INTEROPERABILITY 2015
CURRENT STATE AND NEXT STEPS; MARKET
IMMATURITY HIGHLIGHTS OPPORTUNITY
| OCTOBER 2015 | PERFORMANCE REPORT
INTEROPERABILITY 2015
Current State and Next Steps; Market Immaturity Highlights Opportunity
ABOUT KLAS
Using the voice of healthcare software and services customers, KLAS has measured
healthcare IT vendor performance since 1997. Today, KLAS collects and publishes
customer feedback on over 800 products and services. Roughly 30,000 providers work
with KLAS each year. Over 98% of KLAS research is collected in live conversations over
the phone, to ensure accuracy and clarity, since healthcare IT is often a nuanced and
complex discussion subject. All interviews are strictly anonymous, and participants are
granted broad access to the feedback of other participants. Access to KLAS’s findings is
available through subscription and individual report purchases.
ABSTRACT
Today there are very simple and technically successful ways to exchange patient data between
systems from different EMR vendors. Unfortunately, they are not yet usable or effective for
physicians. Interoperability is a complicated issue, due to the complex nature of healthcare,
the variety of provider use cases, the multi-branded development of healthcare technology,
the strict nature of privacy laws, the promulgation of too many incomplete standards, and
sometimes ineffective incentives for both providers and vendors. Impacted industry players
seem to agree that poor interoperability is overall a result of market immaturity, with no single
culprit or character to blame.
Most provider organizations interviewed have multiple connections to outside records through
a variety of connection types, but they report frustration with high costs, complex connections,
extreme variation in the value of health information exchanges, and unresolved legal/privacy
concerns. Vendors and providers are aligned as to what the key issues are that are holding back
interoperability, including standards, patient identification, participant willingness, privacy laws,
and security. How interoperability will mature is unclear, and the process could take several
paths.
2
Interoperability 2015
REPORT BACKGROUND
This report is the subset of a larger report that was produced by a collaborative effort between
healthcare provider executives, CHIME (College of Healthcare Information Management
Executives), and KLAS. This version is targeted toward providing a clear view of interoperability
for interested parties across the nation, including policy makers and national leaders.
Interoperability is both difficult to measure and critical to the future success of healthcare IT.
A panel of CHIME CIOs designed a detailed questionnaire to measure the current state of
interoperability and vendor achievement. KLAS interviews routinely lasted 60 minutes or more
and often included multiple members of the provider organization’s senior IT and clinical team
members (e.g., the CIO, CMIO, CMO, etc.). Over the course of three months, KLAS conducted
over 240 interviews. To cover the largest number of impacted providers and patients, the
research targeted mainly healthcare enterprise organizations (both acute and ambulatory) but
also included standalone clinics and physician practices. There was no effort to include many
other types of care-delivery organizations, such as behavioral health, long-term care, home
health, and other organizations, though the study organizers recognize that these organizations
are an important part of the puzzle and will have to be part of the overall solution.
Sampling was targeted
toward many of the
most interoperable
organizations within
each customer base.
Vendors were asked to
share a list of their most
interoperable customers
so that KLAS did not miss
important, bleeding-edge
interoperability progress.
3
Interoperability 2015
WHAT IS INTEROPERABILITY ?
With the help of a provider expert panel, interoperability was defined in this report for
simplicity’s sake as
The ability of two or more healthcare entities to exchange and incorporate
information with precoordination and context such that the information
has utility in improving patient care.
Note that this definition includes connections between organizations using the same EMR
vendor—what some call “intraoperability.” With the emphasis on patient care, the ultimate goal
is for providers to be able to access outside patient information regardless of the technology
used. Thus, in this context, intraoperability is simply a subset of interoperability.
Focus for Exchanging Patient Data?
Healthcare providers were asked what their focus is for sharing patient data. Patient
data exchange today is focused on core patient needs such as orders, results, or
transitions of care (n=202)
Orders/Results
59%
Transitions of Care
52%
General/Ongoing Care
41%
MU/Regulatory Reporting
31%
Referrals/Consults
29%
Population Health/ACO
11%
ED Support
10%
Patient Portal
3%
Research
2%
MD Query
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of Organizations
50%
60%
70%
4
Interoperability 2015
CURRENT STATE OF INTEROPERABILITY
An EMR clinical record can contain as many as 100,000 (and growing) different data fields and
elements that are a mix of numeric data, structured text, unstructured text, scanned images,
diagnostic images, and so on. In the evolution of their products, each EMR vendor has defined
slightly (or significantly) different data fields. Connecting different EMR brands at a database
level requires an understanding of all data fields as well as a means for translating or labeling
discrepancies between databases. To make matters more complicated, individual institutions
often customize their installation of an EMR, evolving their databases away from those of peers
using the same brand of EMR.
