$
USD
Total Economic Impact
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By The eHealth Connect Platform
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY ehealth technologies, august 2025
Total Economic Impact
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY ehealth technologies, august 2025
To stay competitive amid provider scarcity in an increasingly consumer-driven healthcare landscape, hospital systems must modernize their operational models to deliver both superior patient experiences and workforce efficiency. Leveraging advanced technologies such as AI, machine learning, and clinical intelligence enables seamless medical data exchange and optimizes clinical workflows. When integrated into existing systems, these capabilities can drive measurable improvements in operational performance, care coordination, and patient outcomes while aligning with the broader vision of a connected, data-driven, and adaptive healthcare ecosystem.
The eHealth Connect platform from eHealth Technologies is an AI-embedded solution that streamlines the retrieval, organization, and delivery of medical records, including Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images, pathology materials, and lab results directly integrated with leading electronic health record (EHR) systems via the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard. This integration enables real-time, secure access to comprehensive patient data within clinicians’ existing workflows and measurably reduces the time to treatment, which minimizes clinician burnout and improves care coordination. The eHealth Connect platform helps healthcare providers efficiently manage complex patient records, enhance referral management, and accelerate clinical decision-making to improve patient outcomes.
eHealth Technologies commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying the eHealth Connect platform.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of the eHealth Connect platform on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed five decision-makers at four hospital systems with experience using the eHealth Connect platform. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewees and combined the results into a single composite organization, which is a hospital system headquartered in the US with over $5 billion in annual revenue, 30,000 employees, and several destination service lines that receive thousands of referrals for patients requiring complex care from out-of-network hospitals located in other parts of the country and overseas.
Interviewees said that prior to using the eHealth Connect platform, their hospital systems’ service lines had inefficient and fragmented records-collection processes that overloaded administrators and clinicians alike, which resulted in long turnaround times and contributed to clinician burnout and poor patient experience. Records, DICOM images, pathology materials, and lab results were not automatically integrated into EHR systems, requiring manual uploads and increasing the risk of errors. Physical storage and destruction of medical records, images, pathology and lab reports added to operational costs.
After adopting and implementing the eHealth Connect platform, the involved service lines revamped their patient record request and retrieval workflows to make the most appropriate use of the eHealth Connect platform’s capabilities. The interviewees said using the eHealth Connect platform streamlined the retrieval, clinical organization, and summarization of complex medical records, including removal of duplicate records, which enabled faster, safer, and more coordinated patient care. It also reduced administrative burden, improved turnaround time, and enhanced clinical efficiency by providing indexed, searchable, and complete patient histories directly within EHR systems. This supported better clinical decision-making and outcomes — especially in high-acuity areas like oncology and transplant — and allowed these health systems to scale operations without increasing staff.
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
Nonclinical staff time savings of nearly 37,320 hours (18 FTEs). The eHealth Connect platform reduces the time the composite’s nonclinical staff — including schedulers and administrators — spend retrieving and clinically organizing medical record, images, and pathology and lab results. As a result, the organization avoids the need to hire additional personnel because existing staff handles more patients, is focused on higher-value tasks, and enjoys reduced stress and burnout. This saves the composite organization $330,000 over three years.
Nurse time savings of nearly 82,960 hours (40 FTEs). Nurses at the composite organization have access to organized, indexed patient records more quickly and efficiently. This reduces the time they spend collecting, clinically organizing, and reviewing charts from hours to as little as 30 minutes, allowing nurses to focus more on clinical care. This saves the composite organization $2.2 million over three years.
Physician time savings of more than 9,800 hours (nearly 5 FTEs). Physicians at the composite organization benefit from faster access to complete, well-organized medical records, which reduces the time they spend on administrative tasks and minimizes their frustration with incomplete or disorganized records, including images and pathology material. This saves the composite organization $1.4 million over three years.
Operational cost savings of $826,000. The eHealth Connect platform provides the composite organization with patient records in digitized form, eliminating the need to scan, document, store, and securely dispose of CDs and paper files. The platform also reduces incidences of the organization needing to repeat testing and imaging due to incomplete records, which saves the composite $826,000 over three years.
Incremental profit gains worth $1.2 million. Having streamlined access to complete medical records enables the composite to make faster clinical decisions and reduces delays in treatment. This efficiency leads the organization to more productive first appointments and minimizes patient leakage while allowing providers to spend more time in billable care. Overall, these improvements enhance the composite’s patient throughput, reduce its overhead, and accelerate its billing and revenue cycle, which is worth $1.2 million to the organization over three years.
