“Are we lifting together?” That’s what the latest interoperability report by analytics firm KLAS asks major EHR vendors.
Based on their respective strengths and weaknesses, KLAS’ report rates the top 10 EHR vendors in the following order, from greatest interoperability to least. The corresponding numbers are based on the vendor’s average rating across eight measures of interoperability.
1. Epic — 3.8*
• Strengths: A savvy interoperability team that’s well respected by competitors and providers
• Weaknesses: The company is perceived as inflexible and closed off
2. athenahealth — 3.8*
• Strengths: Perceived as proactive and easy to connect to while offering low-cost solutions
• Weaknesses: Sharing between clients could be stronger
3. Cerner — 3.3
• Strengths: Offers strong tools for building complex connections
• Weaknesses: Clients reported being irritated by costs and client-to-client sharing software, Resonance, is not taking off
4. MEDITECH — 3.0
• Strengths: Clients appreciate the vendor’s transparent efforts
• Weaknesses: Weaker tools lead to lower level of sharing overall
5. Greenway — 2.8
• Strengths: Optimism with new one-to-many connection for sharing
• Weaknesses: Some clients report frustration with connections communications and smaller practices lack connections
6. NextGen — 2.8
• Strengths: High level of sharing with some complex connections and solutions to make connecting easier
• Weaknesses: Clients report frustration with NextGen’s higher cost and lack of expertise
7. Allscripts —2.7
• Strengths: High volume of records shared within connections
• Weaknesses: There are significant challenges to sharing data between Allscripts solutions
8. eClinicalWorks — 2.6
• Strengths: Highest number of point-to-point and private network connections
• Weaknesses: Tagged broadly as most frustrating vendor to connect to with weaker support and follow-up
9. GE Healthcare —2.5
• Strengths: Long-standing connections bring value
• Weaknesses: Frustratingly inattentive with interoperability projects at times and less than 20 percent of clients are consuming exchanged data
10. McKesson — 2.5
• Strengths: Solutions offer some strong sharing options and HIE foundation
• Weaknesses: Perceived as disjointed and clients report McKesson is difficult to work with
*Although both Epic and athenahealth’s scores rounded to 3.8, Epic scored slightly higher.
Here are six other takeaways from the report.
• athenahealth is the easiest vendor to connect to, followed by Cerner and Epic, according to customers. However vendors list Epic at the most effective peer to connect to and MEDITECH as least effective.
• Of provider respondents, 98 percent said they are willing to share information, but only 82 percent report their main competitor as being willing to share.
• There is a significant disconnect between providers’ perceptions of vendor interoperability and the reality of their sharing efforts.
• There are meaningful differences in vendor costs.
• Interoperability breaks down most for single-physician and smaller ambulatory practices.
• Interoperability does not meaningfully impact EHR purchases.
