KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2020
Related Segments
340B 2023
Functionality & Pricing Drive Purchase Decisions
Author
Jackson Tate
Author
Jennifer Hickenlooper
Purchasing energy in the 340B market has been high in recent years as (1) healthcare organizations have sought to increase savings, particularly in cost centers like pharmacies, and (2) 340B vendors have expanded the types of customers they serve. This report examines 49 recent purchase decisions validated by KLAS between October 2020 and October 2022 to understand why certain vendors are seeing the most purchase energy and who is being replaced. When available, satisfaction data from current customers is also included.
PharmaForce Highly Considered and Selected Thanks to Functionality and Rapport during Sales Process
Newer entrant PharmaForce, who initially started in contract pharmacy, is the 2023 Best in KLAS winner† for 340B and is highly considered and selected in this report sample. Though PharmaForce has historically served ambulatory and critical access organizations, large-organization customers also report satisfaction. Organizations who select the vendor cite reasons like ease of use, the ability to customize the solution, and the vendor’s engagement during the sales process. Additionally, the pricing is seen as transparent, predictable, and fair. PharmaForce’s one validated replacement is due to the organization consolidating systems. Current customers say that as the vendor has grown their customer base over the past two years, they have provided a consistently good experience. It remains to be seen how well the vendor will scale as they continue to work with an increasing number of large organizations.
† Performance data for the 2023 Best in KLAS report was collected between December 2021 and December 2022.
Large Organizations Look to Verity Solutions Due to Consistency and System Capabilities
Verity Solutions is a longtime 340B vendor that has set a high standard in the market with their proactive, high-touch support model. They are most often selected by large acute organizations, whom they typically serve; the vendor has also recently seen growth among smaller organizations. Reasons for selection include the solution’s strong reporting capabilities, the vendor’s reputable consistency, and the customer service structure, which includes dedicated account managers. Organizations who considered but didn’t select Verity Solutions say other solutions’ usability and pricing are more appealing. Three organizations plan to replace Verity Solutions—one cites system consolidation, another says the system’s contract pharmacy capabilities don’t meet their organization’s needs, and the final organization reports a poor experience post-implementation. Current customers say Verity Solutions is a consistently high performer that has maintained their culture, support, and customer relationships over the years, particularly while transitioning customers from legacy products and after being acquired by Cigna in 2019. McKesson-owned Macro Helix is also highly considered in this data sample and is typically chosen by smaller acute organizations. One factor that drives selections is the vendor’s relationship with McKesson’s wholesaler division, which facilitates smooth integration. Those who considered but didn’t select Macro Helix point to the pricing structure and the lagging technology and reporting.
Sentry Data Systems and Macro Helix Most Frequently Being Replaced; Customers Cite Functionality, Relationship, and Pricing
Sentry Data Systems (now The Craneware Group) and Macro Helix both have six wins and are most often up for replacement. Sentry Data Systems—which was purchased by The Craneware Group in 2021—has customers who report seeing positive changes in recent years. Still, many have experienced challenges, leading them to replace the vendor. Those who are leaving perceive the product as lacking functionality, noting difficulties with getting it to a usable level; some feel it is cumbersome and that the reporting is limited. Another frequently mentioned reason for replacement is a poor relationship with the vendor. The majority of leaving organizations say the service has always felt reactive and slow, and the handful who were initially satisfied with the service have recently noticed more delayed responses and a lack of follow-through. Additionally, multiple report nickel-and-diming (around reporting, implementations, and turning off services) and a poor implementation that led to ongoing difficulties with integration and mapping. Organizations moving away from Macro Helix identify functionality as a frustration more frequently than other vendors’ leaving customers, specifically saying the solution’s ease of use, ability to help with compliance, and referral capture capabilities could be improved. Current Macro Helix customers say they have seen prices significantly increase over time, prompting them to look at other options.
