Population health & analytics · Social risk analytics
Socially Determined
Socially Determined makes SocialScape, analytics software that scores social risks such as food, housing, and transportation for people and neighborhoods and joins them to claims and clinical data.
Strong fit
- Health plans that want social risk scores for every member to target programs
- Plans and systems running food, transportation, or housing programs that need to choose who gets help
- Analytics teams that want social risk data joined to claims and clinical data
Weak fit
- Buyers who need a care management system to run outreach
- Small practices without analytics staff
- Buyers who need a published price list
Bottom line
Socially Determined is worth considering for health plans and health systems that want social risk data to guide which members get which programs. Its SocialScape software scores risks like food insecurity and housing instability and joins them to claims and clinical data. Buyers wanting stronger published outcome results should note they are thin.
Score breakdown
Weights: Outcomes 35% · Product 30% · Implementation 20% · Pricing clarity 15%.
Socially Determined, based in Washington, DC, makes SocialScape, analytics software that scores social risks such as food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation barriers for individuals and neighborhoods.
Trenor Williams, a family physician who earlier founded and sold the consulting firm Clinovations, co-founded the company in 2017.
SocialScape draws on more than 800 data elements to score risk across seven areas of health-related social needs for more than 230 million US adults, down to 200 meters.
Plans and health systems join those scores to claims and clinical data to see how social risk drives use and cost, choose members for programs, and track results. The company holds HITRUST certification and works with Mathematica on measuring return on investment.
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield rolled out Socially Determined across its whole company in 2022. It found that members with diabetes who faced food insecurity and low health literacy cost more than $3,000 a year more than other diabetic members.
AmeriHealth Caritas District of Columbia uses its data to run 12 social needs programs, and Priority Health in Michigan is also a customer.
The company publishes few measured results from the programs its data guides, which holds down its outcomes score.
Compare Certilytics when a plan wants predictive analytics on cost and risk across its population, and Cozeva when the work centers on quality measures and risk adjustment with provider groups.
Azara Healthcare fits community health centers that need population health and care gap reporting. Persivia fits a buyer that wants population health analytics and care management on one system.
Competitor landscape
| Vendor | Overall | Ease of implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Azara Healthcare | 7.6 | 7.2 |
| Cozeva | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| Persivia | 7.4 | 7.1 |
| Certilytics | 7.3 | 7.0 |
| Socially Determined | 6.9 | 7.0 |
Pricing
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Model | Subscription contract quoted by Socially Determined. |
| What usually drives cost | Number of covered lives, which risk domains and data elements are licensed, and whether analytics services and program design are included. |
| What to ask before you buy | Whether pricing is per member or a flat fee, how often scores refresh, and how return on investment is measured, including through its Mathematica partnership. |
| Published pricing | Socially Determined does not publish a price list. |
Prerequisites for purchase
| Need | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What you need to get Socially Determined to function | |
| Analytics or population health lead | Owns the use cases. |
| Member roster with addresses | Scores attach to people and places. |
| Claims and clinical data feed | Links social risk to cost. |
| Programs ready to act on scores | Data alone changes nothing. |
| Baseline cost and use measures | You need them to show the change later. |
| What will maximize your value | |
| Start with one program such as food support | Clear target group. |
| Compare outcomes against a matched group | Proves the effect. |
| Share scores with care managers | Puts data into outreach. |
| Deal-breakers | |
| No programs to fund | |
| No claims or clinical data to join | |
| No analytics staff | |
Value creation time frame
| # | Stage | Typical range |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contract and data load | 1-3 months |
| 2 | First risk scores and use case | 1-2 months |
| 3 | More programs and a return study | 6-12 months |
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.