Quantifiable savings over three years
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
Improved patient access and experience. Interviewees said the eHealth Connect platform removes the burden of collecting medical records from patients, which makes onboarding smoother and faster while improving patient satisfaction. They said patients feel more confident in their providers as a result.
Reduced clinician burnout. The eHealth Connect platform delivers indexed and searchable documents directly into EHRs, and interviewees said this reduces clinician burnout by allowing them to quickly access the information they need. This saves hours of administrative work and enables providers to focus more on patient care, improving both efficiency and job satisfaction.
Support for complex, multisystem patient cases. The eHealth Connect platform retrieves, de-duplicates, organizes, and indexes records from multiple sources, which helps with out-of-network patients who have extensive and complex medical histories across multiple institutions. Interviewees described this as ideal for destination service lines and complex care programs.
Scalability. Interviewees explained that the eHealth Connect platform enables their organizations to grow their service lines and patient throughout without proportional increases in administrative headcount.
Integration with EHR systems. The eHealth Connect platform integrates with EHRs, providing access to indexed records within existing clinical workflows. Interviewees described this integration as seamless and said it reduces friction for users.
Improved quality of medical information. According to interviewees, the eHealth Connect platform gives clinicians the information they need to develop effective care plans by providing indexed, searchable, and consolidated patient records in a single PDF. They explained that succinct patient summaries generated by AI make it easier to quickly locate critical data while the streamlined format reduces errors due to redundant data entry and helps clinicians quickly grasp complex medical histories, identify comorbidities, and make informed decisions faster. This ultimately enhances patient safety and care coordination.
Portal ease of use. Interviewees said users find the eHealth Connect portal to be intuitive, easy to learn, and simple to navigate. They explained that staff can submit requests, track progress, and access organized records without extensive training, which streamlines workflows and reduces administrative burden.
Real-time updates. The eHealth Connect portal provides real-time updates that allow staff to monitor the status of medical record retrievals and respond quickly to patient needs. Users track each step in the workflow, see when records are being processed, and view communication logs with external providers, which interviewees said enhances transparency and confidence in the process. Clerical staff ensures medical records arrive before the patient does, allowing providers to review the information before the appointment.
Improved KPIs. With the eHealth Connect platform, interviewees described improvements to several KPIs, including turnaround time, completeness of medical records, and patient throughput.
Improved collaborations. Interviewees said using the eHealth Connect platform improves collaboration with other hospital systems and healthcare providers and that streamlining the retrieval of external medical records enhances trust and efficiency in the referral processes. They also explained that referring providers and third-party administrators appreciate the speed and reliability of the eHealth Connect platform, making it easier to coordinate care across institutions and encouraging more referrals.
Service and support from eHealth Technologies. Interviewees called eHealth Technologies a strong operational partner and said users appreciate how quickly the service and support team provides hands-on assistance to resolve issues and adapts to feedback and that the team makes them feel supported and confident in the process.
Partnership with eHealth Technologies. Interviewees said their organizations have developed strong relationships with the eHealth Technologies executive leadership team, and they referred to the team as a trusted partner that’s deeply invested in their organizations’ success and goes above and beyond to support their evolving needs.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
Planning and implementation costs. The composite’s planning and implementation costs include a one-time initial set-up fee, which includes the cost of connecting to the composite organization’s EHR system plus fees to set up additional service lines. Internal planning and implementation time includes clinical operations management who work with IT teams from eHealth Technologies to set up the eHealth Connect platform for each service line. Nurses and physicians in each service line spend a few hours reviewing and revising workflows and designing clinically appropriate templates used for patient medical record collection purposes. These activities cost the composite organization a total of $45,000.
Ongoing costs. The composite organization sends 26,400 patient record requests through the eHealth Connect platform over three years, ranging in number and complexity for three different service lines. In addition, each clinical operations manager spends roughly 30 minutes supervising the use of the eHealth Connect platform for each service line. These costs come to a little over $3 million for the composite organization over three years.
Training and change management costs. The composite organization takes the opportunity to overhaul and update its medical records, images, pathology and lab results retrieval workflows for the service lines involved. To instill the changes, medical records collectors, nurses, and physicians receive an average of 1 hour of training on the eHealth Connect portal. These activities cost the composite organization $17,000 over three years.
