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.
A real question we get from vendors: "what is your formal review or submission process?" This page is the answer: how evaluation actually works, what you can send us, what claiming and correcting a listing costs (nothing), what paid placement actually buys (never your rank), and where corrections go.
Guide inclusion requests follow the published evidence-packet policy. Existing guides and directory listings retain the ordering mechanisms described below. Neither inclusion nor rank is for sale.
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.
Tier 1 describes directory membership and data quality. It is also a current gate for the directory-generated state and national rankings, as explained in the guide-inclusion section. Authored guides do not all draw from this roster. Membership is earned, not bought:
Where computed, ordering inside a directory grade uses a five-part weighted score: reputation (rating, shrunk toward a category baseline and weighted most heavily), verification signals (confirmed location, live site, phone), business longevity, business scale, and listing/profile completeness. The guide snapshot uses directory quality score for unscored state rows and alphabetical order for unscored national rows. An absent composite score is not a low score.
A category's scoring baseline is a frozen mean, versioned and re-computed only as its own deliberate, dated event: never silently. A new entrant to an already-scored category is scored against the current frozen baseline; the baseline itself moves only when the corpus grows enough to trigger a re-freeze, and a re-freeze re-orders the whole affected corpus at once with a before/after report, never as a side effect of adding one vendor.
The current EHR pages retain the EHR framework v1.0 and its 25% cost and pricing-transparency weight. The credentialing page retains framework v1.0 and its 25% turnaround and 25% payer-coverage weights as best-for assessments of the earlier presentation order. These describe existing pages, not the new inclusion-request score. See How We Evaluate.
Editorial ranking and match ordering are determined by fit and evaluation only. This is the same rule stated on /pricing/, word for word: quoted here so the two pages can never quietly drift apart.
Our research, comparisons, and recommendations cannot be bought. Match results are ordered by fit alone — no paid option moves a firm up them. What paid options change is how your own listing is presented, and whether you occupy a labeled sponsored slot that sits apart from the ranked listings. Every paid surface on this site is labeled as sponsored, and claiming your listing stays free.
Claiming your listing and correcting your own details is free, and always will be. Everything priced on this page changes how your listing is presented — never where you rank. Match results are ordered by fit alone and cannot be bought.
Both paragraphs quoted verbatim from the live /pricing/ page (hero claim-note and firewall statement): identical wording is the point.Submit pricing, openable customer-review sources, and capability details by specialty and practice size through the evidence-packet form. Evaluation is free. A packet does not guarantee inclusion; evidence is assessed under the three-part criteria and evidence floor.
Use the evidence-packet form for guide evaluation. partners@getpracticehelp.com handles factual corrections and listing-tier questions. See pricing for listing options.
Both live at /pricing/. Neither one is a ranking product: described here only as what it actually changes.
Full pricing, current founding rates, and what each tier includes: /pricing/.
Found a factual error in a listing or a guide entry? Email partners@getpracticehelp.com. Corrections are free and always will be: they are not a paid tier and never route through one. We correct promptly and update the page's date when a comparison changes.
We review submissions and correction requests as capacity allows. We are not publishing a response-time SLA ("within N business days") because we do not yet have a mechanism to guarantee one: if that changes, this page will say so and name the mechanism.
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.
For guide evaluation, submit an evidence packet. Read the inclusion criteria, or see the listing options.