Implementation services · Oracle Health / Cerner consulting
HPG
HPG (HPG Resources) is a healthcare IT consulting firm with a strong Oracle Health / Cerner practice covering implementation, optimization, revenue cycle, and application support. It is not an EHR vendor.
Strong fit
- Hospitals running Oracle Health / Cerner that need retained application and revenue-cycle consultants
- Programs that value employed consultant tenure over pure marketplace staffing
- Buyers measuring post-go-live stability and build quality
Weak fit
- Epic-only programs seeking an Epic-native SI brand first
- Buyers who only want strategy decks with no build staff
- Organizations that will not keep internal owners beside consultants
Bottom line
HPG earns a Recommend for Oracle Health and Cerner-heavy health systems that want consulting resources with longer tenure and application depth. Public testimonials emphasize build quality, revenue-cycle support, and flexible staffing through upgrades. It is less of a first call for Epic-centric megaprograms dominated by Tegria or Nordic. Pricing is SOW-based. Score sits in the mid-Recommend band for a focused SI boutique.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
HPG (HPG Resources) provides healthcare IT consulting with a strong Oracle Health / Cerner footprint, covering implementation, optimization, revenue cycle, and long-term application support.
It is a services firm, not an EHR. Compare Tegria when you need a larger multi-EHR SI, and Morgan Hunter when staffing mix across Epic and Cerner is the main need.
Score reflects credible Cerner-domain reputation with ordinary rate-card opacity.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Speed to go-live |
|---|---|---|
| HPG | 7.3 | 7.1 |
| Tegria | 7.6 | 7.7 |
| ReMedi Health Solutions | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Morgan Hunter Healthcare | 7.1 | 6.9 |
| Divurgent | 7.4 | 7.4 |
| Nordic | 7.4 | 7.1 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Healthcare IT consulting and staffed engagements for Oracle Health / Cerner and related EHR work, sold on SOW and hourly resource models. |
| What usually drives cost | Consultant seniority, module scope, duration, and whether work is build, optimization, or legacy support. |
| What to ask in diligence | Blended rate and estimated hours for your Millennium modules, with named resources and backfill terms. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get HPG to function | |
| Named application owners for each Millennium domain | Consultants cannot own forever. |
| Clear build versus optimization scope | Vague SOWs create thrash. |
| Access to non-prod domains and change control | Blocked environments stall delivery. |
| Revenue-cycle and clinical stakeholders aligned | Siloed tickets create rework. |
| Decision rights for design questions within 48 hours | Parked decisions burn hours. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Prefer retained consultants for multi-month builds | Weekly churn kills context. |
| Pair every consultant with an internal shadow | Knowledge transfer is the product. |
| Track defect reopen rates after each build cycle | Quality beats hours burned. |
| Stabilize critical charge and clinical paths first | Edge cases can wait. |
| Hold a weekly joint triage with vendor and HPG leads | Three-way finger pointing wastes weeks. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You need an Epic-only megaprogram SI as the prime. | |
| No internal application owners exist. | |
| Environments and change control are unavailable. | |
| Scope is strategy slides only with no build work. | |
| Leadership will not decide design questions quickly. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 1-3 weeks |
| 2 | Kickoff → first delivered build or support milestone | 4-12 weeks |
| 3 | First milestone → steady value | 2-4 months of stabilized support |
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.