Healthcare Business Intelligence and Analytics 2020
Decision Insights Report

The A-List

Tableau, Health Catalyst, and Microsoft

Perceived as a leader in visualization, Tableau is the most considered vendor, garnering looks in nearly 40% of decisions. Current customers rate product quality high, reporting rich, powerful visualizations that are easy to build, consume, and share. Tableau’s new pricing model has been a concern for some potential customers. Consistent high performer Health Catalyst is often considered due to their reputation and experience. Customers are achieving their intended outcomes; some now wonder whether the solution could do more. Among healthcare organizations, interest in Microsoft’s BI solution has surged, due largely to the option of packaging the solution with Azure, Microsoft’s cloud data-storage solution. Microsoft is tied with Health Catalyst for the second most considerations in healthcare BI and wins nearly all deals in which they are considered.

High Performer Dimensional Insight Not Often Considered; Information Builders Making Healthcare Inroads, Results Still Early 

Vendor Summaries
Vendors listed alphabetically

Change Healthcare

Has high performance and retention. Not considered often enough to make the A-list (no organizations in this data set have selected Change Healthcare or reported them as a likely selection). Current customers feel the solution does what they bought it to do. They are satisfied but not excited, describing the solution as lacking innovation. 77% would buy it again.

“We considered Change Healthcare because they were the incumbent vendor and because they had a new version of their product. But our experience with their support over the previous year and the technology challenges with the older version of the tool made us opt to not renew with Change Healthcare.” —Director (organization is replacing Change Healthcare)

“The version of Analytics Explorer that we have is old, and Change Healthcare is not going to update it. It is pretty easy to use, but the outcomes we get are not great. We are going to move to a different product. They wanted us to move to their new version, but we chose not to.”  —Director (organization is replacing Change Healthcare)

Dimensional Insight

Has the highest overall score and highest retention rate. Is a well-known player in niche industries, such as supply chain management, but is not top of mind among healthcare organizations. Offering data management and analytics, the product is used by some current customers as a departmental solution; some more complex use cases are starting to be reported.

“We were looking for a partner that would provide some assistance during the implementation. We were looking for someone that really knew healthcare and really understood our processes. In the end, we chose Dimensional Insight because they could provide guidance and assistance that were both unique to healthcare.” —Analyst (organization recently selected Dimensional Insight)

“Whenever we have needed support, the process has been confusing. Dimensional Insight doesn’t have a great support process. We typically have the same person every time we ask for support, but there are some things that are lacking. We usually end up on a Webex for several hours with one person. I don’t know how Dimensional Insight could make their support better. Part of the problem might be the fact that we are in finance instead of IT. Fortunately, we don’t need support very often.” —Director (organization is current customer)

Epic

Has high performance and retention; considerations are lower since the BI solution is used only by Epic EMR customers. Considered immature by some organizations, though many have confidence in the future based on Epic’s reputation for delivering. A few clients report bringing non-Epic data into the Cogito suite, something that has not previously been validated. As with many Epic products, relationship indicators (i.e., executive involvement and support) receive high scores, while ease of use and needed functionality score lower.

“We are actively moving our analytics platform from our old system over to Caboodle. It is my hope that in the next 12 months, we won’t have anything on our old vendor’s system. We are an Epic customer, so it was natural for us to go to Epic. We have had a really poor experience with SAP, and we have enjoyed great success with Epic. We are hearing all kinds of things about Caboodle. There used to be all these vendors out there that had independent analytics solutions. Those seem to be evaporating because Epic is moving into the analytics space.” —CIO (organization recently selected Epic)

“Epic’s tool isn’t really structured to be effective right now when it comes to drilling down and slicing and dicing data; that is where we struggle. Epic is coming out with things like Caboodle, and they know what the views are. They are just not yet where they need to be. I think Epic needs another three years to get Caboodle to where it needs to be, but in three years, everybody else will be in different places as well. If I were Epic, I would look into an acquisition strategy with vendors who have real expertise in BI.” —COO (organization is considering replacing Epic)

Health Catalyst

Consistent high performer often considered due to reputation and experience. Seen as expensive by some potential customers, especially smaller organizations. Health Catalyst has invested R&D to advance their products in clinical and operational areas such as BI, artificial intelligence, and population health management. Customers report good relationships and value and say they are achieving their intended outcomes; some now wonder whether the solution could do more. Recent IPO created uncertainty in some clients but has not impacted satisfaction so far.

