Skip to main content
Professional Services

Payer software, with the expertise to put it to work.

CMS-0057-F. Core administration. Interoperability. Deployment. Cloud Health Office pairs payer interoperability software with practical implementation expertise, so a health plan can modernize at the pace its environment actually allows — and keep the systems it already depends on.

Software first Flexible deployment Independent architecture review

CMS-0057-F is the federal rule that requires Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, CHIP, and some exchange plans to offer FHIR APIs for patient access, provider access, payer-to-payer exchange, and prior authorization by January 1, 2027.

The shape of the company

Software when you need software. Expertise when you need expertise.

Cloud Health Office is a payer technology product. Professional Services exists because software alone does not finish the job: a CMS-0057-F surface has to land in a real environment, beside a real core administration platform, inside a real cloud-governance model. These are three ways to engage the same company — and health plans often use all three.

How Cloud Health Office reaches a health plan
Cloud Health Office

Software

  • CMS-0057-F platform
  • FHIR R4 and Da Vinci workflows
  • Core administration adapters
  • Progressive modernization
  • Evidence and testing

Deployment

  • Payer-controlled cloud
  • Aurelianware-managed
  • Hybrid operations
  • Shared responsibility
  • Hosted model under evaluation

Services

  • Implementation
  • Architecture
  • Vendor and SOW review
  • Fractional architect
Health plan

Cloud Health Office remains a product company. Professional Services is how the product reaches a payer environment intact — not a pivot to consulting. Where a plan needs only advice, it can have only advice.

Why this exists

Payer technology decisions cross more boundaries than any one vendor owns.

A single CMS-0057-F program touches regulatory requirements, legacy core behavior, vendor contracts, interoperability standards, cloud governance, security controls, and the operational workflows people actually run. Cloud Health Office exists to help payer teams reason across those boundaries and implement software in a way that fits their organization.

The gap

Requirements are written in FHIR. Operations run on the core.

Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS describe workflows in resources and profiles. The authorization, benefit, and claim data those workflows need still lives in a core administration platform whose data model predates the rule. Somebody has to design that boundary deliberately.

The gap

Scope is agreed before the architecture is understood.

Interoperability statements of work are frequently signed before assumptions, exclusions, dependencies, and interface ownership are written down. The cost of that shows up later as change requests, integration surprises, and unclear go-live responsibilities.

The gap

Deployment is a security and governance question, not just a technical one.

Where software runs determines who reviews it, who operates it, whose identity provider it trusts, and whose observability sees it. Those answers differ by plan, and a single fixed operating model cannot serve all of them.

The gap

No single vendor sees the whole program.

Core administration, clearinghouse, utilization management, provider portal, identity, and cloud platform teams each hold part of the picture. Someone has to hold the payer-side architecture view across all of them.

Professional Services

Programs, architecture, and implementation.

Each engagement is scoped to a health plan's environment. Deliverables below describe what an engagement of that type typically produces; the actual scope, sequence, and outputs are agreed before work begins.

Service 01

CMS-0057-F Readiness and Architecture Assessment

A structured current-state evaluation of what a health plan has, what the rule requires, and what stands between the two. Written from the plan's perspective, including where an existing vendor or system is already the right answer.

Areas an assessment can examine

  • Patient Access API
  • Provider Access API
  • Payer-to-Payer API
  • Prior Authorization API
  • Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS
  • FHIR R4 profiles and terminology
  • SMART on FHIR and OAuth 2.0
  • Authorization workflow and identity
  • Core administration integration
  • Clearinghouse integration
  • Vendor dependencies
  • Operational readiness
  • Observability and auditability
  • Implementation sequencing
  • Deployment and operating-model requirements

Likely output

  • Current-state findings
  • Architecture observations
  • Prioritized gaps
  • Dependency map
  • Risk register
  • Deployment considerations
  • Vendor responsibility matrix
  • Implementation roadmap
  • Recommended next steps

An assessment is an engineering and architecture opinion. It is not a regulatory determination and not legal advice, and it does not certify compliance with CMS-0057-F or any other rule.

Service 02

Cloud Health Office Implementation Services

For plans that have chosen Cloud Health Office: getting it deployed, integrated, configured, tested, and operable in their environment — then handed to their team. Scope depends on the selected deployment model and the customer environment.