For data sharing, context is critical for the receiving clinician. Without context, information is
often overlooked or cannot be reliably used. Industry standards for data sharing are varied,
with many different standards that often lack needed specificity. And the application of such
standards is allowed to be so varied that an integration point that is contextually strong is likely
expensive.
The lack of uniformly adopted, specific, deep standards makes data sharing a clumsy process.
Most data sharing today is based on sharing some data fields with contextual integration, or
sharing view-only document summaries of many data fields without much context. Furthermore,
the development of an interface between two EMR installations can almost never be used
across multiple customers in a plug-and-play fashion.
Reasons for Unmet Connections Outside Your Organization
n=170
Cost/Resources
28%
Ineffective HIE
24%
Incompatible Solutions/Technical Limitations
20%
Missing/Incomplete Standards
19%
Conflicting Priorities/Competition
16%
Legal/Privacy
13%
Unwilling/Ineffective Vendor
8%
Inability of Small EMR Vendor
6%
Lack of MD Engagement
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percent of Organizations
25%
30%
5
Interoperability 2015
Organizations participating in this study shared the three currently live interoperability
connections that they feel are most clinically valuable. Feedback highlighted the incredible
heterogeneity of connection types, breadth, scope, and use. Providers classified their main
connections into six broad connection types:
Connection
Description
Feedback from Healthcare Providers
Public HIE
Connection to a publicly
funded or shared
governance health
information exchange
(the converse being an
exchange primarily hosted
by a single healthcare
system)
Public HIEs account for high volumes of transferred patient records. Unfortunately,
much of the data shared is limited to summary of care documents pushed by hospitals
to the HIE. In many instances, public HIEs see little usage of this data in the end, and
providers give public HIEs low value assessments.
Private
Network/HIE
Connection to a privately
funded health information
exchange
Discouraged by the cost and inflexibility of public—or shared—HIEs, larger providers
have shifted to creating their own HIEs, to first connect groups within their own
organizations and to then move outside. These private networks can be expensive
and rather difficult to set up and maintain, but they are designed to meet providers’
specific goals (including results delivery) and thus have higher value in improving
patient care. The high cost typically moves this type of HIE out of reach for smaller
health systems and practices.
Direct
Messaging
A newer standard for
sharing packets of
information, including a
CCD or CCR.
Although Direct messaging is expected to be nearly ubiquitous thanks to the
meaningful use requirements (or standards), fewer than half of the study participants
named it as one of their top connections. Even when Direct messaging has been
implemented, many organizations complain that not enough outside providers are
prepared to receive messages; they report that this is particularly an issue with those
running ambulatory EMRs from small vendors. The value of Direct messaging is
also inhibited by organizations’ inability to import discrete patient data from CCDs.
Interpretation of the CCD standard varies, leading to incompatibility in how data
is formatted. Additionally, CCDs typically include much more data than receiving
clinicians need, making the most applicable information difficult to locate. Under these
conditions, some providers say their CCDs are no better (and are maybe worse) than
faxed documentation.
EMR
Vendor’s
Private HIE
Health information
exchange hosted by an
EMR vendor for their
customers. Sharing is
typically (but not always)
between customers with
the same EMR.
Today, the connection type that comes closest to being plug-and-play is the private
network offered by some EMR vendors to facilitate sharing, primarily, among their
own customers. Epic has been an early leader with adoption of their Care Everywhere
platform by 1) providing it to every customer for no additional charge, and 2) requiring
that all customers be willing to open up to sharing with others on the network.
Despite sharing mostly in a homogeneous EMR environment, such networks have
the highest transaction volume and highest value and require the lowest effort to set
up and maintain. Aside from Epic, other vendors with this type of network include
athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, Cerner, and Greenway.
Point-toPoint Interfaces
Traditional connections
implemented for specific
business reasons, such as
orders and results sharing
between hospitals and
community practices.
Typically share specific,
pre-specified data
elements.
