Bomi Logo
Billing
Credentialing

Therapy Platforms, Insurance Contracts, and the New Reimbursement Squeeze

By Dax Earl • May 22, 2026

Updated: May 22, 2026.

Over the last few years, platforms like Alma, Headway, Grow Therapy, Rula, and similar companies promised therapists a compelling deal: accept insurance without drowning in credentialing, eligibility checks, claims, denials, and collections.

For many providers, that promise was real. These platforms made it faster to get in network, easier to fill a caseload, and less painful to accept insurance. Some also offered reimbursement rates that were higher than what many solo clinicians could negotiate on their own.

But recent reimbursement changes suggest the platform model is entering a new phase. The early platform bargain may be getting worse for therapists as large insurers renegotiate rates, standardize payments, and push more cost control into platform contracts.

The key business risk: when your insurance relationship runs through a platform, the platform usually owns the payer contract. You may get access and convenience, but you may not control the rate terms that determine your reimbursement.

Shameless plug, because this is exactly the problem Bomi exists around: if you are trying to compare platform billing, direct credentialing, payer mix, or rate auditing, Bomi can help with credentialing, claims, eligibility, denials, and revenue management. And if you are still building the foundation, Bomi Build is the hands-on launch hub.

Sections

TL;DR: The Platform Bargain Is Changing

Digital therapy platforms grew by solving a real problem: insurance is hard to manage as an independent clinician.

But as these platforms scale, their relationships with insurance companies are becoming more complicated. Recent examples include Optum-related rate cuts affecting Alma and Headway providers in late 2024 and Aetna-related reimbursement changes affecting Alma providers in 2026.

ClearHealthCosts reported that the 2024 Optum cuts ranged from a few dollars per visit to as much as 30%, and that Alma and Headway described the cuts as tied to contract renewals with Optum. Read the ClearHealthCosts follow-up.

The current Alma/Aetna issue appears to continue that pattern. The public provider discussion quotes Alma as saying that, starting July 15, 2026, Aetna sessions billed as 90837 through Alma will be reimbursed at the same rate as 90834, while Alma says it disagrees with the change and is gathering provider feedback to share with Aetna. See the r/therapists megathread.

The broader trend: platforms are becoming larger, more payer-facing, more employer-facing, and more focused on scale, outcomes, and cost management. Therapists need to plan around that reality.

How Platforms Made Insurance Easier

The original pitch was simple and attractive: join a platform, get credentialed faster, bill insurance more easily, receive referrals, and avoid much of the administrative work that makes insurance-based private practice exhausting.

Headway markets itself to providers as a way to accept insurance with less friction, get credentialed in multiple states, earn enhanced rates, and receive regular payments. Headway's provider page makes that promise directly.

Alma's insurance program similarly markets payer access, billing support, and enhanced rates. Alma also says new members are required to join Alma's insurance program and credential with at least one payer partner, and that providers must be credentialed under Alma's Tax ID even if they are already individually credentialed with those payers. Alma's insurance program page.

That last detail matters because it shows the center of gravity: the therapist may be the one providing care, but the platform is the entity managing the insurance relationship.

The Contract Tradeoff Therapists Can Miss

When a therapist bills through a platform's payer contract, the therapist may get convenience, speed, referrals, and a simpler claims workflow. But they usually do not control the payer contract.

If the platform's payer contract changes, the therapist's economics can change too. That can feel very different from direct credentialing, where the therapist or practice owns the contract relationship and at least knows which terms they are operating under.

This is the tradeoff: platforms can reduce administrative burden, but they can also reduce contract control. A high platform rate today is not the same thing as a portable direct contract.

Optum Rate Cuts Were the Warning Shot

The first major warning sign came in late 2024, when therapists on Alma and Headway reported UnitedHealth/Optum-related rate cuts.

ClearHealthCosts reported that the reductions affected multiple mental health procedures and varied by state, license type, and CPT code. Some therapists described reductions of a few dollars per visit; others reported losses as high as $43 per visit or about 30%. The publication also reported that Alma and Headway said the cuts were tied to contract renewals with Optum. Read the initial ClearHealthCosts reporting.

That matters because it showed a structural risk in the platform model. Therapists may have joined because the platform rate looked better than direct contracting. But when the payer/platform contract renewed, the economics changed.

ClearHealthCosts' follow-up also highlighted the core contract issue: large platforms may credential clinicians faster and sometimes negotiate higher rates, but the clinician does not hold the health plan contract. That means the clinician has little direct leverage when the rate drops. Read the follow-up analysis.

Alma and Aetna Look Like the Next Version

The current Aetna/Alma situation appears to be the next version of the same pattern: a platform-mediated insurance relationship changing in a way that directly affects provider reimbursement.

The most widely circulated provider communication says that, beginning July 15, 2026, Aetna sessions billed through Alma using CPT code 90837 will be reimbursed at the same rate as CPT code 90834. Alma's quoted announcement says it disagrees with the change and is collecting anonymous provider feedback to share with Aetna. See the public discussion.