Potential activities

  • Discovery and environment planning
  • Deployment architecture
  • Integration design
  • Configuration
  • Identity and access integration
  • FHIR and Da Vinci workflow implementation
  • Core administration integration
  • Clearinghouse integration

Through to operations

  • Testing and validation
  • Observability configuration
  • Release planning
  • Documentation
  • Go-live readiness review
  • Operational handoff to the plan's engineering team

See how deployment and operating models differ →

Service 03

Core Administration Advisory

For health plans operating QNXT, Facets, HealthEdge, or another core administration platform. The objective is to extend the value of an existing core investment while creating a practical path toward modern interoperability — not to argue for a replacement.

Architecture and integration

  • Integration architecture
  • Architecture review
  • API versus database versus transaction integration patterns
  • Identifying functions that should remain in the core
  • Identifying functions that can be implemented beside the core
  • Deployment-boundary planning
  • Shared-responsibility design

Strategy and sequencing

  • Modernization strategy
  • Vendor proposal evaluation
  • Implementation option analysis
  • Build-versus-buy analysis
  • Progressive domain modernization
  • Migration and cutover planning

QNXT work carries the deepest practical experience — roughly two decades across QCSI, TriZetto, and Cognizant, described on the founder page. That is career experience, not a certification, partnership, endorsement, or authorized-implementer relationship with any vendor, and we make no such claim.

Service 04

Vendor and SOW Technical Review

Before signing a major interoperability or core-administration statement of work, understand exactly what is being proposed, what is excluded, what dependencies exist, and how the proposed architecture will operate in your environment.

Review areas

  • Assumptions and exclusions
  • Responsibilities and dependencies
  • Interfaces and architecture
  • Data ownership
  • Environments
  • Transaction ownership
  • Security
  • Testing

Delivery and operations

  • Operational support model
  • Implementation estimates
  • Change-request exposure
  • Go-live responsibilities
  • Deployment ownership
  • Support boundaries
  • Integration responsibilities between vendors

This is not an adversarial exercise and it is not a promise of savings. The purpose is to help a health plan and its vendors establish clearer scope, responsibilities, and technical expectations — which usually makes the vendor's delivery easier, too.

Read: 10 questions to ask your CAPS vendor before signing a CMS-0057-F SOW →

Service 05

Interoperability and Prior Authorization Implementation Advisory

Architecture and implementation expertise spanning the boundary between modern FHIR workflows and existing payer operations — where most prior authorization programs actually get difficult.

FHIR and Da Vinci

  • FHIR R4
  • Da Vinci CRD, DTR, PAS
  • OAuth 2.0 and SMART on FHIR
  • Terminology services
  • Prior authorization lifecycle

X12 and payer operations

  • X12 270/271 eligibility
  • X12 276/277 claim status
  • X12 278 authorization
  • X12 275 attachments and 277CA
  • Clearinghouse integration
  • Provider portals
  • Payer and provider integration architecture
  • Core administration integration
  • Deployment and operational architecture

Depending on the plan's architecture, Cloud Health Office may serve as the implementation platform, an integration layer, a complementary service, a deployment component, a reference architecture, or one part of a broader vendor ecosystem. It does not need to own every workflow to be useful.

See the prior authorization evidence →

Service 06

Fractional Payer Solution Architect

Ongoing senior payer architecture leadership for organizations that need design authority on a program without necessarily hiring a full-time principal architect. This can support a Cloud Health Office implementation, a broader modernization program, or an entirely independent architecture effort.

Design authority

  • Architecture leadership
  • Technical design authority
  • Vendor design reviews
  • Integration and implementation planning
  • Architectural decision records

Program participation

  • Technical escalations
  • Go-live reviews
  • Executive technical communication
  • Roadmap evaluation
  • Deployment-model and operating-model design
  • Vendor coordination
Professional Services

Payer operations and core administration.

Technical and operational expertise for maintaining, validating, troubleshooting, and modernizing payer operations. This is the work that sits underneath every interoperability program: whether a claim priced correctly, why a payment moved after a release, and which layer of configuration actually caused it.

What this is not. This is not business process outsourcing, an outsourced claims department, or staffing. The work is payer technology — configuration, validation, architecture, and operational problem solving — performed alongside your team, not instead of it.

Service 07

Fee Schedule and Reimbursement Services

Fee schedule changes are among the highest-consequence configuration events a health plan performs, and the blast radius is rarely obvious before the claims run. These engagements are about knowing what a change will do before production finds out.

