Independent guidance on the services practices actually buy. The full provider directory sits behind every topic.
Paneling, payer enrollment, CAQH, timelines, vendor selection.
In-house vs outsource, pricing models, coding, payer contracts.
EHR selection by specialty, migration, practice-management software.
Starting a practice, consultants, MSOs, vetting and costs.
HIPAA rules, malpractice coverage, healthcare counsel, verified vendors.
GetPracticeHelp recommends vendors for a living. That only works if our verdicts are independent of who pays us. Here is exactly how we evaluate, where sponsorship sits, how the directory and Get Matched work, and what we do when we get something wrong.
Editorial verdicts are produced by the GPH editorial team against published criteria, before any commercial conversation. Vendors can pay for clearly-labeled Featured and Sponsored placement: and that placement is structurally separated from every verdict on the site. If sponsorship ever appeared to color a verdict, the independence positioning would be worthless. So we don't allow it.
Buyer-guide inclusion criteria are the standard for inclusion requests. Any vendor may request evaluation free through the evidence-packet form. The score has three equally weighted parts, each from 0 to 100: customer voice, fit by specialty and practice size, and transparency. The evidence floor requires at least one openable customer-review source with at least one review. Payment and Vendor Pro never affect inclusion or rank.
Current guide orders: the current build does not record completed three-part guide re-scores. The EHR v1.0 pages retain their stored editorial rank order; the credentialing v1.0 page retains its earlier best-for presentation order. Other authored guides retain their published comparisons and best-for assessments. Topic weight tables describe those existing assessments, rather than a completed three-part re-score.
Directory-generated rankings: the state and national rankings under Vendor Rankings currently require Tier 1 directory membership as well as the build's business and website eligibility checks. They retain directory grade first, then composite v0.1 within grade. Unscored state rows fall back to directory quality score; unscored national rows fall back to alphabetical order. Tier 1 is an additional current build requirement for these directory rankings; it is not a universal gate for authored guides, and membership alone does not satisfy the evidence-packet policy.
Refresh status: the approved policy calls for quarterly re-scoring and an event refresh on new evidence. An estate inventory and a cloud job that inventories and queues guides have been built. A deployed re-scoring schedule and completed three-part guide re-scores are not established by the current build. Guide review dates and directory snapshot dates do not prove a re-score; no next re-score date is promised here.
Current authored comparisons retain their published topic assessments. New inclusion requests follow the three-part evidence-packet policy above; the existing guide builders have not applied that score to their current orders.
Use the published three-part score and evidence floor for inclusion requests. Existing topic frameworks below describe the assessments retained on current pages.
Pricing pages, vendor documentation, payer data, and publicly available reviews and industry recognition: sources stated, estimates labeled.
Each vendor is assessed against the same criteria by the editorial team. Vendors do not preview or approve verdicts.
Review dates identify page reviews, not completed score runs. The policy calls for quarterly and evidence-event re-scoring; a completed guide re-score is not recorded in the current build.
The table below records credentialing framework v1.0, retained on the current credentialing page as best-for assessments of its earlier presentation order. EHR pages retain framework v1.0 and stored ranks. The topic frameworks are distinct from the three-part inclusion-request score; these tables do not show that a re-score has occurred.
Evaluation framework v1.0
Same structure, topic-specific weights
Comparison tables on each hub apply these criteria as best-for editorial judgments. Columns we have not yet evaluated are marked "not yet scored": never estimated, never filled by a vendor. The stated-figure columns on each table fill under the vendor-stated evidence rules below.
The comparison tables carry stated-figure columns: "Stated turnaround," "Stated implementation," "Stated clean-claim rate," "Stated payer coverage," "Stated specialty coverage." These are not GPH scores. Here is exactly what fills them, and what an empty cell means.
A cell fills only from the vendor's own published material: product pages, official documentation, published SLAs, stated payer-network or specialty counts. Review-site aggregates, third-party articles, and our own estimates never fill a cell. A claim must carry a concrete figure, range, or count: a superlative without a number does not qualify.
The cell shows the vendor's claim in compressed form. Every filled cell carries its basis: the source URL and the date we verified it: recorded in the page source, and claims are re-checked when the table's review date updates. These figures are vendor-stated, not GPH-measured: we verify that the vendor publishes the claim, not that the claim is true in your case. Verify against current vendor quotes before relying on one.
