LLM Cost Optimization · Boston, MA
Boston's LLM spend runs through compliant channels: BAA-eligible inference for clinical text, in-tenancy deployments for research data, audit logging on everything. The bills are real and so is the assumption that compliance makes them untouchable. It does not; every major cost lever works inside the boundary.
We audit a month of usage inside your compliant path, baseline cost per workload, and implement the ranked fixes: PHI-safe caching architecture, right-sized routing within your eligible lineup, batch migration, and honest self-host math where the question arises.
Tell us the workload and the compliance frame around it.
The BAA boundary constrains the menu, not the math: batch at half price, prompt caching discounts, and a full range of model sizes all exist inside Azure OpenAI and Bedrock. We benchmark within your eligible lineup and the savings land without a single compliance conversation reopening.
PHI-aware caching is a design pattern, not a risk: stable PHI-free prefixes (instructions, glossaries, schemas) collect the discount; patient context rides volatile and unshared; response caches live as proper PHI stores. Your privacy officer reviews architecture, not promises.
Self-host questions get arithmetic instead of ideology: sustained utilization versus falling API prices, open-weight quality on your eval set, and the engineering attention serving infrastructure consumes. When control of research data justifies the premium, the report prices the premium; when it does not, the report says so.
Compliance overhead is audited separately from engineering debt: logging is storage rounding error, version-pinning lag is scheduled rather than skipped, and the refusal scaffolding stays, because the safety property is the product. The real drivers (bloat, oversizing, missing caching) take the blame they earn.
The standard sequence, tuned for BAA-bounded clinical and research workloads.
A month of usage instrumented inside your BAA path: cost per workload, per document type, and per model, with the compliance posture documented alongside.
PHI-free stable prefixes collecting the discount, patient context kept volatile, and response caches engineered as proper PHI stores.
Right-sized models within Azure OpenAI or Bedrock, gated by your clinician-labeled eval set, with model-and-reason logging intact.
Overnight clinical-document runs moved to half-price batch endpoints under the same BAA, with queue plumbing included.
Sustained-utilization economics, eval-set quality gates, and the control premium priced explicitly, so the GPU conversation ends with a number.
Savings attributed fix by fix, audit trails untouched, and documentation your compliance and finance reviewers both accept.
Boston's healthcare systems, digital-health vendors, and life-sciences teams run LLM workloads where the compliance frame arrived before the cost question. That order is correct, and it leaves a predictable result: pipelines built carefully for the audit and never revisited for the bill. The headroom in such systems is usually large, and all of it is collectible without touching the posture that got them approved.
Research workloads add the campus-infrastructure variant: self-hosting justified by data policy rather than economics, which deserves honest pricing rather than cost-savings theater.
We work with Boston teams remotely, in Eastern hours, with audits typically complete in two weeks and implementation in two to four more.
Tell us the workload, the channel it runs in, and roughly what it costs monthly. We reply within one business day with an audit scope and a fixed price.