Flexbone vs Infinitus
Revenue cycle and operations teams evaluating AI to take payer phone calls off their staff frequently shortlist both. Both automate the outbound call into a payer line. The difference is how much of the revenue cycle sits inside the platform around that call. Here is exactly where they diverge.
Infinitus markets an AI voice agent, branded Eva, that automates provider-to-payer phone calls at scale. The agent places calls into payer lines to handle benefit verification, prior authorization follow-up, and claim-status inquiries, then returns the outcome as structured data your RCM team can act on. For teams that want the outbound payer phone call automated as a data feed into an existing RCM stack, this is a focused offering that removes a repetitive, high-volume task from staff.
Flexbone runs that same payer-line calling and the work around it. The platform covers eligibility (270/271 plus portal plus IVR, reconciled), prior authorization end-to-end, denials, payment posting, and inbound and outbound patient voice, all inside your EHR with the result written back to the chart. The work is delivered by AI agents paired with US-based staff through the Nav Central partnership.
The fundamental difference: Infinitus automates one high-value slice, the outbound payer call, and hands back the result. Flexbone completes the downstream action inside your EHR.
Best fit: Choose Infinitus if you only need payer-call automation feeding your existing RCM team. Choose Flexbone if you want those calls plus eligibility, prior authorization, denials, and patient voice handled in one deployment inside your EHR.
At a Glance
| Category | Flexbone | Infinitus |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | Teams that want eligibility, PA, denials, and patient calls handled in one deployment inside the EHR | Teams that want the outbound payer phone call automated as a data feed into an existing RCM stack |
| Product model | Integrated AI agents built per EHR, plus US-based staff (Nav Central) | AI voice agent for outbound payer calls |
| Pricing frame | Per-deployment, scoped to facility size and volume; quick price on request | Published pricing varies |
| Eligibility | 270/271, payer portals, and IVR calls into payer lines, reconciled | Benefit verification via automated payer calls |
| Prior authorization | Portal submission, doc attach, status calls, fax parsing, EHR update | Prior authorization status via payer calls |
| Denials | Letter/EOB ingest, root cause, appeal drafting, resubmission | Not marketed as a core capability |
| Patient voice / calls | Inbound and outbound patient calls, payer IVR, call analytics | Focused on provider-to-payer calls, not patient-facing |
| EHR coverage | athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, AdvancedMD, ModMed, NextGen, and others | Integrates with RCM systems via API |
| Security | HIPAA, SOC 2, zero-retention architecture | HIPAA-compliant per vendor |
The Core Difference: Single-Channel Payer Calls vs Integrated RCM and Patient Voice
Both platforms automate the outbound call into a payer line. The structural choice is how much of the surrounding revenue cycle lives in the same platform.
Infinitus positions around one high-value slice: the outbound payer phone call. The Eva voice agent dials into payer IVR trees and hold queues, works through the menu and the representative conversation, captures benefit details, prior authorization status, or claim status, and returns that outcome as structured data. It is a focused instrument. The call gets made and the result gets handed back to whatever RCM team or system consumes it.
The trade-off is scope. The payer call is one step in a longer chain. Something has to decide which patients need a benefit check, reconcile what the call returns against the EDI response and the portal, attach the clinical documentation a prior authorization needs, work the denial when the claim comes back rejected, and write each result into the chart. In the Infinitus model, that surrounding work stays with the customer's existing RCM team or their other vendors.
Flexbone runs that same payer-line IVR calling and the work around it. Eligibility reconciles 270/271, payer portal, and IVR call into a single record. Prior authorization runs end-to-end: submission, document attachment, status calls, fax parsing, and the EHR update. Denials get ingested, root-caused, appealed, and resubmitted. Payment posting reconciles remittance. And inbound and outbound patient voice handles the front-desk and follow-up calls that a payer-only tool does not touch.
Where Infinitus returns a call outcome, Flexbone completes the downstream action: it updates the chart, drafts the appeal, and posts the eligibility record. The work is delivered by AI agents paired with US-based staff through the Nav Central partnership, so the parts that still need a human sit inside the same delivery model rather than falling back on your team.
The question for an RCM leader is not whether the payer call gets automated. Both do that. It is whether the platform also completes the eligibility record, the authorization, the denial, and the patient call, or hands each result back for someone else to finish.
EHR and Workflow Coverage: Call Outcome vs Written-Back Result
Infinitus integrates with RCM systems via API and returns the outcome of a payer call in structured form. For teams that already have a system of record and staff to route that data into the chart, an API handoff fits cleanly into an existing pipeline.
The constraint is the last mile. A benefit-verification result is only useful once it lands on the correct patient record in the EHR, reconciled against the other channels, with the right fields populated for the front desk and the biller. When the call outcome comes back as a data payload, someone still has to write it into athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, AdvancedMD, ModMed, or NextGen and reconcile it against what the portal and the 270/271 already said.
Flexbone publishes named EHR integrations including athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, AdvancedMD, ModMed, NextGen, and others, and the AI worker operates inside that environment. The eligibility record is posted, the authorization status is updated, and the denial outcome is written back where the biller works. The unit of delivery is a completed action in the EHR, not a payload to be reconciled later.