The financial analysis that is based on the interviews found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $5.9 million over three years versus costs of $3.1 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $2.8 million and an ROI of 92%.
Return on investment (ROI)
Benefits PV
Net present value (NPV)
Payback
| Role | Industry | Revenue | Service Lines Implemented | Patient Records Processed Through eHealth Connect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VP healthcare technology and informatics | Hospitals and healthcare | <$5B | Oncology, transplant, pathology | 21,725 |
|
Nurse manager Director of operational and strategic initiatives |
Hospitals and healthcare | $5B to $10B | Oncology, contracted medicine | 6,734 |
| Director of business operations | Hospitals and healthcare | $5B to $10B | Oncology, transplant, women’s and children’s, ambulatory | 45,890 |
| Senior project director | Hospitals and healthcare | $10B to $20B | Transplant, complex care | 14,828 |
Interviewees said that prior to implementing the eHealth Connect platform, their hospital systems’ service lines had inefficient and fragmented medical records collection processes that overloaded administrators and clinicians alike. This resulted in long turnaround times and contributed to clinician burnout and poor patient experience, especially for more complex care cases. The interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
Manual and fragmented record retrieval processes. Staff relied on phone calls, faxes, mailed CDs, and spreadsheets to collect patient records, images, and pathology and lab results. Different departments and locations had inconsistent processes, leading to inefficiencies and confusion. Multiple touchpoints and people involved in the process increased opportunities for error. Each physician or department had unique requirements for records, which resulted in redundant or incomplete collections. Records were not automatically integrated into the EHR systems, requiring manual uploads and increasing the risk of errors.
The director of business operations at one hospital system characterized the process as highly manual, fragmented, and time-consuming: “Coordinators and all the staff had to track down records through phone calls, fax, and even mailing CDs. They also relied on massive spreadsheets of outside hospital contacts. It was slow and inefficient and had room for error.”
Excessive burden on patients and staff. Nurses and administrative staff spent hours reviewing disorganized records, distracting from clinical duties and increasing risk of burnout. A senior project director at one hospital system described the process as sporadic: “Some schedulers were doing it. Sometimes nurses were doing it, and it took a lot of their time, and it didn't allow them to work to the top of their license. They weren’t specialists in doing this. From a resource perspective, it was taking an extraordinary amount of time and cost to get records from wherever they were into our EHR.”
The nurse manager at another hospital system explained that patients were often required to collect and send their own records, which was stressful and error-prone: “We work with a team whose job is to help out-of-state patients get access to [my organization’s hospital system], providing a general introduction, collecting records, and assisting out-of-state patients in that process. But when I say ‘assist,’ it’s you the patient who needs to contact your specialist, and you need to sign a release [to] have the records sent to us. The burden was almost 100% on the patient. Not always, but most of the time, the burden was on the patient or the caregiver to collect that record.”
Delays in patient care. It could take several weeks to gather complete records, which could delay diagnosis and treatment and threaten patient safety in certain cases. According to the nurse manager: “Our turnaround time from referral to surgical decision was a month, sometimes six weeks, and sometimes eight weeks or longer when it should be two weeks or less.”
Gaps in patient histories led to rescheduling, redundant testing, and potential risks. The senior project director said: “A lot of these patients have multiple comorbidities or a lot of different complex and serious things going on. Nurses really need to be able to understand the full picture so that the provider can drop the correct orders and get that patient’s schedule lined up for when they come, because our goal is to have that patient here just once and get them all the appointments they need.”
Inefficiencies and high costs. Staff spent considerable time on low-value tasks like chasing records, which could have been used for patient care. According to the nurse manager: “I was triaging records for the orthopedic surgeons and going through 100-page charts of junk to look for very specific information very quickly. It was painful, absolutely painful. I could spend a whole day in review on three charts.”
As patient volumes grew, interviewees’ hospital systems struggled to keep up without hiring more staff or overburdening existing teams. Physical storage and destruction of medical records, images, pathology and lab reports added to operational costs. The nurse manager explained: “We administer bundled contracts, and one of those contracts is a direct-to-employer contract. We were unprepared — to put it mildly — for the volume of referrals we received the first year. We were failing at being able to obtain patient records and imaging in a timely manner in order to have our surgeons review them and determine whether a patient was a potential candidate or not.”