This does not appear to mean that 90837 no longer exists. CMS coding guidance still distinguishes psychotherapy time ranges: 90834 is generally 38-52 minutes, while 90837 is 53 minutes or more. CMS describes psychotherapy codes as time-based.

The issue is reimbursement. A longer session may still be clinically appropriate and correctly coded as 90837, but under the reported Alma/Aetna change, it may no longer be paid at a higher rate than 90834.

Is This an Aetna-Wide Policy Change?

So far, I would describe this as an Aetna-related reimbursement change through Alma, not a confirmed universal Aetna policy change for every therapist in every contract.

I did not find a public Aetna bulletin stating that Aetna is equalizing 90837 and 90834 reimbursement across all behavioral health contracts. Aetna's public fee schedule guidance points contracted providers to Availity and related provider tools for payment estimates and fee schedules, which means contract-specific rate changes may not appear as broad public policy announcements. Aetna's fee schedule guidance.

The cautious read: this appears to be a payer/platform contract issue, not a change to the CPT code itself. For Alma providers with Aetna clients, the practical impact can still be significant.

Why the Spring Health-Alma Deal Matters

The timing of the Aetna/Alma change has raised questions because Alma is now part of Spring Health. Spring Health announced on May 1, 2026 that it completed its acquisition of Alma. The announcement says the combined organization supports more than 170 million lives globally across employers and health plans, and that the integration will use shared infrastructure, data, and technology while helping employers and health plans manage total cost of care. Read Spring Health's announcement.

That does not prove Spring caused the Aetna reimbursement change. It does matter strategically.

Alma is no longer just a standalone therapist-enablement platform. It now sits inside a larger company whose customers include employers, health plans, and benefits buyers. Fierce Healthcare reported that Spring wanted Alma partly because of Alma's provider infrastructure and national and regional payer relationships. Fierce Healthcare covered the deal.

This is the broader direction of the market: therapy platforms are becoming infrastructure for health plans, employers, and large-scale mental health benefits, not only administrative helpers for independent clinicians.

The Market Is Moving Toward Scale

This shift is not limited to Alma.

Grow Therapy announced a $150 million Series D in 2026 and described the funding as part of a plan to connect insurers, employers, and health systems to integrated mental health care. Grow also said that in 2025 it facilitated seven million visits and that its platform is being extended to employers and health systems. Read Grow's funding announcement.

Headway raised $100 million in Series D funding in 2024, reaching a reported $2.3 billion valuation. Fierce Healthcare reported that Headway had 34,000 in-network providers, more than 40 insurance plans, and more than 600,000 therapy appointments per month at that time. Read Fierce Healthcare's Headway coverage.

Rula says it works with more than 100 commercial insurance plans and lists 21,000+ licensed providers on its site. See Rula's site.

These companies are no longer small tools sitting at the edge of private practice. They are scaled networks. Once a network becomes large enough, it becomes a major negotiating counterparty for payers.

Why Payer-Platform Deals May Be Getting Tighter

The simplest explanation is leverage.

In the early growth phase, payers had reasons to work with platforms: platforms could quickly expand behavioral health access, reduce ghost-network problems, simplify provider onboarding, and help members find care.

But once platforms reach scale, payers have reasons to renegotiate. They can ask whether rates are higher than necessary, whether longer sessions are being used more often than expected, whether credential-based premiums are justified, and whether reimbursement can be standardized without losing network access.

Headway has publicly acknowledged the fragility of the model. In a post explaining how Headway makes money, the company says the amount it keeps depends on the strength of the rates it negotiates, and that when a plan offers lower rates, Headway does not always earn money on sessions. Read Headway's explanation.

That sentence says a lot. If a platform's margin depends on payer reimbursement and the payer pushes rates down, someone eventually absorbs the pressure: the platform, the therapist, or both.

Why Therapists Feel Blindsided

Many therapists joined these platforms because they wanted to avoid the worst parts of insurance administration. They were not trying to become experts in payer contracting, fee schedules, CAQH, Availity, denials, EOBs, clawbacks, and rate audits.

But the platform model can make rate risk feel invisible until it is suddenly very visible.

A direct-contract therapist at least knows: this is my payer contract, these are my rates, and this is my negotiation problem. A platform-based therapist may instead discover that their rate changed because a contract they do not control was renegotiated upstream.

That does not make platforms useless. It does make them less predictable than many therapists originally assumed.

Convenience vs. Contract Control

The tradeoff is becoming clearer. Platforms can offer real value:

  • Faster credentialing

  • Easier claims submission

  • Patient matching and referral flow

  • Benefit checks

  • Payment predictability

  • EHR, telehealth, or documentation tools

  • Less administrative burden

But therapists may give up:

  • Control over payer contracts

  • Direct rate negotiation

  • Clarity into how rates are set

  • Portability of network status

  • Leverage when rates change

  • Independence from platform-level business decisions

Grow's provider help center makes this explicit for its own model: if a provider leaves Grow, their enrollment status does not transfer outside Grow because the enrollment process adds the provider to Grow's group contracts. Read Grow's enrollment FAQ.