Considered the traditional means of sharing information—the second most common
form of data sharing. Providers feel that point-to-point connections have high value
but are costly to set up and maintain. The need to configure each interface separately,
along with dependence on vendors to do it, often makes establishing these direct
connections a drawn-out process. And point-to-point connections often lack broader
utility for sending patient data beyond simple lab results. In the future, point-to-point
connections could also include access sharing instead of data record shipping.
FTP/Other
Connections
File transfer protocols or
other means of connecting.
FTP connections have minimal usage now and are mainly dedicated to specialized
data sharing, such as feeds for state immunization registries.
Interoperability 2015
All vendors have success with all of the above connection types, with the exception of the
private EMR vendor HIE—only a handful of vendors offer that connection. EMR vendors’
private HIEs have best met expectations by providing high value and simple-to-implement
connections, recognizing the obvious limitations. Once a vendor has laid a solid framework
for an exchange within their customer base, these connections can sometimes be turned on
automatically with almost no thought or effort. While these connections have not solved the
critical need for heterogeneous connections built through vendor collaboration, they improve
patient care.
Many are hopeful that given time to mature, Direct messaging will provide a valuable plugand-play connection between vendors. To date, most are disappointed with poor coordination
among vendors on the Direct messaging standard (meaning, the sending and receiving EMRs
do not agree on how to format a document), difficulty in locating records, and limited parsing
abilities. A majority of respondents report that local public HIEs provide limited value, and there
is little optimism about the future of public HIEs.
6
Interoperability 2015
CONNECTION MATURITY
Providers have repeatedly reported to KLAS the critical importance of bringing outside data
all the way into a clinician’s workflow. When data is not effectively brought into the clinical
workflow, it is often disregarded or overlooked.
The value of a connection is often tied to the breadth of information being shared, the volume
of records available to clinicians, and the maturity of the connection. As connections grow in
maturity, data is not just sent in large packets to a common viewing portal but is instead brought
into the clinicians’ workflow. Integration maturity is described below:
* Percent of Respondents
7
8
Interoperability 2015
IDENTIFYING INTEROPERABILITY HURDLES
Vendors and providers were asked to identify what could advance national interoperability, and
both groups reported a similar story:
• Unclear standards are the greatest hurdle to sharing. Almost no respondents report a
lack of standards but instead report frustration with the depth of current standards, as
well as poor clarity regarding the application of current standards.
• Lack of a standard patient identifier is also a significant frustration. Records that cannot
be found cannot be shared.
• Provider willingness, security, and legal governance are other key hurdles to record
sharing.
In addition to these hurdles, forward-looking industry leaders identify the lack of a provider
directory and the lack of a consent registry as two hurdles that the industry will have to face
in time. Without a provider directory, finding trading partners is difficult. Without a consent
registry (detailing what a patient has consented to exchange), privacy laws cannot be effectively
maneuvered.
Most Important Thing to Advance Interoperability
If you were supreme ruler for a day, what is the single most important thing you would do
to really advance interoperability in the healthcare industry?
45%
Interoperability Standards
31%
National Patient Identifier/Index
60%
40%
20%
20%
Federal Mandate to Share
14%
Single Point of Exchange
20%
8%
10%
Security/Privacy Standard
Providers (n=213)
8%
Better CCD/Direct Standard
Semantic Data Standard
7%
10%
Incentivize Participation
7%
6%
Standard API
Vendors (n=10)
20%
10%
3%
National Provider Directory
2%
Voluntary Standard Agreement
0%
30%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of Organizations
50%
60%
70%
Interoperability 2015
A DEEPER LOOK AT STANDARDS
Identified by both providers and vendors as a key hurdle to interoperability, standards are much
more complicated than they appear to be on the surface. To an industry outsider, it might seem
that a central body could easily dictate standards and force compliance (such as was done in
the railroad industry with rail width). However, difficult-to-follow standards are an outgrowth
of a lack of standardization within clinical practices. Over the years, clinicians have demanded
customization and alignment with local workflow idiosyncrasies over all other features.
Providers often feel they have too many standards, including RxNorm, SNOMED, HL7, HL7
FHIR, DICOM, LOINC, and IHE. HL7 is a good example. In an effort to progress with industry
complexity and needs, HL7 is constantly updating and releasing new iterations of its standards.
However, in the short term, this has increased standards heterogeneity. Conversely, current
standards cannot be left stagnant since medicine continues to rapidly evolve. The balance
between updating standards and driving clear adherence is difficult at best.
