Population health & analytics · CareSpace platform
Persivia
Persivia sells CareSpace, a population health and care management platform for value-based care teams. CareSpace brings clinical, claims, and social needs (SDOH) data together and suggests next steps to care teams as they work.
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
- Hospitals looking for a bed capacity or operating room scheduling tool
Bottom line
Persivia is a good fit for mid-sized and multi-hospital organizations that want population health and care management on one platform. It works best for groups with clean data, someone who owns that data, and care teams who will follow up on the lists it produces. Buyers whose main goal is a large-scale care gap program may prefer Innovaccer.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Persivia's customers are health systems, ACOs, and other value-based programs, and CareSpace is sized mainly for mid-sized groups. The platform combines clinical, claims, and social needs data and sends suggested next steps to care teams. Persivia points to client results on Medicare savings, fewer readmissions, and replacing several single-purpose tools.
Results depend on clean data with a clear owner and on care teams who follow through. Among the population health tools we review, Persivia scores 7.4 overall, level with Syra Health and just behind Cozeva (7.5) and Azara Healthcare (7.6). Innovaccer is the comparison when large-scale care gap programs are the reason to buy, and Azara fits analytics for safety-net clinics. Pricing is about as clear as for most platforms in this category.
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. |
| 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 | Quoted for each customer. Prices are not listed on the website. |
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's lists and suggestions are only as good as the data going in. |
| Named care management leaders who will follow up on the lists | Risk lists help only when someone follows up with the patients on them. |
| Defined value-based contracts or quality programs | The platform pays off through a contract or program that rewards better results. |
| Agreement on which single-purpose tools will be retired | Paying for both the old tools and CareSpace erases the savings. |
| A security review plan for patient data from all sources | Data held up in security review delays launch. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Start with one high-risk patient group before expanding | A single group makes early results easier to see. |
| Track completed outreach and changes in results as well as dashboards | Dashboards alone do not show whether patients were reached. |
| Train staff to handle bad patient matches | Duplicate patients throw off risk rankings. |
| Review closed care gaps every week in the first quarter | Lists that are not reviewed go out of date quickly. |
| Write down which reports replace retired tools | Without that record, 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.