Financial Improvement Consulting 2023
A Look at Achieved Outcomes in a Financially Challenging Environment

Market Insights: Financial Performance Improvement Is Most-Reported Type of Engagement, while Improved Efficiency Is Most-Reported Outcome

Impact Advisors Seen as Strategic; Guidehouse Drives Value and Exceeds Client Expectations

For Impact Advisors—the 2023 Best in KLAS winner for financial improvement consulting—all but one respondent report high satisfaction. Among fully rated firms, Impact Advisors is the highest rated for strength of partnership. One client highlighted the firm’s long-term interest in building relationships, saying the firm remained involved for several months after the engagement ended. They are also the highest rated for strategic ability, and interviewed clients note the firm understands individual situations and organizations as well as the broader healthcare industry. Most respondents report improved net revenue, improved efficiency, and improved performance as outcomes. Likewise, for Guidehouse, all but one respondent report high satisfaction—this is a significant increase from 2020, when only half of respondents reported high satisfaction. All interviewed clients say Guidehouse consistently exceeded their expectations, and Guidehouse is also rated high for money’s worth. One client shared that working with Guidehouse’s consultants was the best consulting experience they ever had because the firm was practical and down to earth. Another client organization exceeded their financial goal and achieved success with their revenue cycle thanks to Guidehouse’s engagement. The majority of respondents used the firm for financial performance improvement engagements, and at least half report improved efficiency and improved performance as outcomes.

Chartis & ECG Management Consultants Have Most Validated Client Organizations, with at Least Twice as Many as Other Firms

Chartis is the only firm with multiple validated engagements in 8 of the 10 engagement types. Two-thirds of Chartis respondents are highly satisfied, citing the firm’s industry expertise, knowledge, and professionalism. Several clients also describe the firm as a thought partner, with one client saying the road map, implementation plan, and at-the-elbow support led to sustainable success. For various respondents, cost is a concern. Chartis’ comparative cost is the highest of the fully rated firms, and some respondents feel they didn’t receive enough value (e.g., one client reports the cost and final product felt mismatched). The money’s worth metric has a higher correlation with overall satisfaction for Chartis clients than it does for other firms’ respondents.

ECG Management Consultants is validated for providing a broad portfolio of services, and multiple respondents engaged the firm specifically to build out or redesign physician compensation models. The firm’s engagements tend to be less complex (shorter, lower-budget engagements that include fewer consultants), and their estimated hourly rate is the lowest of any firm in the report. Most respondents are highly satisfied, highlighting the team’s revenue cycle management expertise and ability to effectively converse and negotiate with various stakeholders. Execution mishaps were a challenge for nearly one-third of respondents. Some say ECG Management Consultants could have more proactively provided updates and followed up on implemented changes. Others mention their engagement felt like a learning experience for the firm, who didn’t always explain things well.

Reputable, Cross-Industry Firms Deloitte* & PwC* Drive Positive Outcomes for Clients

Among the Other Limited-Data Firms, Optum* Stands Out for Consistently Driving High Client Satisfaction

Optum* is one of the few limited-data firms with all interviewed clients reporting an overall performance score of 90 or higher (on a 100-point scale). All respondents have improved their net revenue, and they appreciate the firm’s broad expertise, which includes strong healthcare knowledge. One client noted that instead of encouraging buy-in across the organization, the firm caved to doctors’ preferences and didn’t stick to original recommendations. Interviewed clients of KPMG* highlight the consultants’ subject matter expertise, pointing to those with actual operator experience. One client said KPMG misunderstood their organization and that the firm’s boilerplate approach was geared toward larger organizations. Nordic* is newer to the financial improvement consulting market; they invested in hiring expertise from traditional management consulting firms so they could grow into the market organically. Client respondents describe the quality of the consultants as top tier, and they say Nordic is very outcomes driven. Some perceive the firm as expensive, and one respondent questioned whether small organizations will be able to afford the firm as they try to expand. Nordic respondents include administrative and financial executives—the former report overall performance scores that are 16 points higher than the latter’s scores. Accenture* respondents say the firm’s strengths are the breadth of their expertise and the external perspective their consultants bring from working with other organizations with similar needs. Less-satisfied respondents wish the firm had offered a fresher, more creative perspective instead of templated presentations. Only half of respondents say the firm exceeded expectations (the least of any firm in this report), and the firm is rated lowest for engagement execution.

*Limited data

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 18 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare services, which is composed of 9 numeric ratings questions and 3 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 five customer experience pillars—loyalty, operations, relationship, services, and value.

To supplement the customer satisfaction data gathered with the standard evaluation, KLAS also asked respondents the following questions specific to financial improvement consulting:

1. What type of work did you hire your firm to do?
2. What outcomes did you achieve?
3. What were the details of your engagement (e.g., number of consultants, length, budget)?

Sample Sizes

Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique client organizations interviewed for a given firm or service. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one client 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 firm or service as well as the total number of individual respondents.

Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given firm or service can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 6, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 3, no score is shown. Where textual content relies on limited data, the vendor name is marked with an asterisk. 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.