9
Interoperability 2015
WILLINGNESS TO SHARE
98% of providers mention that they are willing to share, but only 82% report their main
competitor to be similarly willing. Either way, most providers are starting to see data sharing
as inevitable, but resistance remains. Smaller ambulatory practices are the least likely care
providers to want to share their own records.
Providers overwhelmingly report that their vendors are willing to help them share but that
business revenue models and lack of technical resources often get in the way. Only 8% of
providers mention that an unwilling or incompetent vendor is the key hurdle stopping record
sharing (see Figure 2).
Overall, there is significant evidence that current willingness far exceeds market maturity in
interoperability efforts.
10
Interoperability 2015
LOOKING FORWARD
How will interoperability be achieved? Looking into the future, how exactly will interoperability
connections be functioning? What barriers will have been overcome?
Providers overwhelmingly report that successful interoperability will be nearly invisible
for those involved. Just as billions of people use email today successfully with most users
not stopping to think how addresses are maintained and data packets are shared, so too do
providers expect a successful future state of interoperability to “just work” without most end
users understanding how or why.
In order for sharing to work invisibly, providers and vendors report that the following must be
achieved:
1. Aligned Incentives: Providers must see effective record sharing as a win for their caredelivery and business interests. Vendors must see data sharing create a benefit for
them—a competitive advantage or required market core competency.
2. Robust Legal Governance: All parties must feel confident that they are on strong legal
footing for sharing medical records and that conflicting or unclear privacy laws are
resolved, including variations by state.
3. Record Location: Clinicians must be confident all available patient encounters are
accurately found from other organizations. This will likely include a provider directory as
well as an effective voluntary national health identifier.
4. Clear Context/Standards for Sharing: Shared data must be well labeled in a way that
the receiving system can identify and properly ingest such data. Strong standards and
cooperation will be required.
5. Adoption into Clinical Workflow: Busy clinicians must be able to see all patient data
(from their organization and from outside organizations) in an appropriate view. Data
sharing that is outside the clinical workflow allows for clinical mistakes due to overlooked
data and lower adoption.
6. Data Security: Data security and full interoperability can seem to be antithetical
objectives. In order for data sharing to work, only the designated correct parties can have
access to a patient’s data.
Based on feedback from the provider, vendor, and expert communities, below are several
scenarios for interoperability maturation that could occur. A possible future state could be a
combination of multiple states.
11
12
Interoperability 2015
S T A T E # 1 : I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y T H R O U G H H E A LT H
I N F O R M AT I O N E X C H A N G E S ( 5 + Y E A R S )
Widely thought of several years ago as the likely scenario for interoperability, the vision of a
national health information exchange built on the backs of many smaller health information
exchanges is starting to dim in the eyes of many providers and some vendors. As measured
in this research, less than half of providers interviewed expect that their local HIE will be
successful in meeting their needs. Customer satisfaction with HIE solutions overall is extremely
low in spite of a handful of standout successes, and many providers share disillusionment
regarding a hub-and-spoke sharing model with middleman HIE vendor technology facilitating
connections. HIE sharing does not make connections simpler, data is often not put within the
workflow of the clinician, and it is often a struggle to get rapid growth of the HIE and adoption of
sharing because that is controlled by the HIE middleman. A fact even more critical to overcome
is that an HIE framework model requires a middleman, and middlemen make for higher costs.
Financial incentives to pay for these middleman HIEs are often unclear.
HIE Confidence Score Distribution
If you are planning to connect through a public HIE or currently doing so, how confident
are you that the HIE will truly benefit patient care? (n=181)
30%
25%
24%
25%
24%
20%
19%
15%
10%
9%
5%
0%
1 = No Chance
2
3
4
5 = Extremely Likely
Interoperability 2015
The HIE model does overcome some hurdles for sharing. Record location is the backbone of
any HIE effort and is arguably the greatest strength of a public or private-network HIE. HIEs
also are able to define their own governance and standards. While self-defined governance and
standards enable a single successful HIE launch, they also inhibit cross-HIE connections. While
hundreds of functioning public and private-network HIEs exist today, cross-HIE connections are
extremely limited.
Despite these challenges, HIE solution providers will almost certainly continue to provide
needed services of data sharing in specific, high-intensity situations, such as specialized ACO
data aggregation and image exchange.
