Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Public Cloud Providers 2022
Delivering Cloud Technology to HIT Vendors
Public cloud providers are increasingly important to how HIT vendors deliver software to provider and payer organizations. To help HIT vendors make informed decisions about which public cloud provider can best meet their needs, this report examines (1) how industry adoption of public cloud solutions is progressing and (2) how well public cloud providers perform in key areas, including their strengths and improvement opportunities.
For this report, KLAS interviewed senior IT leaders from 44 HIT software vendor customers of public cloud providers. This is the first report KLAS has done based solely on feedback from HIT software vendors.
Current State of the Market: HIT Vendors Making Rapid Progress with Cloud Solutions
Nearly half of interviewed vendors have migrated all their go-forward solutions to the cloud, and nearly all of the rest are in various phases of implementation or migration. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most widely used primary cloud provider. Microsoft Azure is gaining ground with recent wins—75% of interviewed vendors who are in early phases of moving to the cloud are using Microsoft Azure as their primary cloud provider. Approaches to migrating include refactoring applications, cloud-native development, leveraging containers, lift-and-shift of legacy solutions, and back-end enhancements.
Almost half of interviewed vendors have made their go-forward products commercially available in the cloud. Among these, about three-quarters have products running in a multi-tenant SaaS environment; the rest run their products in a single-tenant SaaS environment or have created platform-based offerings that allow clients to use their cloud provider of choice. Many vendors that previously had legacy solutions have either replaced or refactored their products, and they are still transitioning clients to the cloud.
About one-third of interviewed vendors use multiple cloud providers. Reasons for this include the desire to accommodate payer/provider clients’ cloud preferences, the acquisition of products hosted by a different cloud provider, and functionality gaps. Vendors who use Microsoft Azure as their primary cloud provider are twice as likely as AWS clients to use a secondary cloud provider.
AWS Is Used the Most, with Microsoft Azure Gaining Momentum;
Google Cloud Platform Is Predominantly a Secondary Provider
AWS is most often considered and implemented—over 95% of interviewed vendors considered AWS, and nearly 80% use AWS as a primary or secondary cloud provider. The 57% of respondents using AWS as their primary cloud provider cite the company’s experience and mature technology. Additionally, AWS was the first to provide public cloud services, giving them many early considerations. Microsoft Azure is gaining momentum, with maturing cloud capabilities that several vendors describe as comparable to AWS’. Over 80% of respondents considered Microsoft Azure, and more than half use them as a primary or secondary cloud provider. Those using Microsoft Azure as their primary cloud provider frequently mention established relationships with Microsoft, software bundling, and favorable pricing as key factors. Google Cloud Platform (GCP) was considered by about half of interviewed vendors and is currently used by one interviewed vendor as a primary cloud provider; GCP is used more often as a secondary cloud provider to fill functionality gaps or enhance capabilities.
Microsoft Azure’s Healthcare Expertise, AWS’ Value Are Relative Strengths; GCP Playing Catch-Up
Cloud providers perform similarly well in terms of technology, security, and operational resilience. Microsoft Azure leads among cloud providers for ease of integration and healthcare expertise. Vendors appreciate the broad offering and strong integration tools and documentation. Microsoft’s solid expertise is supported by industry-experienced staff, deep relationships with health systems, and significant investment in healthcare (though room for improvement remains). Cost and value are weaker points for Microsoft; despite software bundling and volume discounts, some clients report costs can be difficult to predict and manage. AWS leads the market in cost and value. Vendors say AWS proactively works with them to reduce costs as much as possible; predicting and managing costs can still be challenging. Integration with other AWS clients is easy thanks to AWS’ flexibility and simple configurations. Improvement is needed around healthcare expertise; several respondents noted AWS seems more focused on technology than healthcare. A few vendors express excitement around recent AWS investments in the healthcare market and hope AWS’ focus will shift more toward healthcare. GCP is rated lowest for most areas. Vendors appreciate GCP’s competitive pricing and white-glove approach with new customers. The main complaints include not enough flexibility with non-Google tools, high costs for nonproduction environments, and a more technical focus. Some respondents are encouraged by recent healthcare investments.
Improved Agility Is the Biggest Benefit of the Cloud
Across cloud providers, the most-reported benefit is improved agility, which involves fast scalability, automated provisioning, and automated procurement.
