KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2021
2019
2016
2014
2013
2012
Related Segments
Computer-Assisted Coding 2023
Which Vendors Are Providing Needed Outcomes and Value?
Author
Mac Boyter
Author
Alex McIntosh
Author
Tyler Sycamore
Amid staffing challenges and revenue shortfalls, healthcare organizations feel pressure to provide documentation strategies that cut costs by increasing automation while still maintaining high accuracy. Computer-assisted coding (CAC) solutions are one strategy used to meet those needs. This report explores customer perceptions of CAC vendors’ support and service and their solutions’ ability to be accurate, perform well across departments, and improve coder productivity.
Dolbey Shows Strong Client Engagement and Support; 3M and Optum Require More Escalation
Dolbey customers have overall positive support experiences; many note they receive timely responses and find the team easy to work with, though problem resolution can take longer than hoped for. A few customers say they would like more transparency into where Dolbey is taking the product. AGS Health (limited data) has a small customer base relative to other vendors in this report. (Of their approximate 10 customers, KLAS interviewed 6.) Respondents feel the vendor is service oriented, citing quick responses and problem resolution. Pointing out the system’s steep learning curve, some respondents say there is an opportunity for improved training materials. The Optum customer experience with support is mixed. Most respondents get positive resolution to problems during escalation, and many say their dedicated contact resolves issues and provides quick responses. However, some customers have had difficulties escalating issues and are concerned with the lack of timely resolution and clear communication. 3M customers report similarly mixed experiences with their vendor relationship. The vendor’s support has helped organizations improve integration, staff productivity, and implementations, with customers specifically noting meaningful executive assistance. However, issues often need to be escalated, and problem resolution can take a while, as some respondents feel the support personnel are not sufficiently knowledgeable to address their problems.
Customers Generally Satisfied with Coder Productivity—Driven by 3M’s Reliability, Optum’s Training, and Dolbey’s Integration
Broadly, customers are satisfied with their vendor’s impact on coding productivity (see chart on next page). While the fully rated vendors score similarly, the drivers of satisfaction differ. 3M customers generally agree the core functionality of the system is dependable and accomplishes what they need. The ease of use and the reporting/analytics capabilities are highlighted for increasing productivity and helping customers understand and improve usage. However, customers are required to put a fair amount of manual work into the tool, reducing efficiency; some organizations cite issues with reporting and templates that require human resources they don’t have. For Optum customers, the main driver of productivity is training, including from user groups and webinars. Optum provides consistent ongoing training and assigns specialists that work with customers to maximize outcomes. User productivity is negatively affected by the system’s complexity and occasional downtime. Customers that rate Dolbey high say that the integration (e.g., EMR integration) positively impacts coder efficiency and that Dolbey has made workflows simpler and more streamlined. However, some respondents want more development in areas such as automated coding and reporting. AGS Health (limited data) customers are highly satisfied and feel the system simplifies their coding process, allowing them to do the same amount of work with fewer people. Respondents also say AGS Health is quick to make requested changes and customizations.
Vendor Performance for Coding Accuracy Is Close; Dolbey (Limited Data) Rated Highest
The Dolbey solution (limited data) is rated highest for both coding accuracy and its ability to perform well across departments. Noted strengths are the streamlined workflows and simple, well-designed interface. About 20% of respondents say the procedural coding isn’t as accurate as the diagnostic coding and needs to be improved. Optum (limited data) respondents are satisfied with how the vendor works with customers to enhance the product and provide seamless upgrades. They note the CAC product is more effective when used in tandem with Optum’s CDI solution. Respondents who are less satisfied with the coding accuracy mention the manual work required to fix coding errors. 3M customers are generally satisfied with the coding accuracy. Those who rate it highest have invested the time required to create templates and fine-tune the system. Customers are most satisfied with the inpatient coding and are more likely to struggle with outpatient, ProFee, and radiology coding; a handful also mention DRG coding as an area of concern. AGS Health (limited data) respondents say the system codes well and improves in effectiveness as coders work with the platform, thus improving outcomes as time goes on.
3M Customers Find Value Despite Nickel-and-Diming; Optum Maintains Low Cost, but Problems Persist
Many 3M customers get their money’s worth from the system and are highly likely to keep 3M as part of their long-term plans, even while noting the vendor’s nickel-and-diming. Around 15% of interviewed customers feel they aren’t getting the amount of support they should for how much they are paying, and many report additional charges for enhancements, training, integration, etc. Dolbey scores the highest for money’s worth; respondents note the solution saves their staff time and reduces organizational cost, and most don’t feel nickel-and-dimed. Customers also feel their contracts are reasonable and inclusive of many aspects, such as training and support. Limited data on AGS Health shows that customers find value in the product, and many would buy the product again and keep it in their long-term plans. Interviewed customers say the vendor doesn’t charge them for additional services and components. Optum customers point out that the offering is less expensive than other systems they have seen; one customer mentioned that the system allowed them to discontinue the use of an underutilized module. However, Optum customers are least likely to buy the system again, often due to technical issues, such as downtime and functionality limitations. Many customers note that the vendor charges additionally for upgrades, enhancements, and other related technologies.
About This Report
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.
To supplement the customer satisfaction data gathered with the standard evaluation, KLAS also asked customers the following questions specific to CAC:
- Rate the vendor’s coding suggestion accuracy/quality on a scale of 1-9.
- Rate the vendor’s impact on your coders’ productivity on a scale of 1-9.
- How does your vendor perform at providing codes across different departments?
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.
Writer
Carlisa Cramer
Designer
Jess Wallace-Simpson
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.