Declining Data Quality Prompts Customers of RxStrategies and CaptureRx to Consider Other Options
Three organizations replacing RxStrategies use the legacy product, 340B Plus, which is no longer being updated. The other four organizations leaving RxStrategies use the newer product, 340B Dashboard, and say it doesn’t work as promised. Both customer groups mention data inaccuracies in the reporting and declining support, describing the support team as reactive and unable to address problems in the solution. Additionally, some say the vendor struggles to keep up with customer needs (e.g., correct identification numbers, easy-to-use solution that doesn’t require many resources). Organizations who are leaving CaptureRx report problems with the functionality, relationship, and nickel-and-diming. The product’s data is not seen as trustworthy, and users are unable to self-audit, resulting in compliance difficulties. Some respondents say CaptureRx has become less responsive and that the account managers are difficult to work with.
Vendor Summaries
Vendors ordered by high to low market energy
Market energy is a composite of the following factors, with validated wins being weighted most heavily: number of validated wins, win rate, and number of considerations.
Newer entrant to the 340B market and 2023 Best in KLAS winner for 340B. Customer base is rapidly expanding, particularly among ambulatory facilities and even some large acute hospitals. Has most considerations and selections in this report. Reasons for selection include ease of use, responsiveness, and customizability; one reason for consideration is pricing. One organization didn’t choose due to functionality, and one left because of system consolidation. It remains to be seen how well vendor can scale to continually meet customer needs.
“PharmaForce is ahead of other vendors by a strong margin, and what I like about their organization is that they have actual people who have consulted for other organizations, and they have come together and looked at all of the broken aspects of third-party systems. I am interviewing and doing a demo with them. Then I will do the pitch for my institution and hopefully move from there. My goal is to start off with PharmaForce soon. They will give me more bang for my buck.” —Pharmaceutical services program manager (vendor is organization’s likely choice)
“We had to replace PharmaForce because we became affiliated with a larger organization. They required us to switch vendors so that they could help monitor the program.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that replaced)
Longtime 340B vendor that has set a high standard in the market with their proactive, high-touch support model. Has a large customer base and maintains high customer satisfaction thanks to strong executive involvement and support, even throughout periods of transition. Larger customers tend to report higher satisfaction than smaller customers. Vendor is typically selected by large acute organizations for reporting capabilities, customer service, and reputation. Organizations who consider but don’t select Verity Solutions cite usability and price. Reasons for replacement include system consolidation, contract pharmacy capabilities not meeting organization needs, and a poor overall experience post-implementation.
“When we talked to actual customers of Verity 340B, the things that really won them over were the reporting capability and the customer-service structure of the vendor. The customers that we spoke to had a really similar organizational layout to ours. The way that the split-billing software worked was more familiar to us, so there was a level of comfort with the process.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that selected)
“The way another product’s portal was set up seemed a lot more user friendly. I tried to reach out to people who were currently using Verity Solutions’ product, but I did not get that many replies. I did hear that the product was good but that other customers had communication issues sometimes. That is a red flag because we are really big on communication.” —Analyst/coordinator (organization that considered but did not select)
Vendor is often chosen because they are owned by McKesson, which allows for smoother integration. Replacing organizations cite concerns about increasing prices and declining support, and current customers share these concerns; since McKesson took over 10 years ago, support has weakened, and some feel nickel-and-dimed. Many current customers find value in Macro Helix’s relationship with McKesson’s wholesaler division, which they say helps increase savings on drugs.