Poor visibility and tracking. There was no way to track the status of record requests, leading to uncertainty and repeated follow-ups. Staff had to manually upload records into EHR systems, which increased the risk of errors and delays. The VP of healthcare technology and informatics noted: “In pathology, we were monitoring time to treatment and realized slides were the holdup. There was a shared site where providers would go in and manually put in a request, and then somebody else would send it to the organization and do the follow-up. It wasn’t obvious where to find the right form in the shared site to put in the tumor request or the slide request, and you needed to follow up to make sure somebody was actually doing something with it. It was a very archaic process and very manual and problematic.”
Negative impact on patient and provider experience. Clinicians lacked information needed at the point of care, which affected decision-making and increased stress. Delays and confusion during the referral and intake process also led to patient complaints and lower satisfaction. The VP of healthcare technology and informatics told Forrester: “I’ve literally had a surgeon call me up and snip at me, saying, ‘I have a patient in front of me, and I don’t have enough information to move forward with their care because I don’t have a good picture of what’s going on with the patient because we couldn’t get the external records.”
The interviewees’ organizations searched for a solution that could deliver:
Faster, more reliable medical records retrieval. The organizations sought a platform that could offer centralized, secure, and fast access to comprehensive patient data. This was critical for complex, time-sensitive care like oncology and transplants. According to the director of business operations: “One of the main reasons that we moved to eHealth Connect is we needed a solution that could centralize and accelerate all this medical record retrieval, provide fast, secure access to all of our comprehensive patient data and also offer real time delivery to us so that we can increase transplant volumes and improve our outcomes.”
Reduced administrative burden. The organizations wanted a solution that would allow teams to focus on higher-value clinical and operational work by automating and streamlining record retrieval. The director of operational and strategic initiatives explained: “The focus of my work has been harmonization of practices. We have four medical oncology sites, six radiation oncology sites, and a bunch of surgical practices, and everyone does things a little bit differently. A lot of my work has been focused on how to streamline practices and create standardization where possible.”
Improved patient access and experience. Interviewees said some patients at their hospital systems previously had to collect their own records, so they sought a platform that would remove this burden, enabling smoother and faster onboarding, and improve patient satisfaction. The senior project director explained: “We have the goal of removing barriers for patients to get to [our hospital system]. We talk to our clients about removing barriers in terms of travel and lodging. … Another barrier that’s removed is medical record collection. For patients, gathering all their records, their images, and their pathology is a really big burden. It’s stressful. It takes a lot of time. A part of our role is to remove that barrier.”
Support for complex, multisystem patient cases. Many patients had long, complex medical histories across multiple institutions, and the organizations wanted a solution that would be able to retrieve, organize, and index records from multiple sources, especially for transplant, oncology, and complex care programs. The VP of healthcare technology and informatics explained: “We use eHealth Connect for the more complex patients that are bouncing between multiple healthcare systems, and you have to pull a large patient medical record. You’re either going to throw labor at it or you’re going to throw technology at it. We were either going to have a cadre of people doing this or we were going to a mixed solution in which we hire a vendor that has the people and the technology that streamlines those workflows for those people, so they get really good at it. eHealth Technologies is both a technology provider and an employee vendor that probably does it better than we can.”
Scalability and operational growth. As patient volumes increased, the hospital systems needed a solution that could scale without requiring more staff. They wanted to enable growth in service lines and patient throughput without proportional increases in administrative headcount. The director of business operations explained: “In transplant care, our patients have very intricate and lengthy medical histories. As our volumes grow, eHealth Technologies has been an invaluable partner in managing this complexity and setting up our teams for success without increasing our head count. The platform delivers significant operational leverage and supports us through growth, which is a key priority.”
Integration with EHR systems. The organizations wanted a solution that would integrate into their EHRs to provide seamless access to indexed records within existing clinical workflows, reduce friction for users, and improve adoption. According to the nurse manager: “The fact that the eHealth Connect portal is integrated into [my organization’s EHR system] and we don’t have to leave it to go into the portal has helped tremendously. We can just work in [the EHR system], and it’s all there.”
A familiar platform. Some leaders with prior experience or strong relationships with eHealth Technologies advocated for use of the solution. In most of those cases, the organizations did not conduct extensive vendor comparisons. The nurse manager at one hospital system recalled: “My director met with [an executive officer] who was previously with eHealth Technologies. We were impressed with what they said [eHealth Technologies] could do.”
