Patient Access 2014
Assembling a Winning Pit Crew

WORTH KNOWING

EXPERIAN HEALTH (PASSPORT) PASSES OTHER VENDORS IN MINDSHARE AND PERFORMANCE.

Due to quality, integration, ROI and well-received workflow of eCare NEXT, Passport leads the market in performance, mindshare, and adoption. Some customers, especially early eCare NEXT adopters, report unmet expectations during sales and implementation processes.

RELAYHEALTH STRUGGLES TO DELIVER ON SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS.

Top customer complaints include downtime and slow system response times. Despite offering some of the broadest functionality in this study, RelayHealth has the highest percentage of customers (29%) who indicate they would not buy RelayHealth again.

NICHE PLAYERS GAIN TRACTION IN RACE TO DISPLACE TRADITIONAL EDI VENDORS.

Players traditionally considered niche—such as TransUnion, AccuReg, and Recondo—are in some cases displacing more-traditional EDI vendors like Emdeon, Passport, and RelayHealth. While not using TransUnion for eligibility verification, seven customers nevertheless identify TransUnion as their most valuable patient access vendor. MedAssets receives five similar mentions.

BOTTOM LINE ON VENDORS

[B]: Broad [C]: Component

[P]: Broad Preliminary [E]: Early Data

EXPERIAN HEALTH (PASSPORT) [B]:

Currently has the largest customer base using the broader patient access suite that extends beyond eligibility verification. Has demonstrated significant customer growth with eCare NEXT in the past year. Some customers report implementation challenges. Greatest mindshare among providers looking to add patient access modules.

RELAYHEALTH [B]:

Second only to Passport in provider adoption of portfolio breadth. Introducing newer automation around preauthorization and has recently added analytics to their suite. Clients express frustration with system downtimeand slow response times. Customers using only AHI Software are significantly more satisfied than those using AHI as part of RelayHealth’s Clearance suite. A disproportionate share of customers considering discontinuance of Clearance.

EMDEON [P]:

Traditional EDI vendor that delivers functionality across both the front and back end of the revenue cycle. Strong services company, especially with implementation and training. Customers’ primary concern is Emdeon’s legacy technology. Many desire a modernized suite, which is rumored to be in development but has yet to be rolled out.

ACCUREG [C]

Majority of customers rely on AccuReg for registration QA, but organizations are also embracing AccuReg for eligibility, address verification, etc. Performs well in all categories; no overtly negative experiences reported by any providers in this study. Focuses exclusively on patient access needs; does not manage claims transactions.

MEDASSETS [C]:

Still largely a component solution for patient access tasks. Provides estimated patient responsibility functionality, which operates best in conjunction with MedAssets’ contract management solution. Newer entrant to eligibility and has yet to demonstrate many customers in production. Customers report that the estimator is strong and detailed, but not all feel it is meeting their needs.

SIEMENS HDX [C]:

Primarily used by Siemens INVISION and Soarian customers. While broader functionality exists, most customers indicate use islimited to eligibility verification. Real-time functionality and reliability of technology seen as strengths. Not garnering much mindshare in provider discussions pertaining to next-generation patient access solutions. A number of customers looking for expanded functionality indicate HDX is not part of long-term strategy.

TRANSUNION [C]:

Among the more robust solutions for patient estimation, this module is embedded in product suites of competitors such as RelayHealth and Siemens HDX. TransUnion’s ClearIQ suite is a newer entrant to the broader patient access suite concept and demonstrates functionality in all modules measured in this report except for registration QA. Customer experience isvaried, with some reporting success and others expressing frustration.

DCS GLOBAL [E]:

Founded on a strong registration accuracy solution but gaining traction with broader patient access and throughput-monitoring tools. Some find DCS Global a strong partner, while others see a lack of product integration and development. Delivers front-end revenue cycle and EDI only; does not manage claims transactions.  

RECONDO [E]:

Offers broad suite including pre-authorization, with eligibility as foundation. Struggles to maintain satisfied customers due to problems with product development and customer support; high percentage of negative customer comments. A couple of customers are considering replacement. Recondo also focuses primarily on revenue cycle front end.  

SSI GROUP [E]:

Traditional claims management vendor, now also offering eligibility verification. Few customers in this study are utilizing SSI on the frontend. While customer feedback was mixed overall, no clients report a standout experience. Complaints include system speed, tedious workflow, and à la carte pricing methodologies.