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



Related Series

Computer-Assisted Coding 2023
Computer-Assisted Coding 2021
Computer-Assisted Coding 2016
Hospital-Based CAC 2014
Computer-Assisted Coding 2013
Computer-Assisted Coding

Related Segments

Related Articles

 End chart zoom
Computer-Assisted Coding (CAC) 2019 Computer-Assisted Coding (CAC) 2019
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Computer-Assisted Coding (CAC) 2019
Is CAC Worth the Investment?

author - Daniel Zeitner
Daniel Zeitner
author - Jennifer Hickenlooper
Jennifer Hickenlooper
August 27, 2019 | Read Time: 4  minutes

When first released, computer-assisted coding (CAC) solutions were slow to deliver hoped-for outcomes. If your organization is one of the many wondering whether they are now worth the investment, you should know this: 94% of adopters interviewed by KLAS would purchase their CAC solution again. To help organizations understand what outcomes are possible with a CAC solution and how well the various vendors help their customers achieve these outcomes, KLAS gathered two types of customer feedback: (1) general performance feedback from across each vendor’s customer base, and (2) in-depth, outcomes-related feedback from vendors’ deepest adopters.

would you buy this product again

icon 1Market Share Heavy Hitters 3M and Optum Have Improved Overall but Fall Short for Certain Customer Groups

vendor performance snapshotSatisfaction with market share leaders 3M and Optum has improved steadily over the last three years. In particular, 3M customers highlight changes made to 3M’s support structure (specifically over the last year), while others note improvements to the implementation and upgrade processes, which have historically been significant pain points. Despite the improvement, 3M’s delivery in these areas and others is still inconsistent, particularly for larger organizations. These customers want more knowledgeable and experienced implementation resources and more proactive training. They are also looking for improvements in the outpatient software and for improvements to the reporting and system response time. Optum customers say the vendor’s support has become more consistent and reliable, and many praise the training they received. Large organizations are more likely to describe Optum as a partner. No small or midsize customers interviewed for this research describe Optum that way, and many feel that a lack of benchmarking data from Optum hinders their ability to improve.

† Customer Experience Pillar grades are based on customer ratings that come from the standard KLAS metrics. For details on what metrics are included in each pillar, see page 7.

icon 2Dolbey Most Consistent at Driving Outcomes

Smaller vendor Dolbey has seen an uptick in new contracts over the past year. Dolbey outperforms 3M and Optum in most individual metrics and is more consistent at helping customers achieve outcomes. Customers highlight quality training, strong implementations, and good integration with EMRs and other HIM software. Additionally, the product is easy to use, leading to improved quality and productivity. Customers also say Dolbey provides excellent customer support and helps customers optimize their use of the software. Many customers are looking forward to the latest version; those who have already made the jump report functionality improvements. A couple of customers would like to see faster innovation from Dolbey. Newer entrant ezDI has a much smaller customer base than the other three vendors, and feedback is therefore limited. Customers consistently report a high level of support. Half of respondents note issues with EMR integration.

drives tangible outcomes score distribution

deep adopters

icon 1Suite Integration and Vendor Partnering Drive Outcomes for Optum and 3M Deep Adopters

cac deep adopter outcomes and him strategies

100% of deep adopters describe Optum as a partner, particularly when it comes to optimizing customer use of the technology. Some specific outcomes achieved as a result include improved coder productivity (due to the ability to run reports on employee productivity levels) and an improved case mix index (due to the ability to use Optum’s NLP to ensure diagnoses have not been missed). Optum offers a wide variety of HIM software that CAC customers tend to use as an integrated suite. A couple of deep adopters report that this integration has led to increased coder efficiency as a result of having an automatically populated DRG or having an encoder that is completely integrated with the CAC.

3M also offers a broad HIM suite and is generally used for many pieces of customers’ HIM strategies. All interviewed deep adopters mention that using 3M in multiple areas or for multiple HIM tasks gives them more visibility into their coding processes, allowing them to prioritize coding work, improve productivity and workflow, align codes, and leverage analytics data. A couple of deep adopters say that 3M is willing to meet frequently with them to help improve their use of the solution and that this partnering results in positive outcomes.

Dolbey and ezDI customers are more likely to have a mixed-vendor HIM environment. However, both vendors are highlighted for their willingness to partner. Dolbey’s deep adopters say the vendor helps them optimize workflows and improve the software. All of ezDI’s interviewed deep adopters have started to see outcomes, and all say ezDI is willing to help them work through problems with the software.

advice from deep adopters on how to achieve outcomes
author - Elizabeth Pew
Elizabeth Pew
author - Madison Moniz
Madison Moniz
author - Mary Brown
Project Manager
Mary Brown
 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.