S T A T E # 2 : DIRECT MESSAGE EXCHANGE (3+ YEARS)
A requirement for Stage 2 of meaningful use, the Direct messaging standard is a payload
agnostic means for sharing data and to date has mostly been used for passing CCDs. Many
hope that Direct messaging can evolve to a point where a commonly understood packet of
information can be sent from one EMR to another, in a format that the receiving EMR can
understand and incorporate (parse) in the patient record. To date, sharing has been difficult, as
this vehicle does not provide for governance, record location, or a clear context of data sharing.
Despite these challenges, many are optimistic that Direct messaging could be an important
piece of the puzzle. At the least, Direct messaging can be a replacement for record faxing. If
coupled with clear governance, record location, and/or stronger context or standards, Direct
could go much further.
To date, packets of information sent via Direct are often not very usable for clinicians. Data
is often received in long, poorly structured documents, so important data elements are often
hidden within many unneeded data elements. Almost all vendors are taking steps to better send,
receive, and parse Direct messages.
S T A T E # 3 : SINGLE LARGE NETWORK OR HISP (3–5 YEARS)
While less clear, a possible maturation path for interoperability could mirror that of the
Surescripts ePrescribing network, where a single dominant entity emerges as the governor and
facilitator for nationwide sharing based on an extensive record of patient encounters across
the nation. While focused on ePrescribing and medication information, the Surescripts network
is widely recognized as the greatest health information exchange success to date. While the
success of Surescripts has erupted in just the past four years, efforts to build a sharing network
required over a decade of prework efforts before widespread sharing was able to take place.
13
Interoperability 2015
If a single large network were to emerge as the data-sharing hub of the nation, providers today
are uncertain as to which organization could successfully lead this effort. Providers were
asked which collaboration will likely provide a strong contribution to interoperability, and their
responses reveal that they are skeptical about the Sequoia Project, the eHealth Exchange
(managed by the Sequoia Project), and the CommonWell Health Alliance and that they feel none
of these organizations has shown clear startup traction. However, both the Sequoia Project and
the CommonWell Health Alliance are relatively new efforts and have significant vendor backing.
It should also be understood that the challenges of a single large exchange would be larger than
those of the ePrescribing network. Security alone might be a dramatically larger question as the
sensitivity of the data, the number of connections, and the high-profile nature of a significant
hub could make repelling outside attacks a dizzying endeavor.
S T A T E # 4 : N E T W O R K O F E M R N E T W O R K S ( E X T E N D P O S S I B LY
TO S U C C E S S F U L H I E S ) ( 3 + Y E A R S )
To date, providers report that the highest-value/lowest-cost connection type has been the
private EMR interoperability network. To date, Epic and eClinicalWorks have built significant
internal sharing networks, and Cerner is just beginning to build a private network. Other
vendors have announced plans to build shared networks. To date, no private EMR vendor
networks have been connected.
With customers using similar installations of the same product, intraoperability (defined here
as sharing between two organizations on the same EMR) could be the first step toward full
interoperability. Data is naturally better aligned into the clinician workflow, data that is shared
follows a similar format (making standards easier to navigate), and record location can be
handled by the EMR vendor.
The hurdles for different EMR networks to connect effectively are significant. Agreements
covering governance would need to be built, security concerns would need to be addressed, and
record location capabilities would need to be built with each connection. As a first step, more
simple connections could be made, and customers could push EMR vendors to improve the
connections over time.
14
Interoperability 2015
S T A T E # 5 : P O I N T-T O - P O I N T S H A R I N G O F A C C E S S ( 3 – 5 Y E A R S )
Some have argued that if trading partners are able to share access into their systems without
actually shipping data, a viable replacement for data sharing (in many instances) could be
achieved. It is common for larger health systems to provide logins to the health system EMR for
affiliated physicians, and while data is not passed, physicians have the ability to see patients in
the system. With access sharing, outside clinicians would be given access into an EMR without
the need for setting up new logins.
Since data would not actually be shipped, security concerns could be significantly lessened.
Conversely, such data sharing would require clinicians to view data in a different portal from
their current EMR, subverting some possible gains that in-workflow contextual sharing could
bring.
S T A T E # 6 : R E G I O N A L C O L L A B O R AT I V E S ( 3 + Y E A R S )
Different from public HIE efforts, regional collaboratives focus more on governance than
technology. Similar to work being done by the Mass HIway, provider organizations are able to
share data through a variety of means (e.g., access sharing and Direct Messaging) but operate
under a common governance with clear record location.
