Population Health Vendor Overview 2021
Matching Vendor Capabilities to PHM Needs

Who Are the Most Well-Rounded Leaders in PHM Today?

Of the 15 vendors measured in this report, Arcadia, Epic, and Innovaccer stand out in terms of customer experience, market energy, and breadth of PHM capabilities. Their customers include some of the country’s largest healthcare organizations and some of the organizations most aggressively pursuing value-based care practices. Many customers are confident these vendors will continue to develop their technology to meet customer needs and address current weaknesses.

WHO DELIVERS THE X FACTOR IN CUSTOMER SUCCESS?

Innovaccer’s Collaborative Development Drives Deep Partnership with Customers

Customers’ success with PHM often hinges on ongoing optimization from their technology vendors. Some vendors do this well, while others take a more hands-off approach, providing the technology but not much guidance. Innovaccer, Azara Healthcare, Cedar Gate Technologies (Enli), and HealthEC create true partnerships with customers and are considered supportive and involved. Innovaccer is highlighted for building and delivering new technology that meets client needs, such as custom-built dashboards and risk models. Azara Healthcare customers report the vendor has excellent customer service and is easy to work with. Cedar Gate Technologies (Enli) and HealthEC are both described as proactive, which drives high customer satisfaction. Cerner and Allscripts take a more distanced approach, leaving the nuts-and-bolts work to their customers.

WHO IS SEEING THE MOST MARKET ENERGY?

Arcadia & Innovaccer Generate Energy with Highly Customizable Platforms

Arcadia and Innovaccer are the most considered and most chosen PHM platforms, with organizations citing the platforms’ flexible customization, broad functionality, and focus on data. Arcadia’s functionality and timely data integration are seen as strengths. Organizations that choose or consider Innovaccer highlight the platform’s customizability, workflows, and risk algorithms and feel confident in Innovaccer’s ability to provide good relationships and support. Epic is also frequently considered, thanks to the native integration between their PHM solutions and EMR. Epic customers would like more customized functionality to meet the varied needs of value-based reimbursement contracts in their region.

What Developments Are on the Horizon?

KLAS asked vendors to describe their future road maps for PHM development. The most commonly reported areas of focus are listed below. (Specifics about individual vendors’ development plans can be found in the full report.)

• Advanced analytics (e.g., predictive analytics, forward-looking cost models)
• Artificial intelligence and machine learning (including proactive risk notifications, prioritized care management workflows, and cost-utilization tracking)
• Expanded payer/provider collaboration

WHO DRIVES BROAD ADOPTION ACROSS PHM PILLARS?

Cerner & Epic Outpace Other EMR Vendors Due to Stronger Focus on Clinician Engagement; HealthEC Offers Broadest Capabilities among Ambulatory Vendors

Unsurprisingly, the broad technology platforms of enterprise vendors, particularly Cerner and Epic, offer functionality and see adoption across several of the six pillars of population health management (click here for a list of the functionalities in each pillar). It should be noted that some Cerner and Epic customers build proprietary functionality into their solutions that is not generally available to all users. Third-party vendors tend to offer more robust functionality in niche areas. Arcadia’s and Health Catalyst’s non-EMR solutions offer some of the most comprehensive functionality across the PHM pillars.

About This Report

Data for this report comes from three sources: (1) KLAS performance data, (2) KLAS Decision Insights data, and (3) vendor-reported information.

KLAS Performance Data

Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT products and services their organizations use. These interviews are conducted using a standard quantitative evaluation, and the scores and commentary collected are shared in reports like this one and online in real time so that other healthcare professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences.

The data in this report was collected over the last 12 months; the number of unique responding organizations for each vendor is given in the table below.

Vendor-Reported Information

KLAS gave each vendor measured in this report the chance to answer several questions related to their population health management offering. Vendors’ full responses to these questions are included in the full report. This information has not been independently verified by KLAS. Azara Healthcare, Cedar Gate Technologies (Enli), HealthEC, i2i Population Health, and Lightbeam did not share responses to KLAS’ questions about their offerings.

Product Designations Used in This Report

Regional [R]: Product for which the majority of data comes from organizations located in the same, small geographical area. Relevant Healthcare is marked as regional because most of their customers are located in the western US.