“Health Catalyst proved to us they had the experience and expertise to work through a complicated system like ours. In addition, their product’s functionality is simply better. We chose Health Catalyst based on their technology and the fact that their people were very easy to deal with. They were really emphatic about the opportunities that their clients have had across the country. Health Catalyst’s all-access license was also very attractive to us.” —VP/Executive (organization recently selected Health Catalyst)

“Health Catalyst had domain knowledge and expertise, but they didn’t seem particularly interested in working with us. I reached out to them a few times and didn’t get a response. Health Catalyst was used to bigger companies. We probably seemed small.” —Analyst (organization considered but did not select Health Catalyst)

MedeAnalytics

Not often considered outside of financial department deals. Current customers aren’t overly impressed, and some are looking to move away due to functionality issues and the amount of manual work needed to manage data. All customers being migrated to a more enterprise platform; KLAS has not yet validated any organizations live. Ease of use rated high, and frontline support is described as good.

“MedeAnalytics’ customer service is one of their strengths. The support people respond in a timely fashion. We have gone through a few big implementations with them, and everything has gone very smoothly. The support people are very quick to get back to us. They check in often, and they definitely do a good job of meeting their customers’ needs.” —Assistant VP (organization is current customer)

“The problem with our version of the product is that the process is very manual. There is no direct connection to the systems we are pulling data from, so we can’t get real-time data. MedeAnalytics has some new tools coming out that will help out, but we are still on the old version. We are working with a third-party vendor to help us create the data connections we need, so we are hoping that we find something that works.” —Executive Director (organization is current customer)

Microsoft

Interest among healthcare organizations has surged, due largely to the option of packaging Power BI with Azure, Microsoft’s cloud data-storage solution. Tied with Health Catalyst for the second-highest number of considerations in healthcare BI and wins nearly all deals in which they are considered. Healthcare is a significant focus for Microsoft right now, and much R&D is being put into the product. Product is still immature in some areas, such as data governance at the application level. Current customers rate executive involvement very low compared to other areas; some feel like a drop in the bucket, but this doesn’t necessarily impact overall satisfaction because of the value and product quality.

“We are considering Power BI because it is part of the Azure stack. Microsoft is putting a lot of R&D into their products, and that is showing. We are still in the testing phase, but we like what we are seeing so far.” —VP/Executive (organization will likely select Microsoft)

“One problem we have had is that the data integration of non-SQL data is not a strength of Power BI. If we are trying to integrate data sources, especially as things have moved to the cloud and so many data feeds are coming through APIs, it is really hard to co-architect that with Microsoft in the current platform.” —COO (organization is replacing Microsoft)

Qlik

Considered in over 20% of deals; not often selected. Has two BI products—QlikView and Qlik Sense. Most customers are on QlikView though Qlik is focused on Qlik Sense, the go-forward offering. Migration from QlikView has been more difficult than expected, and some customers feel stuck. Qlik acquired Attunity in 2019 to bolster data-management capabilities; no KLAS validations yet. Some customers feel they are limited by Qlik’s lack of healthcare expertise.

“We really liked QlikView’s visualization abilities. We discovered that Qlik partners with Health Catalyst, so we ended up buying Health Catalyst Analytics and QlikView. Our physician partners who have already gone with QlikView love it, so we are anxious to begin using it.” —Director (organization recently selected Qlik)

“We didn’t like Qlik’s proprietary and cumbersome ETL process. The process produced multiple types of formatted packages before we could move data. The process was definitely doable, but other products’ processes were easier. That is pretty much why we eliminated Qlik.” —Analyst (organization considered but did not select Qlik)

Tableau

A perceived leader in visualization; garners the most considerations (40% of decisions). Current customers give high ratings for product quality and the product working as promoted, reporting rich, powerful visualizations that are easy to build, consume, and share. Eliminated from some decisions due to new per-user/per-seat pricing module, which some prospective customers consider too expensive. Respondents say some back-end pieces, such as data management, are lacking. Tableau has recently released a data-management add-on; KLAS has not validated its performance. Perceived as lacking healthcare expertise, and executive involvement rated significantly lower than any other metric.

