Population health & analytics · Plan CM / UM platform
Elligint Health
Elligint Health (formed from HealthEC and VirtualHealth) offers the Helios care management and utilization management platform for health plans, plus analytics for risk, quality, and cost. It is not a provider ambulatory EHR.
Strong fit
- Health plans that want care management and utilization management in one Helios system
- Payers that track prior authorization speed, care manager productivity, and audit readiness
- Buyers that run older HealthEC or VirtualHealth systems and want to combine them after the 2025 merger
Weak fit
- Provider groups that want outpatient population health tools, with no health plan team buying
- Organizations that only want a tool for hospital bed capacity
- Buyers who will not pay to change how care management works
Bottom line
Elligint Health is worth considering for health plans that want care management and utilization management on one platform. It suits plans willing to watch how the recent merger settles. Provider organizations focused on their own care management may prefer Persivia, and plans that only need prior authorization automation should compare other tools.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Elligint Health formed in 2025 when HealthEC and VirtualHealth combined.
Its Helios platform helps health plans run care management and utilization management, with analytics on risk, quality, and cost. It is software for running a health plan, not an outpatient EHR for providers.
KLAS recognition and the number of covered lives it serves support the product.
The 2025 rebrand and the joining of two older systems raise the usual questions about how well they fit together and what comes next. Prices are quoted for each customer.
Among population health tools we review, Elligint scores below Persivia and Azara until customer references show consistent delivery after the merger.
Persivia suits buyers focused on care management for providers. Plans that only need prior authorization automation should look at other tools.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Azara Healthcare | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Cozeva | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Persivia | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Syra Health | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Certilytics | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Trella Health | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| IMAT Solutions | 7.0 | 6.7 |
| Elligint Health | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Olio | 6.9 | 6.7 |
| Lightbeam Health Solutions | 6.8 | 6.5 |
| Relevant Healthcare | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Hexplora | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | The Helios platform for health plan care management and utilization management, with analytics. Large contracts are quoted for each plan. |
| What usually drives cost | The number of members covered, which care and utilization management modules you buy, how much analytics you need, and services. |
| What to ask before you buy | The full monthly cost per member for Helios care and utilization management, and any credit for moving if you run HealthEC or VirtualHealth today. |
| Published pricing | Elligint does not publish a price list. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Elligint Health to function | |
| A clear split between care management and utilization management modules after the HealthEC and VirtualHealth merger | An unclear split leads to doing the same work twice. |
| Named health plan staff who own each care management work queue | Helios fails without someone owning each queue. |
| Written CMS and state deadlines for prior authorization | Automation has to meet those deadlines. |
| Known sources for member and provider data | Missing member data stalls outreach. |
| A plan for moving off the older products if you use them now | Running two systems cancels the benefit of the merger. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Test with one line of business before switching everything | Moving everything at once hides problems. |
| Measure prior authorization speed and care manager productivity, not only logins | Use is not the same as results. |
| Test exporting audit records in the first week | Regulators will ask. |
| Tie AI features to a real decision someone makes | Added AI with no owner is just noise. |
| Set dates to retire duplicate VirtualHealth or HealthEC screens | Old screens confuse nurses. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only need an outpatient population health tool for providers. | |
| No one at the plan owns the work. | |
| No one has defined what moves after the merger. | |
| Prior authorization and care management policies are not written down. | |
| Leaders expect results without changing how work gets done. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 3-6 weeks |
| 2 | From kickoff to first use in care or utilization management | 10-20 weeks |
| 3 | From first use to steady results | 3-6 months |
Methodology
| Weight | Factor | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Customer outcomes | Whether buyers get measurable operational or clinical-workflow results after go-live |
| 30% | Product | Capability depth, reliability, and fit for the job the category buys |
| 20% | Implementation | How hard it is to stand up, integrate, train, and stabilize |
| 15% | Pricing clarity | Whether a buyer can model total cost without a mystery quote |
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Highly recommend | Strong outcomes and product with manageable caveats |
| Recommend | Solid fit for the right buyer; know the tradeoffs |
| Conditional | Only with a specific use case or heavy caveats |
| Not recommended | Avoid for most buyers in this category |
Read our full methodology for how we weight scores and assign recommend labels.