Analysis and loading

  • Analyze current fee schedule configurations
  • Load or update new fee schedules
  • Validate effective dates
  • Compare old and new reimbursement schedules
  • Identify material payment differences

Validation and impact

  • Create representative test scenarios
  • Validate reimbursement calculations
  • Review provider and contract dependencies
  • Assess downstream claims impact
  • Support implementation into the existing core administration platform

We work with the fee schedules, code sets, and contract terms a health plan already holds and is licensed to use. Cloud Health Office does not supply proprietary fee schedules or licensed code sets as part of an engagement, and payer-confidential reimbursement information is never published or exposed.

Service 08

Claims Repricing and Payment Validation

Expected-versus-actual reimbursement, at a scale that makes the answer trustworthy. The goal is to turn “this payment looks wrong” into a specific, reproducible finding attributable to a specific configuration layer.

Analysis

  • Repricing analysis
  • Expected-versus-actual reimbursement comparison
  • Payment variance analysis
  • Configuration defect identification
  • Explanation of the pricing logic that produced a result

Testing and assurance

  • Large-scale regression testing
  • Claim scenario testing
  • Validation before a production deployment
  • Validation following a configuration change
  • Documented findings your team can act on

Where it fits the engagement, Cloud Health Office technology can act as a testing, comparison, simulation, or validation accelerator — running scenarios beside the core rather than in place of it. It is not a replacement for contracted repricing networks, provider contracts, or third-party pricing services.

See the public repricing tool →

Service 09

Core Administration Operational Support

Production-facing technical support across QNXT, Facets, HealthEdge, and other payer core administration systems — the investigation and validation work, not the day-to-day operation of your department.

Investigation

  • Configuration assessment
  • Production issue investigation and triage
  • Root-cause analysis
  • Integration troubleshooting
  • Payment discrepancy analysis
  • Batch and interface analysis
  • Vendor escalation support

Change and release

  • Benefit and accumulator configuration review
  • Provider reimbursement and contract configuration support
  • Provider configuration and reference data
  • Code-set and terminology updates
  • Configuration-change validation and regression testing
  • Pre-production payment comparison and post-deployment validation
  • Operational workflow review and release readiness
  • Modernization of manual payer workflows

QNXT carries the deepest practical experience, described on the founder page. As everywhere else on this site, that is career experience — not a certification, partnership, endorsement, or authorized-implementer relationship with any vendor.

When plans typically call

Before a change

Updating a fee schedule and need confidence that claims will reimburse correctly?

We analyze the configuration, build representative scenarios, and compare expected against actual before the change reaches production.

After a release

Seeing unexpected payment differences after a configuration release?

We reproduce the variance, isolate the change that caused it, and document the finding with the claims that demonstrate it.

Independent check

Need independent validation before moving a reimbursement change into production?

A second set of eyes on the configuration and the test evidence, written from the health plan's perspective rather than the implementing party's.

Which layer?

Not sure whether a pricing issue is contracts, fee schedules, provider configuration, benefits, or adjudication?

Isolating the layer is most of the work. We test each one in turn and report where the behavior actually originates.

What an operations engagement does not promise

  • No guaranteed recovery amount, payment-accuracy rate, or financial outcome.
  • No proprietary fee schedules, licensed code sets, or contractual reimbursement data supplied by us.
  • No publication or exposure of payer-confidential reimbursement information.
  • No replacement of contracted repricing networks, provider contracts, or third-party pricing services.
  • Findings are engineering analysis of configuration and behavior, not an audit opinion or legal advice.

Solve it once, then make it a product capability

The point of this practice is not billable hours. Every operations engagement is also a search for the repeatable pattern underneath a one-off problem — and repeatable patterns belong in software.

1 · Solve the immediate payer problem

Analyze the configuration, test the scenarios, validate the outcome, document the finding.

2 · Identify the repeatable pattern

The same question asked by a different plan, about a different fee schedule, on a different core.

3 · Automate the pattern in Cloud Health Office

Turn the manual analysis into product capability so the next plan does not pay for the same work.

Candidate capabilities identified this way — fee schedule version comparison, reimbursement simulation, bulk claim replay, expected-versus-actual payment comparison, configurable pricing test scenarios, claim explainability reports, regression test harnesses, provider contract test cases, configuration impact analysis, pricing variance dashboards, reference-data validation, and audit evidence generation — are tracked on the product roadmap. They are candidates under evaluation, not shipped features, and none of them is a commitment.

