Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Claims and Clearinghouse 2016 (Large Organizations)
|
2016
Clearinghouse Services
|
2012
Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2011
|
2011
Ambulatory Clearinghouse
|
2010
Managing the Claim and Getting Paid
|
2009
Ambulatory EDI Claims Clearinghouse
|
2008

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014 Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014
Choosing Between Strong Performers

author - Jonathan Christensen
Author
Jonathan Christensen
 
July 1, 2014 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Clearinghouse vendors have some of the highest-performing solutions that KLAS monitors. However, there are differences, and this report is focused on helping providers make the best purchasing decisions for their specific circumstances.

WORTH KNOWING

how satisfied are you with your vendor

SMALL CUSTOMERS CAN HARDLY GO WRONG:

Smaller clinics looking to select a clearinghouse have a lot of great choices: Availity, Capario, Gateway, Navicure, Office Ally, Practice Insight, and ZirMed all perform exceptionally for smaller organizations. Smaller Allscripts and Emdeon customers are generally satisfied, while smaller Optum and RelayHealth customers are less satisfied. GE has fewer small respondents, whose satisfaction is lower as well.

THE DIFFERENCE IS OFTEN CONSISTENT, QUALITY SERVICE:

ZirMed leads a tight grouping of vendors, including Navicure, Office Ally, Practice Insight, Gateway, Capario, and Availity, who all offer a consistently positive customer experience. Emdeon and RelayHealth customers generally say the tools meet their needs, but the support experience varies widely. Optum customers also report inconsistency. For customers switching vendors, service was the most-cited reason. 

EARLY DATA INDICATES NOT EVERYONE CAN GO BIG:

The majority of the KLAS clearinghouse data has come from smaller clinics, but early data from larger organizations (>30 physicians) indicates that not all vendors scale. GE was the one vendor whose feedback primarily came from larger clinics, who rated GE significantly higher than smaller customers did. Availity and RelayHealth also had many large respondents. Larger Capario, Navicure, and ZirMed customers are equally satisfied. Conversely, larger Emdeon customers struggled. KLAS encountered few larger organizations using Gateway, Office Ally, Optum, or Practice Insight.

performance vs avergae practice size10 percent of customers reported plans to switch because of

BOTTOM LINE ON VENDORS

DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

PRO: Customer-focused support, more proactive outreach (Optum an exception)
 CON: Extra vendors/contracts to deal with

ALLSCRIPTS

Mostly Allscripts PM, medium variability, good mix of large/ small respondents

AVAILITY (REALMED)

PM agnostic, medium variability, good mix of large/ small respondents

GATEWAY EDI

PM agnostic, low variability, few large respondents

GE HEALTHCARE

GE PMs only, medium variability, large customers very satisfied, few small respondents

NAVICURE

PM agnostic, low variability, mostly small to midsize respondents

OFFICE ALLY

PM agnostic, low score variability, payer financed, respondents mostly smaller clinics in West

OPTUM

PM agnostic, high variability, few large respondents

ZIRMED

PM agnostic, low variability, most respondents small to midsize practices  

INDIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

PRO: Single contract with PM vendor
 CON: Less customer-focused proactive support (Practice Insight an exception), potential for finger-pointing with PM vendor

PRACTICE INSIGHT

PM agnostic, many Aprima and Henry Schein PM customers,medium variability, few large respondents

RELAYHEALTH

PM agnostic, high variability, good mix of large/small respondents

BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

CAPARIO

PM agnostic, medium variability, larger and smaller organizations very satisfied

EMDEON

PM agnostic for indirect and eCW PM for direct, high variability— large, multispecialty customers less satisfied

(Note: KLAS’ Emdeon sample is largely indirect)

vendor performnace in large and small facilitieshow consistent is my vendor

Clearinghouse vendors have some of the highest-performing solutions that Klas Monitors. However, there are differences, and this report is focused on helping providers make the best purchasing decisions for their specific circumstances.

author - Robert Ellis
Project Manager
Robert Ellis
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2024 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.

​