For an RCM director evaluating both, the useful question is where the workflow ends. With a payer-call tool, it ends when the call outcome is returned. With Flexbone, it ends when the result is reconciled and written into the chart your team already uses.
Feature Comparison: Where Each Platform Goes Deep
Eligibility Verification
Both platforms can surface benefit information from a payer.
Infinitus markets benefit verification through automated payer calls. The Eva agent dials the payer line, works the IVR and the representative, and returns the benefit details it captured. For plans where the phone call is the reliable source, that removes a slow manual task from staff.
Flexbone Eligibility Verification assumes that no single channel returns reliable data on its own. The agent runs 270/271 through clearinghouses, scrapes payer portals where EDI is incomplete, and places IVR calls into payer lines where the portal does not surface what the workflow needs. The three channels reconcile into a single eligibility record with confidence scoring, written back to the EHR. Flexbone customers report a 30 percent reduction in eligibility-related denials.
The choice depends on how much of the eligibility problem you want handled. If the payer phone call is the only gap, an automated caller closes it. If eligibility also breaks on EDI, on the portal, and on reconciling the three, a multi-channel record is the difference between a benefit check that holds up and one that produces a denial downstream.
Prior Authorization
Infinitus markets prior authorization status through payer calls. The Eva agent calls the payer line to check where an authorization stands and returns that status, which removes the hold-time burden of a status call from staff.
Flexbone Prior Authorization is built around the operational reality that PA is a five-step process. Portal submission. Document attachment from the chart. Status calls into payer lines. Inbound fax parsing. EHR updates with the approval or denial result. The Flexbone PA worker handles all five. For specialties with high PA burden, including infusion drugs, ASC procedures, DME, and behavioral health, the depth across all five steps is where the work actually lives, and the status call is only one of them.
Denials Management
Denials are where the scope split is clearest.
Infinitus is not marketed as a core denials-management capability. A claim-status call can tell you a claim was denied, but the marketed focus is the phone call and the returned status, not ingesting the denial and working the appeal.
Flexbone AI Denials Management ingests what the payer sends. Structured 835s, scanned denial letters, faxed EOBs, handwritten remits. The agent extracts the denial code and rationale using OCR and NLP, classifies the root cause, drafts the appeal letter with the right clinical attachment from the chart, and pushes the corrected claim back to the clearinghouse. For practices whose denial volume comes in mixed format, the document-intelligence layer is the difference between a working denials function and a chronic backlog.
Payment Posting
Payment posting is not part of the marketed Infinitus payer-call focus.
Flexbone offers payment posting as part of the platform, built per deployment to match the customer's accounting and EHR workflow. Remittance is reconciled and posted where the biller works, so the eligibility and denial work Flexbone already runs feeds a closed loop rather than a partial one.
Voice and Patient Communication
Both platforms use voice, but they point it in different directions.
Infinitus focuses on provider-to-payer calls. The Eva agent is built to call payer lines, and the marketed positioning is not patient-facing: it does not present as a front-desk or patient-communication tool.
Flexbone runs voice as a native modality on both sides of the phone. Healthcare Calls handles inbound patient calls. AI Patient Coordinator handles outbound scheduling, reminders, and intake. Voice Room analyzes 100 percent of inbound calls and surfaces the operational issues your team is hearing, including eligibility confusion and scheduling friction that turn into denials downstream. Flexbone also places the payer-line IVR calls that Infinitus specializes in, so the payer call is one capability inside a broader voice footprint rather than the whole product.
Security and Compliance
Both vendors position around HIPAA compliance. The architectural difference worth asking about is data retention.
Infinitus is described by the vendor as HIPAA-compliant and processes payer-call data inside its environment with healthcare safeguards.
Flexbone runs a zero-retention architecture. PHI is processed in memory while the agent takes action and is discarded after the action completes. No retained patient data on Flexbone infrastructure. For compliance teams reviewing AI vendors, that posture eliminates a class of breach risk that retained-data platforms cannot eliminate, regardless of how good the encryption is.
This matters most for organizations with strict data-residency requirements, behavioral health groups with elevated privacy posture, and any organization whose security committee has rejected previous AI vendors over data retention.
Pricing: Where Flexbone Comes In
Flexbone tends to come in more cost-competitive than a single-purpose tool, because one deployment covers eligibility, prior authorization, denials, and patient calls rather than stacking a separate license, per-transaction fee, or seat cost for each workflow. You are not paying several vendors to cover one revenue cycle.
We price per deployment, scoped to your facility size, specialty, and volume, not per seat and not per call. If you want a fast read, tell us your facility size and specialty and we will give you a quick price range. If you want an exact number, book a 30-minute audit: we map the calls, eligibility checks, prior authorizations, and denials Flexbone can take off your team, then quote a fixed price against that scope.
Because the work is delivered by AI agents paired with US-based staff through our Nav Central partnership, the price reflects the work handled, not the headcount added.
Who Should Choose Flexbone
Flexbone is built for operators who want the whole payer-and-patient workflow handled in one deployment, not just the outbound call.
