there is still calendar left to close it, not in a month-end report after the period is spent. (The numbers here are arithmetic, not clinical guidance; what utilization is appropriate for a given client is a clinical decision.)

Both directions are penalized

Over-delivery is unbillable work already paid for. Under-delivery is read by payers as evidence that fewer hours are needed, and future authorizations are cut accordingly. The industry answer is a utilization dashboard with alerts as the balance burns down, plus a scheduled-versus-authorized-versus-delivered reconciliation, surfaced at the moment of booking rather than in a monthly report.

What this ABA practice management software does

Payer rules are configuration, not code

Concurrent billing of 97155 alongside 97153 is permitted by some payers and banned by others. Credential-tier modifiers differ by payer and by state program. Place of service acceptance for school-based sessions varies. Telehealth eligibility differs by code.

None of this is hard-coded. Each is a per-payer setting, because a system that encodes one payer’s rules as universal quietly generates denials for every other payer.

In practice that means each payer record carries its own settings: which credential-tier modifiers apply, whether the rendering or the supervising provider is reported on a technician-delivered session, whether concurrent supervision billing is permitted, which places of service are accepted, and how rates resolve per code and modifier. We deliberately publish no table of “what payer X allows”, those policies change and are yours to confirm with each contract. The product’s job is that when you confirm one, it becomes a setting rather than a sticky note.

Compared with what most agencies use now

One capability note in the other direction: Raven documents full offline data collection. v1 here is connection-loss-proof within a day whose roster loaded online, a deliberately narrower claim, stated as such.

First half-hour

The trial is designed around one loop: create a client with an authorization, import or build a program, run a mock session on a phone, see the graph draw with a phase line, and watch the authorization balance decrement. If MegAligna cannot do that in your first sitting, it will not survive contact with a real caseload.