KLAS: Many players, few contenders in HIE market
Whether connecting competitive hospitals or just linking to community physicians, healthcare providers considered 38 unique vendors in their search for health information exchange (HIE) technology, according to a report from KLAS. However, only five companies were considered in more than 10 percent of buying decisions, the Orem, Utah-based research firm reported.
The KLAS report examined the HIE software purchases or planned purchases of 95 healthcare providers, including which vendors they considered in their search. While 38 vendors were named in the research, only a few were considered with relative frequency. Medicity was considered in 23 percent of HIE buying decisions, followed by Axolotl (22 percent), RelayHealth (16 percent), ICA (11 percent) and Epic (11 percent) – although at this point Epic is strongly considered only for Epic-to-Epic connections, according to the report.
“Technology, cost and integration were the selection criteria most often mentioned by prospective buyers, but evaluating those factors is especially difficult when most HIE vendors can point to only a handful of live deployments,” said report author Jason Hess, general manager of clinical research at KLAS.
The report noted how the structure and management of an HIE dictates, in part, the kind of technology a provider will consider:
Among the 38 vendors referenced by providers, the 10 considered most often were: Axolotl, Cerner, dbMotion, Epic, GE Healthcare, ICA, InterSystems, Medicity, Orion and RelayHealth, according to KLAS.
The KLAS report examined the HIE software purchases or planned purchases of 95 healthcare providers, including which vendors they considered in their search. While 38 vendors were named in the research, only a few were considered with relative frequency. Medicity was considered in 23 percent of HIE buying decisions, followed by Axolotl (22 percent), RelayHealth (16 percent), ICA (11 percent) and Epic (11 percent) – although at this point Epic is strongly considered only for Epic-to-Epic connections, according to the report.
“Technology, cost and integration were the selection criteria most often mentioned by prospective buyers, but evaluating those factors is especially difficult when most HIE vendors can point to only a handful of live deployments,” said report author Jason Hess, general manager of clinical research at KLAS.
The report noted how the structure and management of an HIE dictates, in part, the kind of technology a provider will consider:
- Public HIEs: A public exchange may belong to state agencies or may be semi-independent with direct and typically temporary government backing. Public HIEs require potential scalability and standards-based technology.
- Cooperative HIEs: In this model, otherwise-competitive hospitals work together to form independent HIE organizations, generally with an open invitation to other hospitals, clinics and physician practices. These HIEs often struggle to establish long-term funding and look for vendor solutions that offer flexible and affordable cost alternatives while best adapting diverse EMR technologies.
- Private HIEs: In some respects, private HIEs are designed to enhance relationships as well as exchange data. Often, a single hospital creates an HIE hoping to draw in community physicians while protecting or increasing revenues. Funding is less complicated and these HIEs are more likely to be satisfied with tools that best work with their existing technology.
Among the 38 vendors referenced by providers, the 10 considered most often were: Axolotl, Cerner, dbMotion, Epic, GE Healthcare, ICA, InterSystems, Medicity, Orion and RelayHealth, according to KLAS.