That is not unique to Grow. It is the nature of the group-contract/platform model.

Questions to Ask Before Relying on a Platform

Before building a caseload around a platform, therapists should ask direct business questions:

  • Who owns the payer contract? Are you directly credentialed, or credentialed under the platform's group Tax ID?

  • Are rates portable? If you leave the platform, can you continue seeing the same payer clients in network under your own practice?

  • How much notice is given before rates change? Does the platform guarantee any rate floor, or can reimbursement change when payer contracts change?

  • How are 90834 and 90837 reimbursed? Are longer sessions paid differently? Are there payer-specific rules or documentation expectations?

  • Are rates different by credential type? Do psychologists, LCSWs, LMFTs, LCPCs, and other providers receive different reimbursement?

  • What is the true cost of using the platform? Is there a subscription fee, a revenue share, reduced reimbursement, or another indirect cost?

  • What is the backup plan? If a major payer rate drops, can the practice move to direct credentialing, diversify payer mix, or transition some clients to another billing pathway?

What Therapists Can Do Now

The answer is not necessarily to leave every platform. A better answer is to build optionality.

Therapists should know which payers drive their revenue, which CPT codes they bill most often, how much of their caseload depends on one platform, and what direct credentialing would look like if the platform rate became unsustainable.

This is also a good time to audit reimbursement. Many practices do not know whether they are being paid the correct contracted rate on every claim. Rate changes, payer carve-outs, plan-specific rules, secondary claims, and EOB posting errors can all quietly affect revenue.

  • Pull recent EOBs and compare paid amounts by payer, plan, CPT code, and location.

  • Separate platform-paid claims from direct-contract claims so the practice can see where revenue depends on a third-party contract.

  • Track whether 90837, 90834, intake codes, family codes, and add-on codes are changing at the same pace.

  • Review client concentration by payer and platform so one contract change does not surprise the practice.

  • Decide which payers are worth direct credentialing and which are better left on a platform, if any.

Where Bomi Fits

At Bomi, we are not anti-platform. Platforms solved a real problem. They made insurance participation easier for many therapists, and in some situations they still make sense.

But we are pro-transparency, pro-sustainability, and pro-provider control.

Bomi helps therapy practices with credentialing, insurance verification, claims management, denial tracking, stale claim monitoring, revenue management, rate negotiation, and rate payout auditing. Bomi's pricing is a flat 4% of net collections, and the work is designed to happen inside the EHR a practice already uses. See Bomi's pricing and service details.

The better question is not simply: "Should I stay on Alma, Headway, Grow, Rula, or another platform?"

The better question is: "What mix of direct credentialing, platform billing, private pay, out-of-network billing, and payer diversification gives my practice the most stability?"

That answer will be different for every clinician. The goal is not purity. The goal is a revenue model you understand and can survive.

Bottom Line

The direction of the market is clear: therapy platforms are getting bigger, more integrated with payers and employers, and more exposed to payer cost-control pressure.

That does not make them bad. It makes them more like the rest of the insurance system.

The risk for therapists is assuming that a platform rate is permanent, that platform credentialing is the same as owning a direct payer contract, or that payer negotiations will always favor providers.

The recent Optum and Aetna examples suggest otherwise. Therapists do not need to panic, but they do need to understand the business model they are participating in.

A platform can help you accept insurance. It may even help you grow faster. But if the payer contract belongs to the platform, your reimbursement is only as stable as that platform's next negotiation.

FAQ

Are therapy platforms like Alma, Headway, Grow, and Rula bad for therapists?

Not necessarily. Platforms can be useful for speed, payer access, referrals, and administrative support. The risk is assuming the platform arrangement gives you the same control as a direct payer contract.

What is the main reimbursement risk?

The main risk is contract control. If you are billing under a platform's payer contract, the platform and payer may renegotiate rates in a way that affects your reimbursement, even though you did not personally negotiate the change.

What happened with Optum, Alma, and Headway?

ClearHealthCosts reported that Alma and Headway providers experienced Optum-related rate cuts in late 2024, with reported reductions varying by state, license type, CPT code, and platform. Alma and Headway described those cuts as tied to contract renewals with Optum.

What is the Alma/Aetna 90837 issue?

The public provider discussion says Alma told providers that, starting July 15, 2026, Aetna sessions billed as 90837 through Alma will be reimbursed at the same rate as 90834. That does not appear to change what 90837 means; it appears to change how the session is reimbursed under that arrangement.

Should therapists direct credential instead?

Sometimes. Direct credentialing can provide more contract control and portability, but it also requires more administrative infrastructure. Many practices may use a mix of direct contracts, platform contracts, private pay, and out-of-network billing.

How can Bomi help?

Bomi helps therapy practices with credentialing, insurance verification, claims, denials, stale claim monitoring, revenue management, rate negotiation, and rate payout auditing. That can help practices compare direct credentialing, platform billing, and payer diversification with cleaner data.

Sources