Cerner Soarian Financials Pulse Check 2022
Understanding Soarian Financials’ Performance as a Possible Indicator of RevElate’s Success

Over the years, Cerner customers—regardless of which revenue cycle product they use—have reported challenges with the quality of their revenue cycle implementation and the resources assigned to their organization. These customers have mentioned Cerner’s consultants often lack experience and knowledge about the product and about provider organizations’ workflows, resulting in few customers being set up for success. In a recent study, KLAS interviewed 30 Cerner revenue cycle customers about the RevElate announcement; more than one-third doubted Cerner’s ability to address implementation challenges and retain qualified staff capable of facilitating successful outcomes. Many of these customers question the vendor’s ability to successfully implement RevElate once it is released and are waiting to hear Cerner’s plan for addressing issues.

Many longtime customers describe Soarian Financials as a solid system that has driven outcomes in both small and large organizations. Though respondents acknowledge it isn’t the flashiest option, over 80% are satisfied overall. Those who have used the solution for a while say it takes time to get the system to a workable state, but they have learned what to expect regarding usability and workflows, and their own internal efforts have enabled them to achieve tangible financial outcomes. Newer customers (live for five years or less) are much more likely to report usability difficulties and are significantly less satisfied than longer-term customers. Notably, customer satisfaction plateaus after five years of solution use and does not substantially improve beyond that point. Respondents highlight Cerner’s efforts over the past few years to improve executive involvement, saying there has been increased engagement from the account team and more proactive customer support. Overall, the product is seen in a much more positive light than CPA—respondents say they have resisted moving to CPA because a large portion of CPA customers (57%) are dissatisfied with persistent issues around implementations, functionality, and workflows.

As mentioned above, many respondents believe Soarian Financials is solid, and they have been able to fine-tune it over the years to process bills in a consistent, timely manner. However, about 25% of respondents feel the product is antiquated and hasn’t been kept up to date. In addition, 43% of respondents report frustration at having to use more third-party bolt-on applications than expected to achieve the necessary level of functionality. Secondary claim billing, price estimation, patient billing, eligibility, and medical record duplicity checking are all areas in which customers wish Cerner would develop their own capabilities instead of depending on third parties. Respondents believe having native capabilities in these areas would make Soarian Financials a stronger product. Some customers bought the solution believing it was a complete revenue cycle offering and were frustrated to discover that it required bolt-ons that don’t seamlessly integrate. These integration challenges negatively impact workflow and efficiency. Additionally, several respondents say the interface between Soarian Financials and Cerner’s EMR is insufficient.

Since Soarian Financials was acquired by Cerner in 2015, an increasing percentage of customers have reported nickel-and-diming. Respondents feel the product is expensive and believe Cerner has too many additional charges, including for product changes needed to meet regulatory requirements. Respondents would prefer regulatory changes be included in the support cost and in the product’s standard maintenance. Having to pay for third-party applications to address Soarian Financials’ functionality gaps is another sticking point for respondents who feel nickel-and-dimed; they wish Cerner would develop their own functionality instead of making customers depend on third-party functionality, which costs additional money.

Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size 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.