“We are going to move to Tableau because there will be more integration between it and our EMR than we currently have. We are building more and feel that for our requirements are more about the desktop and service-side visualization and providing those things to people. That is where Tableau is strong.” —Director (organization will likely select Tableau)

“I would have liked to use Tableau Server. I am familiar with it, and it is a very simplistic tool to use. The issue is Tableau’s pricing model. The new model has priced the product out of consideration. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to Tableau now that they have been acquired by Salesforce. I think they have a great product. I wish it were more affordable for healthcare organizations.” —Director (organization considered but did not select Tableau)

Limited or No Performance Data 

Cerner (limited data)

Cerner recently named Amazon Web Services (AWS) their preferred cloud partner. HealtheIntent-based applications, including HealtheEDW, will be delivered completely via the AWS cloud. A limited amount of performance feedback is available on HealtheEDW, which was not often considered by organizations in this report sample. Most HealtheEDW clients are satisfied with the Cerner relationship; many don’t have high expectations for the product.

“We have Cerner people that we can reach out to directly when we have any questions, and we have an executive who helps us with our open tickets. We have been in contact with resources about things that we needed to discuss instead of just opening a ticket, and we have somebody that we reach out to for those things. The Cerner executive we work with makes sure that we are optimizing the system.” —Manager (organization is current customer)

“The tools that we need are certainly in HealtheEDW, but Cerner hasn’t been proactive about making sure people know about those tools. The system has been used less fully because Cerner hasn’t pushed their development and ensured that people know about the capabilities in the system. There is a bit of a disconnect between the development side and the end users. The tools themselves are perfectly good and effective, but there is a gap.” —CMIO (organization is current customer)

Information Builders (limited data)

Typically considered as a front-end reporting solution. Investing heavily in data management and integration. The vendor’s increased focus on R&D and creation of a healthcare-specific team has translated into more considerations from healthcare organizations. Product is still not there for some potential customers, and some current customers report issues with overselling during the sales process.

“WebFOCUS has some serious horsepower. Information Builders can do everything and anything we want them to do with customer-facing applications. Information Builders has a high level of healthcare expertise; they have much more expertise than other vendors, and they are very affordable.” —Manager (organization recently selected Information Builders)

“We chose Information Builders after a few months of due diligence, and we have a decent idea of what they can do. We see them as a long-term partner but recognize that their product is still immature in this space and that they sometimes oversell what they can do and how fast their product can do it.” —CTO (organization recently selected Information Builders)

SAP (limited data)

Overall satisfaction is trending downward, with many customers looking to leave. Customer support and relationships have been particular problem areas.

“We use the system a lot when we have to go to our data warehouse. When we have to customize reports, the system gives us so much more functionality than the standard reporting tools from other systems. With that flexibility in mind, we use the system a lot for email reports and scheduled reports.” —Assistant VP (organization is current customer)

“SAP’s support has been nonexistent. We generally have to figure out how to do things by searching SAP’s website or Google. Sometimes we find threads with the information we need, and sometimes we don’t. We always have to do software upgrades on our own or use a third party for help. SAP offers no education for the tool, and the support has been sketchy. We have learned that SAP doesn’t make promises because they don’t care. We get their bills, and SAP wants their money.” —Manager (organization is current customer)

SAS (no performance data)

Huge cross-industry vendor with lots of capabilities. In healthcare, not viewed as user friendly and typically seen in large academic organizations with complex statistical needs. Complex to set up and use. Considered in few decisions, and selected in none in this report sample. No performance data available.

“My guess is that SAS Analytics is more sophisticated than similar tools in terms of statistics. I am not so sure that it is sophisticated in terms of analytics. I find SAS Analytics interesting and fascinating, but in terms of the way it translates into the applied world, I find it a little less direct. I just think that SAS missed the mark in terms of general business operation things. For strategic purposes, I am sure the tool is really good. But I have not had direct exposure to their products in a while. I don’t think that SAS Analytics comes up at this point as a general BI tool that could definitely scale for an entire enterprise and have the required horsepower. It has a lot of statistical horsepower, but I am not sure about using the tool on an ongoing basis.” —COO (organization considered but did not select SAS)