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the interviewees’ hospital systems, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The organization is a hospital system headquartered in the US with more than $5 billion in annual revenue, 30,000 employees, and several destination service lines, including oncology, cardiology, and orthopedics. These service lines are nationally recognized for patient treatments and receive thousands of referrals for patients requiring complex care from out-of-network hospitals located in other parts of the country and overseas.
Deployment characteristics. After signing with eHealth Technologies, the hospital system initially deploys the eHealth Connect platform to its oncology service line, then extends use of the platform to cardiology in Year 1 and to orthopedics in Year 2. The hospital also integrates the eHealth Connect platform, establishing a direct connection to the EHR system using FHIR standards in Year 1, eliminating the need to switch between systems. The average number of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform annually varies by service line, ranging from 5,600 for oncology to 2,000 for cardiology and 1,800 for orthopedics.
$5B+ revenue
30,000 employees
5,600 oncology patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform annually
2,000 cardiology patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform annually
1,800 orthopedics patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform annually
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Nonclinical time efficiencies | $98,654 | $152,524 | $152,524 | $403,702 | $330,331 |
| Btr | Clinical time efficiencies for nurses | $739,904 | $976,154 | $976,154 | $2,692,212 | $2,212,777 |
| Ctr | Clinical time efficiencies for physicians | $394,616 | $650,769 | $650,769 | $1,696,154 | $1,385,500 |
| Dtr | Reduced operational costs | $288,800 | $357,200 | $357,200 | $1,003,200 | $826,122 |
| Etr | Incremental profit from accelerated revenue | $403,750 | $499,375 | $499,375 | $1,402,500 | $1,154,940 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $1,925,724 | $2,636,022 | $2,636,022 | $7,197,768 | $5,909,670 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees said nonclinical staff, including schedulers and administrators, benefit from the faster, more efficient retrieval, de-duplication and clinical organization of medical records, DICOM images, pathology materials, and lab results enabled by the eHealth Connect platform. The platform cut record collection time through the elimination of manual tasks like phone calls and faxes while integration with EHR systems streamlined workflows. As a result, staff gained the ability to handle more cases without hiring additional personnel, focus on higher-value tasks, and enjoy reduced stress and burnout. Real-time tracking, clean indexed and de-duplicated records, and intuitive tools further improved productivity and job satisfaction.
According to the senior project director: “Before eHealth Connect and from the scheduler, nonclinical standpoint, they were the ones who were on the phone or sending faxes and dealing with local provider offices while trying to get what we need and then get everything scanned into the record and account for things. They really benefited just by having the ability to log into the eHealth Connect portal and ask for what’s needed and then get notified when it’s ready. … Before, they [needed] about an hour per patient to collect and organize records. Now, it’s maybe 20 to 30 minutes all in all. We’re implementing some additional integrations, so hopefully [soon], our target is to have it less than 15 minutes per patient.”
The director of business operations noted that coordinators no longer needed to hunt down who to connect to various patient facilities because of the efficiency with which eHealth Technologies maintains contact files: “This is a piece that is often overlooked. … [Coordinators] have all the best people to contact. Prior to implementation, we essentially had these spreadsheets of information and spent hours of time on the phone on hold.”
The same interviewee said: “The most important benefits of using the eHealth Connect platform are speed, reduced administrative burden, and the ability to scale — specifically transplants — with explosive growth. Speed in accessing complete medical history means we can make informed decisions quickly and deliver life-saving transplant care without delay. That urgency and speed drives everything that we do. The other piece is reducing administrative burden, which frees up teams from time-consuming manual processes and allows them to focus on higher-value tasks that directly support patient care and clinical excellence.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
In Year 1, the composite processes 7,600 sets of patient records through the eHealth Connect platform for oncology and cardiology service lines. In Year 2, it adds 1,800 sets of records for orthopedics lines, totaling 9,400 sets of records processed through the eHealth Connect platform in Years 2 and 3.
Before deploying the eHealth Connect platform, administrators responsible for medical records collection spent an average of 2 hours per patient submitting requests for records and reviewing received records for completeness.
The deployment of the eHealth Connect platform immediately improves the productivity of these administrators by 60%, which saves the hospital system 9,120 hours in Year 1.
This productivity improves to 75% in Years 2 and 3 after enabling eHealth Connect on FHIR, saving the hospital system another 2,820 hours.
Of the time saved, 50% is recaptured for work on other tasks.
The average fully burdened annual salary for an administrator involved in medical records collection is $50,000.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact non-clinical time efficiency gains include:
The number and complexity of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The compensation of medical records collectors and their prior state of efficiency.
