Population health & analytics · Quality, risk & value-based care
Cozeva
Cozeva is a value-based care platform that combines quality measurement, risk adjustment, and population health analytics for health plans and provider organizations. It is care-gap and risk software, not OR capacity math.
Strong fit
- Health plans and medical groups that need HEDIS, Stars, and risk-adjustment workflows in one clinician-facing view
- Organizations closing care gaps and reconciling risk revenue without a separate quality stack and a separate risk stack
- Teams that want point-of-care quality and risk tools rather than a pure data-warehouse science project
Weak fit
- Health systems that only want OR capacity optimization
- Buyers without quality or risk-adjustment owners to act on the lists
- Organizations refusing to connect claims and EHR feeds
Bottom line
Cozeva earns a Recommend for plans and provider groups that live in value-based quality and risk work. Built by Applied Research Works and led by CEO Khanh Gia Nguyen, the platform combines quality measurement, risk adjustment, and population health views so clinicians and plan staff read from the same page. Third-party estimates put revenue near $7M with a few hundred employees - inside our prefer band. Outcomes still require care teams to close the gaps the dashboards show. Score sits just under Azara on this board with a clearer plan-and-IPA quality/risk fit than safety-net-only tools.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Cozeva is a value-based care platform from Applied Research Works that puts quality measurement, risk adjustment, and population health analytics in one clinician-facing view for plans and provider organizations.
It is care-gap and risk software, not OR capacity math. Compare Azara when the buyer is a safety-net FQHC, Certilytics when predictive analytics for plan risk is the core need, and Lightbeam when care-management worklists are the main job.
Score reflects a focused mid-market quality/risk product with ordinary enterprise commercial opacity.
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 | Enterprise SaaS for quality, risk adjustment, and population health; quote-based health-plan and medical-group contracts. |
| What usually drives cost | Covered lives, modules (quality, risk, care gaps), data feeds, and support tier. |
| What to ask in diligence | Annual contract value at your membership or attributed lives, including implementation and ongoing quality/risk workflow support. |
| Published pricing | No public list price; enterprise quotes only. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Cozeva to function | |
| Quality and risk owners named | Dashboards die without owners. |
| Claims and EHR feeds scoped | No data means no gaps. |
| Baseline Stars/HEDIS/risk metrics | You cannot prove lift without a baseline. |
| Privacy and BAA review complete | Plan analytics stall in security. |
| Care-gap follow-up capacity | Lists without outreach waste the license. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Pilot one product line or IPA first | Enterprise day one multiplies noise. |
| Measure gap closure at 90 days | Prove quality/risk lift. |
| Retire overlapping quality tools | Duplicate queues confuse staff. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| Only need OR capacity math | |
| No claims/EHR sharing allowed | |
| No quality or risk owners available | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Security and data mapping | 4-8 weeks |
| 2 | Pilot population | 6-12 weeks |
| 3 | Scale reporting | 4-8 weeks |
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 actually 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.