Population health & analytics · CareSpace platform
Persivia
Persivia provides CareSpace, a population health and care management platform that unifies clinical, claims, and SDOH data and embeds next-best actions for value-based care teams. It is not an inpatient capacity or OR scheduling tool.
Strong fit
- Health systems and ACOs that need claims, clinical, and social needs data in one care management system
- Teams that track readmissions, how many patients get risk-scored, and value-based savings
- Buyers willing to retire several single-purpose tools after switching to CareSpace
Weak fit
- Groups that only need a fixed quality dashboard, with no care management owners
- Buyers who will not connect EHR and claims feeds
- Groups looking for a hospital bed capacity tool instead of population health software
Bottom line
Persivia is worth using for mid-sized and multi-hospital buyers that need population health and care management on one platform. It suits groups with clean data, a data owner, and care teams who will follow up. Buyers who want large-scale care gap programs may prefer Innovaccer.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Persivia sells CareSpace, a population health and care management platform. It brings clinical, claims, and social needs data together and sends suggested next steps to care teams.
Persivia points to client results on Medicare savings, fewer readmissions, and replacing several single-purpose tools.
Setup still needs someone to own clean data and care teams who follow through. Pricing is by quote.
It is not a tool for managing hospital bed capacity.
Compare Innovaccer when large-scale care gap programs are the reason to buy, and Azara when analytics for safety-net clinics is the fit.
It has believable results for mid-sized buyers, and pricing that is no clearer than usual. It scores just under Innovaccer and similar peers on packaged results, and is sized more for mid-sized groups.
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 |
| Socially Determined | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| Lightbeam Health Solutions | 6.8 | 6.5 |
| Relevant Healthcare | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| Hexplora | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | The CareSpace population health and care management platform, sold to health systems, ACOs, and related value-based programs. Priced by quote. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of patients covered, number of data sources, care management modules, and services. |
| What to ask before you buy | The full cost per covered patient compared with the single-purpose tools you plan to retire, and a set date for the first patient group. |
| Published pricing | Persivia does not publish prices. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Persivia to function | |
| Clean EHR and claims feeds with someone who owns the data | CareSpace is only as good as the data going in. |
| Named care management leaders who will work the lists | Risk lists fail when nobody follows up. |
| Defined value-based contracts or quality programs | The platform needs a contract or program to pay off. |
| Agreement on which single-purpose tools will be retired | Running two systems forever wipes out savings. |
| A security review plan for patient data from all sources | Blocked data stalls launch. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Start with one high-risk patient group before expanding | Doing everything at once hides early wins. |
| Track completed outreach and changes in results, not only dashboards | Findings without action are just for show. |
| Train staff to handle bad patient matches | Duplicate patients throw off risk rankings. |
| Review closed care gaps every week in the first quarter | Out-of-date lists become noise. |
| Write down which reports replace retired tools | Otherwise staff keep using the old tools. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only want a fixed dashboard with no care team owners. | |
| EHR and claims data cannot be shared. | |
| You have no value-based or quality program. | |
| You will not retire overlapping single-purpose tools. | |
| Leaders expect results without changing how work gets done. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | From signing to kickoff | 3-6 weeks for security review, mapping data, and designing the program |
| 2 | From kickoff to the first patient group | 8-16 weeks for the first patient group |
| 3 | From the first patient group to steady results | 3-6 months before care management feels routine |
Leadership
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.