HIT Selection Criteria

An interesting study from KLAS regarding criteria that small US hospitals apply when selection an HIT system.


Some noteworthy points from this study:

  • “in light of new meaningful use requirements, many community hospital executives are now considering more complex – and often more costly – IT solutions, which many providers perceive as supporting greater clinician adoption.”
  • “Meaningful use requirements are forcing buyers to focus on this issue rather than cost and infrastructure, which were the much more significant criteria in the past”
  • “Meditech still dominates provider mindshare for health information systems, with McKesson also gaining significant traction recently. Meditech continues to leverage its reputation as a low-cost, integrated solution, with 70 percent of providers including the vendor in their selection process”
  • “Cerner, Eclipsys, Epic and Siemens Soarian are at the table more frequently due to a perceived higher potential for clinician adoption.”
  • “The consideration of these traditional large hospital solutions in community hospitals has also been spurred by the shrinking opportunity for new sales among large organizations.”


One response to “HIT Selection Criteria

  1. A number of interesting things come out of this study. What will be interesting to see is how successful can the big ticket/large hospital vendors (ie Cerner, McKEsson) go downstream. Will this hurt their pricing and business model with their “Ferrari” customers if the start selling “Chevettes”?

    I would agree that the large hospital market is saturated in both Canada and the US. I wonder if the RHIOs can start to share IT amongst the large and small hospitals. This has been a successful model in Canada, with large regional hospitals hosting big expensive apps for their smaller regional cousins…who in all fairness could never afford the apps on their own.

    I think what is missing from this analysis is overall acute care market saturation. There are not a large number of hospitals (in Canada or the US) that do not have some form of IT automation. This not a large greenfields market for many vendors in the first place. Some of these acute vendors should start subs or purchase vendors that play across the continuum of care, so they have a soup to nuts offering. Just ask the retail guys who have to compete against Wal-Mart…the service sucks but you can’t beat their product depth and pricing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s