Functionality, Sales Experience Drive Providers’ Data Archiving Purchases

A new report from KLAS Research found that issues around missing data, missed timelines, and capacity for EMR integration were the top reasons why providers replaced their health data archiving solution or vendor, while factors such as price, sales experience, and functionality drive purchasing decisions for all providers, whether they are replacing a data archiving solution or choosing one for the first time.

The report outlines recent or upcoming data archiving purchase decisions validated by KLAS between January 2020 and December 2021 for 23 providers. It includes these providers’ perceptions of eight vendors: Harmony Healthcare IT, MediQuant, Triyam, Galen Healthcare, ELLKAY, Legacy Data Access, Clearsense, and CITI.

Triyam was the most frequently selected vendor in the sample, with customers indicating that price and the sales process were their main purchasing reasons, according to the report. Triyam’s pricing structure is seen as straightforward and flexible, and providers report positive experiences with knowledgeable Triyam sales representatives.

Harmony Health IT was the most considered vendor and second most selected, with customers highlighting the company’s salespeople, indicating that they were more professional and provided better follow-up than other vendors.

MediQuant and ELLKAY were found to be most often up for replacement among the vendors in the samples, with customers citing missed timelines, missing data, and lack of EMR integration as the top reasons for seeking a replacement.

MediQuant customers looking to replace the vendor noted that price and the time it took to implement the product and get fully up to speed were major reasons for wanting a replacement. One provider also said that MediQuant’s clinical data archiving solutions were insufficient.

The report gave no reasons from providers considering replacing ELLKAY.

The information contained within the report was gathered through a combination of KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric rating questions and four yes or no questions, and supplemental KLAS Decision Insights Data specific to the data archiving market. The questions were organized into six customer experience pillars: culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.

Following data collection, the ratings of each vendor for all customer experience categories were weighed equally and translated into overall performance scores, which could range from zero to 100.

Galen Healthcare scored a 95, with 16 organizations giving it an A+ for culture, an A+ for loyalty, an A for operations, an A for product, an A for relationship, and an A+ for value. The company was considered for selection in 30 percent of purchasing decisions and was selected or the likely choice in 9 percent of decisions.

One provider who selected Galen Healthcare noted that the vendor went out of its way to meet aggressive timelines and keep promises. Another, who considered Galen Healthcare, but did not select it, stated that they were already doing financial data archiving with another vendor, and their chief information officer preferred to use one vendor for both clinical and financial data archiving.

Harmony Healthcare IT achieved an overall performance score of 93.4, with 18 organizations giving it an A+ for culture, an A+ for loyalty, an A for operations, an A for product, an A for relationship, and an A+ for value. Of the 23 providers surveyed, Harmony Healthcare IT was considered for selection as the organization’s data archiving vendor in 48 percent of purchasing decisions and selected or denoted as the likely choice in 26 percent of decisions.

One provider who selected Harmony Health IT stated that the vendor had solutions that could help manage the organization’s revenue archive. However, another provider that considered the vendor, but did not select it, indicated a lack of customer experience as the reason behind the decision. 

Triyam scored a 92.8, with 18 organizations giving it an A- for culture, an A+ for loyalty, an A for operations, an A for product, an A for relationship, and an A- for value. The vendor was both considered for selection and actively selected or labeled as the likely choice in 30 percent of purchasing decisions.

One provider stated that they selected Triyam because of the company’s flexibility and willingness to negotiate, in addition to a positive sales experience. There was no information in the report detailing why some providers considered the company but did not select it.

MediQuant scored a 92.7, with 18 organizations giving it an A- for culture, an A+ for loyalty, an A for operations, an A for product, an A for relationship, and an A- for value. MediQuant was considered for selection in 39 percent of decisions and selected or listed as the likely choice in 13 percent.

One provider who selected MediQuant did so because the organization had used the company’s solutions in the past, while another did not select the vendor because of concerns about turnaround time and price.

ELLKAY scored a 92.1, with 19 organizations giving it an A for culture, an A for loyalty, an A- for operations, an A- for product, an A- for relationship, and an A for value. The vendor was considered for selection in 30 percent of purchasing decisions and selected or labeled the likely choice in 9 percent.

One provider who selected ELLKAY highlighted the company’s flexibility compared to other vendors, while another, who considered but did not select it, noted that ELLKAY would be a good option, but could not offer no noticeable downtimes or a configurable user interface the way other vendors could.

Legacy Data Access had limited data with which to generate overall performance scores or customer experience ratings, but these were still tabulated based on available data. Twelve organizations gave the vendor an A for culture, an A- for loyalty, an A for operations, an A- for product, a B+ for relationship, and a B for value. Legacy Data Access was considered for selection in 17 percent of purchasing decisions and selected in none of them.

One provider, who was looking to replace Legacy Data Access as its data archiving provider, noted that the vendor's offerings were not large, robust, or integrated enough to achieve satisfactory performance.

Clearsense and CITI both had insufficient data to tabulate performance scores or customer experience ratings, but they were considered for selection by some providers. Of the 23 providers included in the analysis, Clearsense was considered in in 13 percent of purchasing decisions and selected or was the likely choice in 9 percent. One provider who selected Clearsense noted that it had a faster turnaround time than other vendors, but a provider who considered the company without eventually selecting it said that Clearsense did not have a good solution for the organization’s revenue archive.

CITI was both considered and selected in 4 percent of purchasing decisions. One provider who selected CITI noted that the organization did so because of CITI’s prior work with government agencies and its high rating. There was no information in the report on why providers did not select the company.