Premium Reports
Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014

Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014
Choosing Between Strong Performers

Authored by: | Read Time: Unknown

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

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.


KLAS Report: Ambulatory Clearinghouse 2014

​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)



Want to see full details?

 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. © 2018 KLAS Enterprises, 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.