Operating models

A deployment model that matches your organization, not ours.

Health plans differ on security, data residency, cloud governance, procurement, operational ownership, internal engineering capacity, vendor-management policy, network architecture, compliance controls, disaster recovery, observability, support responsibilities, and release management. Cloud Health Office is designed to adapt to those requirements rather than force one model.

Payer-controlled cloud

Available

Deployed into the health plan's own approved Azure, AWS, or GCP environment. The plan owns the subscription, the network, and the data.

Aurelianware-managed

Deployed into a payer-controlled or otherwise agreed environment, with Aurelianware providing some or all operational support. Responsibilities are defined per engagement.

Hybrid / shared responsibility

The plan owns the cloud account, network, identity, and security policy; Aurelianware manages application deployment and supports releases and troubleshooting.

Aurelianware-operated SaaS

Under evaluation

A software-as-a-service model operated by Aurelianware is under evaluation. It is not offered today, and nothing on this site should be read as a commitment to its availability or timing.

The right operating model depends on your organization's cloud standards, security requirements, engineering capacity, procurement process, and desired level of operational control. Neither a payer-controlled deployment nor a hosted model is automatically the better answer.

Audience

Who this is designed for.

These engagements are built for the people who have to make payer technology decisions defensible — technically, operationally, and contractually.

  • Payer CIOs and CTOs
  • Chief and enterprise architects
  • Interoperability leaders
  • CMS-0057-F program leaders
  • Claims and core administration leaders
  • Medicaid MCO technology teams
  • Medicare Advantage technology teams
  • Health plan PMO and program leadership
  • Payer engineering and platform teams
  • Security and cloud-governance leaders
  • Vendor-management and procurement leaders
  • Implementation partners evaluating complementary technology
Product and services

Advice is not a sales funnel.

A health plan does not need to purchase or deploy Cloud Health Office in order to engage Professional Services, and Cloud Health Office technology is recommended only where it is appropriate. The two sides of the company meet in the middle, not at the start.

Advisory

  • Independent assessment
  • Architecture
  • Implementation guidance
  • Vendor and SOW review

Platform

  • CMS-0057-F technology
  • FHIR and Da Vinci
  • Core adapters
  • Modernization capabilities
  • Deployment flexibility

Both

  • When software and implementation expertise together provide the best path
  • Assessment carried into implementation without losing architectural continuity

Cloud Health Office is a layer, not a replacement for everything

Cloud Health Office is designed to work alongside the systems health plans already depend on. We help connect modern interoperability requirements to existing payer operations, and the platform can complement core administration platforms, clearinghouses, utilization-management systems, provider portals, and implementation partners. The goal is not to replace every system; it is to make the overall payer technology environment more capable, adaptable, and easier to modernize.

Where the platform sits

Health plan operations

Claims, authorization, enrollment, provider, and member operations as the plan runs them today.

Existing core, vendors, clearinghouse

Core administration platform, utilization management, provider portal, clearinghouse, and the implementation partners already engaged.

Cloud Health Office

The interoperability and modernization layer: adapters, workflow implementation, evidence, and audit surface.

FHIR / Da Vinci / CMS-0057-F workflows

Patient Access, Provider Access, Payer-to-Payer, and Prior Authorization APIs exposed to the outside world.

Where Aurelianware can help a Cloud Health Office customer

  • Selecting a deployment model
  • Planning the environment
  • Integrating with existing systems
  • Implementing workflows
  • Coordinating vendors
  • Preparing for operations
  • Transitioning to the health plan's engineering team
  • Providing ongoing managed or shared support where that is in scope for the engagement

We work alongside existing vendors while independently evaluating architecture, scope, assumptions, dependencies, and alternatives from the health plan's perspective. We do not position any named vendor as an adversary, and we do not claim certification by, affiliation with, endorsement from, or an implementation partnership with any of them.

Engagement

Engagement models.

Engagements are scoped to the problem, not sold from a rate card. Fees and duration are agreed per engagement after a scoping conversation.

Evidence, not adjectives

The same standard applies to the advice and the software.

Cloud Health Office publishes its architecture, its benchmark artifacts, and its limitations. An engagement is held to the same standard: findings are written so they can be checked.

Evidence hub

Published implementation evidence

Prior authorization, payer-to-payer, provider access security, and Da Vinci interoperability evidence — each with its scope and limits stated.