Fast scalability: “When we build things natively in the cloud, we build them in a way that inherently scales, and that changes the trajectory. We are not constantly fighting a battle of knowing how to possibly handle the load or scale things if we double the number of customers.” —Vendor executive (data and analytics)
Automated provisioning: “We can spin up infrastructure on demand so much more rapidly than I could order, plug in, and provision hardware. So we don’t have all that IT overhead, and that is a huge benefit for us. A lot of our development systems are hosted in AWS. So if we need a new test instance and a new development team, we can spin that up pretty quickly. We don’t have to run around buying hardware and boxes and plugging them in.” —Vendor executive (imaging)
Automated procurement: “With the supply chain issues and chip shortages we have encountered recently, ordering hardware has been difficult. Lead times have been very long, and that has prevented us from doing rapid deployment and scaling. We have had to plan a lot more for capacity issues with the product. Having the cloud has eliminated those issues.” —Vendor executive (core clinical solutions)
Support Gaps & Cost Management Are the Most-Mentioned Current Obstacles
Support gaps and cost management are often-mentioned obstacles that interviewed vendors encounter with cloud providers. Vendors primarily using AWS’ cloud solution cite challenges with account turnover, navigating AWS’ organization, and a lack of visibility into technical issues. These vendors also describe billing as complex and say costs quickly get out of control if not watched closely—one AWS client noted it can be confusing to understand the cost of running the entire IT environment, the transition costs, and the discounting programs. Additionally, customers struggle with the rapid pace of change with AWS’ constant innovations. Vendors primarily using Microsoft Azure’s cloud note challenges navigating Microsoft’s organization and accessing resources who can solve complex problems. Understanding and managing costs is also a frequently mentioned obstacle. One Microsoft customer shared that there is sometimes a lack of alignment between what representatives are incentivized to do and what customers would most benefit from. Some Microsoft Azure clients also report learning curve challenges because they don’t have enough people familiar with the Azure environment and struggle to recruit and train people with needed expertise.
Cost, Product Enhancements & Security Are Top Priorities for Future Vendor Focus
HIT vendors still face many challenges that make moving to the cloud difficult. Cost is the most frequently mentioned challenge. Respondents cite storage-retrieval and egress fees, and they would like billing to be simplified and cost-management tools to be improved. Vendors also want to see continual, faster investment from cloud providers in core solutions so they can increase adoption. Desired investments include better tool standardization, a scalable and relational database, more base features and AI capabilities, and better monitoring tools. Additionally, respondents note cloud providers should take on more risk related to security. Vendors want help with ransomware, more security certification coverage, upstream safeguards, better authorization and access, and less traditional IT infrastructure in the cloud.
Telehealth Vendors Are Most Cloud Mature; Core Clinical & Imaging Vendors Have a Ways to Go
Telehealth vendors (n=6): Offer most mature cloud solutions, which are widely adopted. All vendors have some products live in the cloud, and two-thirds have full customer adoption. Most have multi-tenant SaaS solutions. Strong AWS presence.
Population health vendors (n=12): Have advanced cloud maturity, with almost 60% that have all go-forward products live in the cloud. Many have SaaS-based products and fairly wide customer adoption. AWS is most-used cloud provider.
Data/analytics vendors (n=5): Have most vendors with all go-forward products live in the cloud; about 40% have full client adoption. Mix of multi-tenant SaaS and platform solutions. AWS is most frequently used, followed by Microsoft Azure.
Payer vendors (n=5): In process of moving to the cloud, with two-thirds in planning or early migration stages. Most use a single-cloud environment; Microsoft Azure is most often used.
Imaging vendors (n=9): Progressing cloud maturity with ground to cover. Most vendors are in the migration phase; several are taking a platform approach. Only 30% are fully live in the cloud, and customer adoption is low.
Core clinical (EMR/clinical communications) vendors (n=5): Have some products live in cloud, but none have all cloud-native products. Several vendors are building new SaaS solutions, and all use a single cloud provider.
About This Report
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use.
This report uniquely reports on a different set of customers: HIT software vendors as clients of public cloud providers. For this study, KLAS created a supplemental evaluation (rather than our standard evaluation, administered to healthcare provider and payer organizations) to delve deeper into several questions specific to the public cloud provider market and vendors’ experiences as clients of cloud providers. This evaluation asked respondents (1) why they selected their cloud provider, (2) where they are at in their cloud journey, (3) the benefits and obstacles of their cloud solution, and (4) what priorities cloud providers should address. The number of responding HIT vendor clients is listed in the chart below.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of customer organizations interviewed for a given public cloud provider. Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given solution can change from question to question. When the number of responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a public cloud provider has a low number of reporting vendor customers, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Writer
Natalie Hopkins
Designer
Jessica Bonnett
Project Manager
Joel Sanchez
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.