“The decision point for choosing Macro Helix’s system was that a couple of people on our team were familiar with it. Our wholesaler system also integrated really well with 340B Architect, and that was part of the decision. I really liked the Macro Helix team. They were very supportive and clear, and the pricing was great.” —Pharmacy manager (organization that selected)
“We are using 340B Architect, but our contract will be up, and we are looking to possibly move to another system. We have been with Macro Helix for years, and they have been slower than molasses in the recent past with getting anything done. Macro Helix is way behind the curve in what can be offered. They nickel-and-dime us to death. They tell us that they will do things but that they have to charge us. I have never seen a more one-sided contract than our Macro Helix contract.” —Director of pharmacy services (organization that is considering replacing)
Sentry Data Systems was purchased by The Craneware Group in July 2021. Current customers have seen positive changes from the vendor in recent years, like increased responsiveness, problem resolution from implementations, and an improved experience with service representatives. These changes have resulted in the vendor’s performance score rising 15 points (on a 100-point scale) over the last three years. Despite improvements, vendor has most replacements in this data sample. Reasons for replacement include overpromised functionality, subpar support, and nickel-and-diming. Multiple customers who are leaving experienced a poor implementation that led to further difficulties. It remains to be seen whether vendor’s improved performance will help prevent other customers from leaving in the future.
“We ended up really liking what we saw with Sentry Data Systems, and their product was the one that was recommended to us by our 340B auditor in terms of a company they didn’t have compliance issues with. I really liked the way the system had a database of patients where we could see all their visits, all their bills, and other things together. I liked the dashboard where we could do a quick look and evaluate where we were at on things. We knew where we might want to do a deeper dive. We really were wanting to bring referrals in, and a lot of 340B products had referral options, including the Sentry Data Systems product.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that selected)
“We decided to move away from using Sentry 340B even though we were a longtime Sentry Data Systems customer. The vendor was always making promises for customer service enhancements, and those never happened. The vendor had different reporting features that they charged for. There were charges for the implementation of new pharmacies. There were charges for turning off services, and I didn’t see those charges with other vendors. I felt like the vendor was charging for a lot of different pieces that other companies weren’t charging for. Integration was always a painstaking process. There were times when just implementing a couple of things took several months. Sentry 340B can do the job, but there are newer renditions of this type of software out there that are more streamlined.” —340B program specialist (organization that is replacing)
Respondents have mixed feedback about the vendor’s newer platform, 340B Dashboard. Large customers most often have success with the platform; small customers feel they don’t receive necessary support. Current customers also mention reporting and data mapping as opportunities for improvement. A few organizations left RxStrategies while transitioning to 340B Dashboard from the legacy product, 340B Plus. Some leaving customers (both 340B Dashboard and 340B Plus users) report data inaccuracies and insufficient support when attempting to get the solution to work as promised. The two organizations who selected RxStrategies were impressed by the platform’s capabilities that were shown during the sales process.
“We really liked the ability to audit within the platform and the ability to store our comments and concerns within the platform. Those abilities were more unique than what the other two systems we saw could provide.” —Manager (organization that selected)
“We are transitioning away from RxStrategies. Their customer service was not what we needed. Our representative accounted for a lot of our dissatisfaction with the vendor. The implementation took a lot longer than we were originally told it would take. RxStrategies was transitioning to a new system for their contract pharmacy, so the old system, which is what we implemented, didn’t get the attention that it needed. We needed some changes to reports, and the transition probably generated some of our issues and caused major frustrations for myself and my staff. We got everything implemented and up and going, and RxStrategies just wasn’t meeting our needs. We couldn’t get RxStrategies on the same page as us, so we decided to move on.” —Pharmacy 340B manager (organization that is replacing)
Acquired PSG’s 340B solution in 2020 and has seen little consideration among organizations since then. Vendor is considered in several deals thanks to their broad suite of pharmacy solutions. One organization chose Omnicell, citing strong reporting, ease of use, and better support than their previous vendor’s.
“We chose the vendor for ease of use and the availability of reports and reporting features like simplification of creating reports. Customer service was much better compared to our previous vendor. Overall compliance met the needs of the organization, which was better than the former solution.” —Pharmacy analyst (organization that selected)
“PSG 340B had some pretty good internal audit capability and tracking capability, and we really liked that. The reporting was well put together and easy to manage. Ultimately, we went with a different vendor’s system because the way that the system worked was more familiar to us than the way that PSG 340B worked. Many of the PSG customers that we talked to were larger health systems than us, so it was tough to compare apples to apples when we talked to them.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that considered but did not select)
Seasoned 340B vendor that is considered in several decisions in this report but not chosen. A few organizations feel SUNRx couldn’t provide the level of service and partnership needed to be successful, and they also found better pricing elsewhere. Three organizations replaced the vendor, citing (respectively) technology, training, and system consolidation.
