A new report by Orem, Utah-based KLAS, Health Information Exchanges: Perception in an Expanding Frontier, has found that out of 38 unique vendors providing health information exchange technology, only five companies were considered in more than 10 percent of buying decisions by healthcare providers. The report examines the purchases or planned purchases of 95 healthcare providers.
Of the nearly 40 vendors named in research, only five were considered with relative frequency:
- Medicity (23 percent)
- Axolotl (22 percent
- RelayHealth (16 percent)
- ICA (11 percent)
- Epic (11 percent)
The KLAS report also notes how the structure and management of a health information exchange dictates, in part, the kind of solution a provider will consider:
- Public HIEs - A public exchange may belong to official state agencies or may be semi-independent with direct and typically temporary government backing. Public HIEs demand solutions with strong potential scalability and need 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 or IDN 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 solutions that best work with their existing technology.
