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 SDOH data in one care management workflow
- Teams measuring readmissions, risk stratification throughput, and value-based savings
- Buyers willing to retire several point tools after a CareSpace cutover
Weak fit
- Groups that only need a static quality dashboard with no care management owners
- Buyers who will not connect EHR and claims feeds
- Organizations seeking an inpatient capacity tool instead of population health software
Bottom line
Persivia earns a Recommend for mid-market and multi-hospital buyers that need population health and care management on one platform. Published client stories cite Medicare savings, readmission cuts, and point-solution consolidation. Implementation still needs clean data ownership and care team follow-through. Pricing is quote-based. Score sits just under Innovaccer-class peers on outcomes packaging with more mid-market sizing.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Persivia sells CareSpace, a population health and care management platform that unifies clinical, claims, and SDOH data and pushes next-best actions into care team workflows.
It is not an inpatient capacity optimizer. Compare Innovaccer when enterprise care-gap packaging is the buying reason, and Azara when safety-net analytics is the fit.
Score reflects credible mid-market outcomes claims with ordinary pricing opacity.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Persivia | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Innovaccer | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Azara Healthcare | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Elligint Health | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Arcadia | 7.0 | 6.7 |
| Trella Health | 7.3 | 7.0 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | CareSpace population health and care management platform sold to health systems, ACOs, and related value-based programs; quote-based. |
| What usually drives cost | Covered lives, data source count, care management modules, and professional services. |
| What to ask in diligence | All-in cost per attributed life versus the stack of point tools you plan to retire, with a named time-to-first-cohort. |
| Published pricing | Public list price: not published. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Persivia to function | |
| Clean EHR and claims feeds with a data owner | CareSpace quality follows source quality. |
| Named care management leaders who will work the queues | Risk lists fail when nobody follows up. |
| Defined value-based contracts or quality programs | Platform value needs a commercial use case. |
| Agreement on which point tools will be retired | Endless dual systems erase savings. |
| Security review path for PHI across sources | Blocked feeds stall go-live. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Start with one high-risk cohort before expanding | Boiling the ocean hides early wins. |
| Measure outreach completion and outcome deltas, not only dashboards | Insights without action are theater. |
| Train exception handling for poor identity matches | Duplicate patients poison risk ranks. |
| Review care-gap closure weekly in the first quarter | Stale worklists become noise. |
| Document which reports replace retired tools | Staff otherwise keep the old stack. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| You only want a static dashboard with no care team owners. | |
| EHR and claims data cannot be shared. | |
| No value-based or quality program is in scope. | |
| You will not retire overlapping point tools. | |
| Leadership expects results without workflow change. | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract signed → kickoff | 3-6 weeks (security, data mapping, program design) |
| 2 | Kickoff → first live cohort | 8-16 weeks for first attributed population |
| 3 | First live cohort → steady value | 3-6 months before care management feels routine |
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.