Open the evidence hub →
Architecture

Replace versus augment

How the same FHIR and Da Vinci boundary behaves when Cloud Health Office is the record versus when a core administration platform stays authoritative.

Read the architecture note →
Benchmark

Million Claim Challenge

1,000,000 deterministic synthetic claims on local Docker Desktop Kubernetes at 155.89 claims/sec, zero dead letters, with published artifacts. Local engineering evidence, not a production-cloud capacity claim.

See the run artifacts →
Documentation

Architecture documentation

Service boundaries, persistence decisions, event evidence, and the architectural decision records behind them.

Read the architecture docs →
Experience

Who you will be working with

Twenty-five years in payer systems, roughly two decades across the QNXT lineage at QCSI, TriZetto, and Cognizant, and core architecture inside a health plan.

Read the founder page →
Source

Source-available platform

The platform is source-available under BSL 1.1, so a security or architecture team can read the code before anyone signs anything.

View the repository →
Reference site

cms-0057-f.com

Our companion reference property for the rule itself: what CMS-0057-F requires, how CRD, DTR and PAS fit together, and what it means beside an existing core. Regulatory guidance lives there; software, deployment and services live here.

Open the reference site →

Disclosure. cms-0057-f.com is operated by Aurelianware, Inc., the same company behind Cloud Health Office. It exists to explain the regulation and the implementation choices around it, including where Cloud Health Office is not the answer. Commercial information — pricing, deployment, Professional Services, and engagement — is published here on cloudhealthoffice.com so that the reference material and the sales material stay separable.

What we do not claim

  • No guarantee of regulatory compliance, and no legal advice.
  • No guaranteed cost savings, implementation timeline, or program outcome.
  • No certification, partnership, endorsement, or authorized-implementer status with any named vendor.
  • No security attestation, uptime commitment, or production-scale claim beyond the published evidence.
  • No named customers, production deployments, or consulting references are claimed on this site.
Questions

Frequently asked.

Do we have to buy Cloud Health Office to engage Professional Services?

No. A health plan can engage Professional Services for an assessment, an architecture review, or a vendor and SOW review without licensing or deploying Cloud Health Office. The product is recommended only where it fits the requirement.

Does Cloud Health Office replace our core administration platform?

It does not have to. Cloud Health Office is designed to run alongside the systems a health plan already depends on, including core administration platforms, clearinghouses, utilization-management systems, and provider portals. Replacing a core is a separate decision, made on the plan's own timeline.

Which deployment models are available today?

Deployment into a payer-controlled cloud environment and free local evaluation are available today and documented in the public repository. Aurelianware-managed deployment and hybrid shared-responsibility operation are offered by engagement, with responsibilities defined per environment. A general Aurelianware-operated SaaS offering is under evaluation and is not offered today.

Will an assessment always recommend Cloud Health Office?

No. Findings are written from the health plan's perspective and can conclude that existing systems, an incumbent vendor, or a different product is the better path. Where Cloud Health Office is the right fit, the product and services teams can carry the work from assessment into implementation without losing architectural continuity.

Is Cloud Health Office a certified or authorized partner of a core administration vendor?

No. We make no claim of certification, affiliation, endorsement, or implementation partnership with any named vendor. The experience with these platforms comes from a career spent building and integrating them, described on the founder page.

Do you only work on interoperability programs?

No. Professional Services also covers payer operations and core administration work: fee schedule and reimbursement configuration, claims repricing and payment validation, and production issue investigation on QNXT, Facets, HealthEdge, and other core platforms. This is technical and configuration work performed alongside the health plan's team; it is not business process outsourcing, an outsourced claims department, or staffing.

Can Professional Services work alongside our existing system integrator?

Yes. A common pattern is payer-side architecture participation while an implementation partner or incumbent vendor owns delivery of adjacent systems. The goal is clearer scope, responsibilities, and technical expectations across the whole program, not a contest between vendors.

How does an engagement start?

A scoping conversation. Tell us the environment, the deadline, and the decision you are trying to make, and we will tell you whether this is an assessment, a focused review, an implementation, or something we should not be doing at all.

Independent advice. Practical implementation. Software when it fits.

Tell us what you are trying to decide. You will be talking to the architect who built the platform, not a queue.

Please do not send PHI, member data, claim data, production credentials, or other sensitive production information through the contact form.