Based on the description of the precise integration between applications and ease of use, do I smell something bad? Oh! that must be McKesson?

Was there any reason why the 4 vendors you listed were cleared of the inverified claims, or did you pick them at random?

[From Mr. HIStalk] I picked the four obvious possibilities that it wasn’t, leaving one major one. And no, it wasn’t Meditech, either. It’s probably not worth a lot of thinking either way since it’s just an observation from someone that was interesting.

Sure they provide customized services to vendors for a fee. These are the vendors that are smart enough to realize that many of us use this information to make informed decisions and they are looking to drill down deeper to improve their own performance. It’s not a game, but good business acumen.

I also think it only makes sense that smaller, specialized vendors will receive higher KLAS scores. They HAVE to provide a higher level of functionality and service in a specific area or we simply wouldn’t consider them over our primary HIS vendor.

I will continue to use their scorings and customized reports as I have for many years.. They haven’t steered me wrong yet.

First poster: I don’t know at what point Medical Manager, Mysis, Epic, Cerner, etc. were “small vendors” in the KLAS lifetime. Cerner, et al, make individual sales that are multiples of our annual business. If there weren’t a focus on the larger players, then, how do you explain the absence of a handful of vendors from the “Best In KLAS” awards who, even though they have higher scores than other vendors, aren’t allowed to win?

I am sympathetic to their position, but they have had the time to manage this problem and haven’t done much. They should have realized, a while ago, that tracking provider speciality (for example) is a big deal. The needs of individual specialities vary enough that they shouldn’t be lumped together.

As for the second vendor: I simply call foul. We learned about our KLAS scores long before we paid them a dime and the dime(s) we pay them are simply to access the detailed. Nothing more. It was another vendor who called us to say, “Hey, great scores!” That’s when we really got interested. We are _so small_ that the income they receive from us can’t be worth the constant grief we give them about not being listed with our competitors or winning any awards. If people are interested, I’ll post EXACTLY what we pay and what we get (I don’t think there’s anything in our agreement that says we can’t). We are a thorn in their side, not an underwriter who benefits as a result.

I’ve been approached by other review services to pay for scores (directly and indirectly), so I think I’d know the difference.

To make this clear: they published our good scores without interacting with us, really, and then get a pittance from us because we like the data.

To make another point clear: I *like* the KLAS folks and I think their service is quite valuable. It’s quite distinctive from many of the other reports because it is so user-driven. We actually complained to them last year because it was clear (based on our subjective info) that one of our big competitors was getting higher scores for its PMS than it deserved (the EHR isn’t bad, but the PMS is clearly sub-par). We posited that the docs were filling out the scores too often and transferring their view of the EHR onto the PMS…and KLAS concurred in our conversations and explained that they were implementing new interview and ata guidelines to make this distinction. Since then, there has been a noted decline, last I checked, in the vendor’s PMS scores.

Meanwhile, folks can complain all they want about the “scores” but those customer comments are REAL and are incredibly helpful. Worth the price of what we pay, alone.