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



Related Series

Population Health Vendor Overview 2023
Population Health Vendor Overview 2021
Population Health Data Acquisition & Analysis 2020
Population Health Care Management 2019
Population Health Management 2018, Part 1
Population Health Management 2018, Part 2
Population Health Management 2017, Part 2
Population Health Performance 2016
Population Health Management 2015
Population Health
Population Health Performance

Related Segments

Related Articles

 End chart zoom
Population Health Management 2017, Part 1 Population Health Management 2017, Part 1
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Population Health Management 2017, Part 1
Validating Adoption of PHM Functionality

author - Bradley Hunter
Bradley Hunter
author - Paul Warburton
Paul Warburton
October 12, 2017 | Read Time: 3  minutes

As provider organizations enter into more risk-based agreements, what they need and expect from PHM solutions evolves. More than just getting the right data and being able to identify care gaps, organizations need to be able to answer questions about financial outcomes and what metrics to track. In response to these needs, new vendors have emerged and longstanding vendors are evolving, resulting in a diverse array of technologies that may address one or all of the different PHM verticals. One purpose of this report is to help give provider organizations clarity as they consider which of these diverse tool sets will best meet their needs.

Population Health Management Framework

Provider organizations’ needs in managing population health are as varied as the capabilities of the IT solutions designed to assist them. To create a standard for the core competencies required in a population health management (PHM) solution, KLAS held a summit in 2016 attended by executives from provider organizations, HIT vendors, services firms, and payer organizations. Six verticals of IT functionality required for PHM were identified as well as basic and advanced functionalities for each vertical. This report validates which basic functionalities vendors’ most advanced PHM customers currently use. A second report focused on performance will publish December 2017.

disclaimer vendors may offer and may have deployed functionality not validated in this report
data aggregation
data analysis
care management
admin financial reporting
patient engagement
clinician engagement
measuring depth of deployment

depth of adoptionby vertical

1. HealthEC, IBM Watson Health, and Philips Most Broadly Deployed Non-EMR Vendors

While many vendors are used across multiple PHM verticals, no one tool is yet used for all basic functionalities within each vertical. However, since many organizations are trying to get as close as they can to a one-stop shop, EMR vendors—specifically athenahealth, Cerner, and Epic—see strong cross-vertical deployment more often than most third-party vendors. Outside of the EMR vendors, several third-party solutions also see broad cross-vertical deployment, including large national players IBM Watson Health and Philips Wellcentive. IBM Watson Health has created a comprehensive product suite through acquisition; Philips Wellcentive has focused on building out solutions from a core product. Regional vendor HealthEC sees the most comprehensive deployment across the six verticals due to nimble development and a highly flexible tool.

2. Deployment Gaps ______ More Common Than Functionality Gaps

Organizations have differing PHM needs, but customers’ expectations for their tools and the way vendors sell, implement, and customize systems also impact which functionality customers choose to deploy. While best-of-breed vendors may be deployed deeply in a couple of verticals, customers don’t view the solutions as broader PHM tools and opt not to deploy them in other verticals (e.g., Lightbeam, Conifer Health Solutions used mainly for data analysis; Forward Health Group used mainly for clinician engagement). Vendors viewed as having broader platforms and strategies are more likely to be adopted broadly as their tools develop, as is the case with Epic. Many vendors (e.g., Arcadia and Advisory Board) offer consulting in addition to technology, which can also improve adoption. Other vendors (e.g., Evolent Health) take their services further, managing their customers’ PHM and then sharing the rewards of risk-based agreements.

Population Health Framework Verticals

Note: Depth of deployment determined by average percent of basic functionality deployed.

data aggregation and depth of deployment
data analysis and depth of deployment

care management and depth of deployment
admin financial reporting and depth of deployment

patient engagement and depth of deployment
clinician engagement and depth of deployment
author - Elizabeth Pew
Elizabeth Pew
author - Natalie Jamison
Natalie Jamison
 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.