Teams that want the work completed inside the EHR. If a returned call outcome still leaves your staff reconciling and typing the result into athenahealth, eCW, AdvancedMD, ModMed, or NextGen, the forward-deployed model writes the eligibility record, the authorization status, and the denial outcome back into the chart directly.
Practices that need eligibility, PA, and denials together. If your revenue cycle breaks in more than one place, running eligibility, prior authorization, and denials in a single platform avoids stitching a payer-call tool to separate vendors for the surrounding work.
Groups with a meaningful Medicaid book. If your payer mix is inconsistent, multi-channel eligibility reconciliation across EDI, portal, and IVR is the difference between an eligibility process that holds up and one that fails at the most expensive moment.
Operations leaders who need patient voice, not just payer calls. If your RCM problems start at the front desk and on the phone, the platform has to include inbound patient voice, outbound patient voice, and call analytics. Flexbone runs both patient and payer voice as first-class modalities. Contact Flexbone for a scoping conversation.
Compliance teams that have rejected retained-data AI vendors. The zero-retention architecture changes the security review conversation.
Who Should Choose Infinitus
Infinitus is the right answer in a specific and well-defined set of circumstances.
Teams that only need the payer call automated. If the outbound provider-to-payer phone call is the single bottleneck and your RCM team already handles everything around it, a focused voice agent that returns the call outcome fits that gap directly.
Organizations with an established RCM stack that just needs a data feed. If you have a system of record and staff to route benefit, authorization-status, and claim-status results into the chart, an API handoff drops into that existing pipeline without changing the rest of it.
High-volume callers with a narrow scope. If your primary pain is the sheer volume of payer hold time on benefit and status calls, and you are not looking to consolidate eligibility, denials, and patient voice into one vendor, a payer-call specialist is a clean match for that mental model.
Get a quick price for your facility
Tell us your EHR, specialty, and facility size, and we will scope what Flexbone can run, then give you a price. Book a 30-minute audit.
Frequently asked questions
Is Flexbone an Infinitus alternative?
Yes, and it covers more of the revenue cycle. Infinitus markets an AI voice agent, branded Eva, that automates provider-to-payer phone calls (benefit verification, prior authorization follow-up, claim status) and returns the outcome as data. Flexbone runs that same payer-line calling and the work around it: eligibility reconciled across 270/271, portal, and IVR; prior authorization end-to-end; denials; payment posting; and inbound and outbound patient voice, all inside your EHR and paired with US-based staff through the Nav Central partnership.
Does Flexbone place calls into payer phone lines like Infinitus?
Yes. Flexbone places IVR calls into payer lines for eligibility and prior authorization status, which is the slice Infinitus specializes in. The difference is what happens next. Where a payer-call tool returns the call outcome, Flexbone reconciles it against the EDI and portal response and writes the result into the chart, and it also handles the denial, the payment posting, and the patient-facing calls that a payer-only agent does not touch.
Can Infinitus handle denials and patient calls?
Denials management and patient-facing calls are not marketed as core Infinitus capabilities; the marketed focus is provider-to-payer voice. A claim-status call can report that a claim was denied, but working the appeal is a separate job. Flexbone ingests denials in structured and scanned formats, classifies root cause, drafts the appeal, and resubmits, and runs inbound and outbound patient voice alongside the payer calls.
How does the pricing compare?
Flexbone tends to come in more cost-competitive than a single-purpose tool because one deployment covers eligibility, prior authorization, denials, and patient calls rather than stacking a separate license or per-call fee for each workflow. Flexbone prices per deployment, scoped to facility size, specialty, and volume, not per seat and not per call. Tell us your facility size and specialty for a quick range, or book a 30-minute audit for a fixed price against a mapped scope.
How do the security postures differ?
Infinitus is described by the vendor as HIPAA-compliant and processes payer-call data inside its environment. Flexbone runs a zero-retention architecture: PHI is processed in memory and discarded after the agent takes action, with no retained patient data on Flexbone infrastructure. For compliance teams that have rejected previous AI vendors over data retention, that posture changes the review.
The Bottom Line
These vendors overlap on the payer call and diverge on everything around it.
Choose Infinitus if the outbound provider-to-payer phone call is the one task you want automated and your RCM team already handles the rest. For teams that want benefit verification, prior authorization follow-up, and claim-status calls turned into a clean data feed into an existing stack, a focused voice agent removes a high-volume, repetitive job from staff.
Choose Flexbone if you want those calls plus the work around them in one deployment. Flexbone places the same payer-line IVR calls and then completes the downstream action inside your EHR: it reconciles the eligibility record, runs prior authorization end-to-end, ingests and appeals denials, posts payments, and handles inbound and outbound patient voice, delivered by AI agents paired with US-based staff through the Nav Central partnership.
The question worth asking is not whether the payer call gets automated, since both do that. It is whether the platform also finishes the eligibility record, the authorization, the denial, and the patient call inside the EHR your team uses on Monday morning. For healthcare operators who want the whole workflow handled rather than one slice of it, Flexbone is built for that conversation.
See what Flexbone would run at your facility
One platform for eligibility, prior authorization, denials, and patient calls, built for your EHR. Book a 30-minute audit and we will scope it and price it.