Where a cell still reads "not yet scored," the vendor publishes no verifiable figure for that column (or we have not yet completed verification). That is an evidence gap, not a quality judgment: enterprise vendors in particular often publish no public turnaround or coverage figures. An honest empty cell beats an invented full one; we leave it empty.
This is a published methodology for a self-assessment tool, not a vendor-evaluation framework like the one above. It explains how the free HIPAA Readiness Quick-Check turns twelve questions across six HIPAA domains into a weighted readiness score. It is a self-assessment aid: not legal advice, and not a compliance determination. A written risk analysis performed by a qualified compliance professional is still required; this tool and this page only help a practice see where to look first.
Self-assessment weighting, docked here for the compliance hub
The tool's own math, published, not new editorial judgment
The six domains above are the same six the tool already names in its own page description. Each of the tool's 12 questions already carries a point value from 0 to 10, set when the tool shipped. A domain's percentage above is that domain's share of the 89 total points across all 12 questions. These are not new weights invented for this page. They are the live scoring code's own math, made public.
Inside a domain, a question earns full credit for a compliant answer, half credit for a partial answer, and zero for a non-compliant one. A domain's score is its earned points divided by its own maximum. The overall readiness percentage is total earned points divided by 89, the sum of every question's maximum. Eighty percent and above reads as Audit-ready, fifty to seventy-nine as Material gaps, and under fifty as Significant exposure.
These weights mirror the tool's current scoring. If the tool's scoring changes, this page is updated to match.
Editorial verdicts (above) and directory listings are two different layers. Here is how the directory side works.
Any legitimate healthcare service provider relevant to independent practices can be listed. Listing requires no payment, no affiliate relationship, and no commitment. Vendors cannot pay to be listed: or to remove a competitor. Inclusion requires an active, verifiable business with a genuine service offering for independent practices.
A "Verified" badge on a directory listing means the listing's profile has been claimed and reviewed by GPH; paid tiers include profile verification as part of onboarding, and the review standard is the same either way. Directory scores reflect listing data quality and fit signals. Both are directory attributes: they are not editorial verdicts, and they are distinct from the criteria-based assessments in buyer guides.
Get Matched connects practice owners with relevant providers anonymously: vendors do not see who submitted the request. Match results are ordered by fit alone and cannot be bought: category, practice fit, and reputation signals decide the order, the same criteria for every vendor, free or paid. Paid tiers do not enter match selection or ranking. What paid options change is how a listing is presented, and whether it occupies a labeled sponsored slot that sits apart from the ranked results: never a firm's position in them. Same rule as /pricing/, same wording.
We make money from clearly-labeled placements, listing tiers, affiliate commissions, and Get Matched: never from editorial verdicts. The line between them is bright and permanent.
None of these can be purchased, accelerated, or removed by payment. Vendors do not review or approve editorial content about them before publication.
Always labeled, always visually separated, never mixed into a verdict. Tier status affects visibility: never editorial selection.
Understanding the tiers is key to understanding the firewall: tier status affects how a listing is presented and whether it carries a labeled sponsored slot: never whether a vendor is listed, how it ranks, or how it is described in editorial content. Names and prices below are the live tiers at /pricing/, kept in sync with that page.
A vendor cannot buy its way into a recommendation, a buyer-guide verdict, or an editorial shortlist: and cannot buy the removal of a competitor. Full tier details →
We work from primary sources: vendor documentation, public pricing, payer rules, industry benchmark data (MGMA, HFMA), and publicly available reviews. Where a figure is an estimate or a range, we say so. Where we have not verified a number, the page says "not yet scored" or carries an explicit verification note.
Found an error? Email partners@getpracticehelp.com. We correct promptly and update the review date when a comparison changes. Vendors can request a re-review when their offering materially changes: the re-review runs on the same published criteria.
Produced by GetPracticeHelp using an AI-assisted research and drafting process against a published methodology. Before publishing, automated checks confirm rank order, vendor counts, and prices match the underlying source data: a price with no vendor-published source is marked "not published," never estimated. Methodology, evaluation weights, and corrections are set by GetPracticeHelp's owner. Organizational byline, not an invented author: named-author analysis appears only where an outside expert contributes, and is labeled as such. Vendors never write or pre-approve their own coverage.
Every hub applies these standards. Open the credentialing hub to see the criteria, the comparison, and the sponsored separation together.