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 need care management and utilization management on one Helios workflow
- Payers measuring PA turnaround, care-management productivity, and audit readiness
- Buyers consolidating legacy HealthEC or VirtualHealth footprints after the 2025 combination
Weak fit
- Provider groups that need ambulatory population health without a plan operations buyer
- Organizations seeking only a hospital capacity tool
- Buyers who will not fund care-management workflow redesign
Bottom line
Elligint Health earns a Conditional for health-plan care management and utilization management buyers evaluating the combined HealthEC and VirtualHealth Helios platform. KLAS recognition and covered-lives scale help the product story, while the 2025 rebrand and dual-heritage stack raise ordinary integration and roadmap diligence questions. Pricing is quote-based. Score sits below Persivia and Azara on this board until post-merger delivery looks consistent in buyer references.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Elligint Health is the 2025 combination of HealthEC and VirtualHealth. Helios offers care management and utilization management workflows for health plans, plus an analytics layer for risk, quality, and cost.
It is plan operations software more than a provider ambulatory EHR. Compare Persivia when provider-side care management is the buying reason, and keep a separate prior-auth shortlist if PA automation alone is the job.
Score is Conditional while post-merger references settle.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Elligint Health | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Persivia | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Innovaccer | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Azara Healthcare | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Lightbeam | — | — |
| Arcadia | 7.0 | 6.7 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Helios care management and utilization management platform for health plans, with analytics layer; quote-based enterprise contracts. |
| What usually drives cost | Covered lives, CM/UM module mix, analytics scope, and services. |
| What to ask in diligence | All-in cost per member per month for Helios CM and UM, with migration credits if you already run HealthEC or VirtualHealth. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Elligint Health to function | |
| Clear CM versus UM module scope after the HealthEC / VirtualHealth combination | Ambiguous scope creates duplicate workflows. |
| Named plan operations owners for care management queues | Helios fails without queue owners. |
| CMS and state PA timeline requirements written down | Automation must match regulatory clocks. |
| Member and provider data feeds identified | Missing identity sources stall outreach. |
| Migration plan if you already run Helios heritage products | Dual stacks erase the merger thesis. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Pilot one line of business before enterprise cutover | All-book migrations hide defects. |
| Measure PA turnaround and CM productivity, not only logins | Usage is not outcomes. |
| Keep audit evidence export tests in week one | Regulators will ask. |
| Align AI partner features to a real decision point | Bolt-on AI without owners is noise. |
| Retire overlapping VirtualHealth or HealthEC screens on a dated plan | Heritage UI drift confuses nurses. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You need a provider ambulatory population health tool only. | |
| No plan operations owners exist. | |
| Merger migration scope is undefined. | |
| PA and CM policies are not written. | |
| Leadership expects results without workflow change. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 3-6 weeks |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live CM or UM workflow | 10-20 weeks |
| 3 | First live workflow → steady value | 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 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.