Providers and vendors are clear in their feedback that the technical aspects of exchange are
not the critical hurdles to interoperability. Regional collaboratives work to fix some of the most
pressing concerns (e.g., governance, aligned incentives, and record location) while leaving many
technical barriers for the regional members to decide on. In Massachusetts, this approach has
brought clinicians and patients clear value.
15
Interoperability 2015
CALL TO ACTION
Will Vendors’ Willingness to Be Measured Make a Difference?
On October 2, 2015, a broad group of EHR stakeholders, including vendor CEOs and provider
CIOs, agreed by consensus to objective measures of interoperability and to ongoing reporting.
Leaders of 12 different EHR vendor organizations proactively stepped forward and agreed to
have an independent entity publish transparent measures of health information exchange that
can serve as the basis for understanding our current position and trajectory. Assisted by leading
provider organizations and informatics experts, these executive officers knocked down barriers
to arrive at measures to improve interoperability for the public good. Vendors and providers
willingly committed to go arm in arm to work closely with Washington to help alleviate the
interoperability measurement burden faced by the government.
CEOs and a few designated executives of the following 12 companies helped build/shape the
measurement and support its use to independently and transparently measure/assess the
status and trajectory of interoperability:
AllscriptsGreenway
athenahealthHealthland
CernerMcKesson
eClinicalWorksMEDHOST
EpicMEDITECH
GE Healthcare
NextGen Healthcare
Note: Current research by KLAS, especially the findings from the October 2015 Interoperability Study, does
not reflect in any way the upcoming research that will be done using the new measurement model that is to be
launched at the end of 2015. KLAS’ past interoperability studies, including those being published in 2015, are
separate and independent of the future measurement to be done as part of the KLAS Keystone Summit. In fact,
all past interoperability studies done by KLAS are focused on accurately representing the provider participant
perspective and may not represent a particular vendor’s perspective, understanding of the market, or approval of
the findings.
For access to more details about this report, contact
Annmarie Clark
(800) 920-4109
[email protected]
16
REPORT INFORMATION
AUTHOR
KENT GALE
[email protected]
CO-AUTHOR
BOB CASH
[email protected]
READER RESPONSIBILITY:
KLAS’ website and reports are a compilation of research gathered from websites, healthcare
industry reports, interviews with healthcare provider executives and managers, and interviews
with vendor and consultant organizations. Data gathered from these sources includes strong
opinions (which should not be interpreted as actual facts) reflecting the emotion of exceptional
success and, at times, failure. The information is intended solely as a catalyst for a more meaningful
and effective investigation on your organization’s part and is not intended, nor should it be used, to
replace your organization’s due diligence.
KLAS data and reports represent the combined opinions of actual people from provider
organizations comparing how their vendors, products, and/or services performed when measured
against participants’ objectives and expectations. KLAS findings are a unique compilation of candid
opinions and are real measurements representing those individuals interviewed. The findings
presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base. Significant variables
including organization/hospital type (rural, teaching, specialty, etc.), organization size, depth/
breadth of software use, software version, role in the organization, provider objectives, and
system infrastructure/network impact participants’ opinions and preclude an exact apples-toapples vendor/product comparison or a finely tuned statistical analysis.
We encourage our clients, friends, and partners using KLAS research data to take into account
these variables as they include KLAS data with their own due diligence. For frequently asked
questions about KLAS methodology, please refer to the KLAS FAQs.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WARNING:
This report and its contents are copyright-protected works and are intended solely for your
organization. Any other organization, consultant, investment company, or vendor enabling
or obtaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable for all damages associated with
copyright infringement, which may include the full price of the report and/or attorney’s fees. For
information regarding your specific obligations, please refer to the KLAS Data Use Policy.
ANALYST
COLIN BUCKLEY
[email protected]
CO-ANALYST
TAYLOR DAVIS
ABOUT KLAS:
For more information about KLAS, please visit our website.
OUR MISSION:
KLAS’ mission is to improve the delivery of healthcare technology by independently measuring and
reporting on vendor performance.
[email protected]
CO-ANALYST
DAN CZECH
[email protected]
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.
DESIGNER
ALENI RASMUSSEN
[email protected]
PROJECT MANAGER
AMY GOODSELL
[email protected]
KLAS
630 E. Technology Ave. Orem, UT 84097
Ph: (800)920-4109 | Fax: (801)377-6345 | www.KLASresearch.com
Search in Google Play or App Store
to DOWNLOAD the app today!