“We did a demo and walked through SUNRx’s software and billing solutions, and the dashboards or portals were easy to navigate and get all our information from in one place. We like the fee structure of another product.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that is considering)
“SUNRx was clearly a relationship builder, and we wanted something more than that. Talking to them was like talking to an insurance agent, but we actually needed something to be done. I reached out to some colleagues, and they didn’t give great feedback regarding SUNRx. They confirmed exactly what I thought in terms of the vendor being all about relationships. The vendor would be our friend until the end, but they wouldn’t be very responsive to our needs.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that considered but did not select)
Offers several solutions as part of their suite of 340B services and software. The vast majority of 340B-eligible healthcare organizations in the US use the vendor to manage their CVS contract pharmacy relationships. KLAS has validated fewer than 50 organizations using the vendor for other kinds of 340B work. One organization considered Wellpartner and wishes they had ultimately selected the vendor because of the functionality and service. The one validated replacement is due to lacking functionality in the 340B SMART module.
“I wish we could have gone with Wellpartner because their product has functionality in terms of qualification options. Also, Wellpartner’s service seems better than the service from the vendor we chose.” —Manager (organization that considered but did not select)
“We had a lot of problems with matching things in 340B SMART. The vendor couldn’t seem to get our providers correct. They had trouble getting data from our feed from the hospital and from the facility. We had a lot of matching issues. The issues may have been IT issues, but we don’t know. The same problem kept coming up repeatedly, and we just weren’t happy with what we were getting for the money we were paying.” —Director of pharmacy (organization that replaced)
340Basics is the 340B technology division of Nuvem and was founded in 2014. Primarily focuses on customers in the ambulatory and FQHC market. Vendor intends their solution to be for both contract pharmacy and split billing (KLAS has not yet validated this among customers). One organization considered 340Basics in this data sample.
“We were looking for a solution that had robust data and more functionality than our previous product. We selected a vendor that offered what we were looking for at a good price point.” —Director of pharmacy services (organization that considered but did not select)
Vendor’s Cumulous platform has been available in the 340B market (for both split billing and contract pharmacy) for a long time. KLAS validated five organizations leaving the product. Reasons for replacement include lacking support (e.g., slow responses, not getting the product to work correctly) and nickel-and-diming.
“We had a very difficult time getting communication from CaptureRx on anything. A lot of their reports were incorrect, and we had to do extra work just to do their job for them. We decided to look for another product.” —340B coordinator (organization that replaced)
About This Report
Data for this report comes from two sources: (1) KLAS Decision Insights data and (2) KLAS performance data.
KLAS Decision Insights Data
All references in this report to organizations’ purchasing motivations come from KLAS’ Decision Insights data. Since 2017, KLAS has been gathering information as to which vendors are being replaced, considered, and purchased and what factors drive these decisions. KLAS Decision Insights data does not represent a comprehensive census or win/loss market share study. Rather, it is intended to help organizations understand which vendors have market energy and why. The data set in this report comes from 49 organizations that are making or have recently made a 340B purchase decision validated by KLAS from October 2020 to October 2022.
KLAS Performance Data
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use. For this report, interviews were conducted over the last 12 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization. The table below shows the total number of unique organizations interviewed for each vendor or solution as well as the total number of individual respondents.
Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Updated Market Segment Breakouts
In an ongoing effort to measure vendor performance in the ways most relevant to provider organizations, KLAS has updated the client type breakouts for 340B management systems:
Writer
Sarah Brown
Designer
Jessica Bonnett
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
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. © 2025 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.