Whether the hospital system optimizes its workflows to take advantage of the eHealth Connect platform more proficiently.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $330,000.
Time saved by nonclinical staff over three years
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Patient records requested for oncology (average) | Composite | 5,600 | 5,600 | 5,600 | |
| A2 | Patient records requested for cardiology (average) | Composite | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | |
| A3 | Patient records requested for orthopedics (average) | Composite | 0 | 1,800 | 1,800 | |
| A4 | Total patient record requests across service lines | A1+A2+A3 | 7,600 | 9,400 | 9,400 | |
| A5 | Average time spent per patient to collect and organize records (hours) | Composite | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| A6 | Percentage of time saved using the eHealth Connect platform | Interviews | 60% | 75% | 75% | |
| A7 | Fully burdened for a medical records collector | Composite | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | |
| A8 | Percentage of time recaptured | TEI methodology | 50% | 50% | 50% | |
| At | Nonclinical time efficiencies | A4*A5*A6*A7* A8/2,080 | $109,615 | $169,471 | $169,471 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Atr | Nonclinical time efficiencies (risk-adjusted) | $98,654 | $152,524 | $152,524 | ||
| Three-year total: $403,702 | Three-year present value: $330,331 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees explained that nurses at their organizations benefit from using the eHealth Connect platform by having faster, more efficient access to organized and indexed patient records. This reduced time spent collecting, organizing, and reviewing charts from hours to as little as 30 minutes, allowing nurses to complete more reviews and focus on the clinical details of more complex cases requiring human intervention. The streamlined organization of records also improved their ability to identify critical health information. Interviewees said nurses feel the format is user-friendly and that integration with EHR systems made navigating and summarizing complex medical histories much easier and more effective.
The nurse manager explained: “It could take hours to review a mismatched paper chart of 10 PDFs where you can’t figure out what’s what. In [orthopedics], we triage records, history, physical, prior surgeries, medicine list, and everything, and we call the patient to review all the important things that we’re documenting for the surgeon. Where it might have taken more than 2 hours to review a chart, I would say it’s 30 minutes now.”
The senior project director told Forrester: “Our nurses and providers appreciate that when the records get sent back to us, they’re in one PDF-indexed document with links, and we have the opportunity to highlight keywords. They can flip from one thing to the next instead of having to scan a patient’s entire chart and click through episode by episode to put the story together. eHealth Connect helps to tell that story in one place, and that’s really helpful for our clinical teams.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
In Year 1, the composite processes 7,600 sets of patient records through the eHealth Connect platform for oncology and cardiology service lines. In Year 2, it adds 1,800 sets of records for orthopedics lines, totaling 9,400 sets of records processed through the eHealth Connect platform in Years 2 and 3.
Before deploying the eHealth Connect platform, nurses spent an average of 4 hours per patient reviewing, organizing, and adding notes to patient records before presenting them to physicians.
The deployment of the eHealth Connect platform immediately improves the productivity of these nurses by 75%, which saves the hospital system 2,280 hours in Year 1.
This productivity improves to 80% in Years 2 and 3 after enabling eHealth Connect on FHIR, saving the hospital system another 60,160 hours over that time.
Of the time saved, 75% is recaptured for work on other tasks.
The average fully burdened annual salary for a nurse is $100,000.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact clinical time efficiency gains for nurses include:
The number and complexity of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The compensation of nurses and their prior states of efficiency.
Whether the hospital system optimizes its workflows to take advantage of the eHealth Connect platform more proficiently.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $2.2 million.
Time saved by nurses over three years
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Total patient record requests across service lines | A4 | 7,600 | 9,400 | 9,400 | |
| B2 | Average time spent per patient reviewing and notating records (hours) | Composite | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| B3 | Percentage of time saved using the eHealth Connect platform | Interviews | 75% | 80% | 80% | |
| B4 | Fully burdened salary for a nurse | Composite | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | |
| B5 | Percentage of time recaptured | TEI methodology | 75% | 75% | 75% | |
| Bt | Clinical time efficiencies for nurses | B1*B2*B3*B4* B5/2,080 | $822,115 | $1,084,615 | $1,084,615 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Btr | Clinical time efficiencies for nurses (risk-adjusted) | $739,904 | $976,154 | $976,154 | ||
| Three-year total: $2,692,212 | Three-year present value: $2,212,777 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees said physicians at their organizations benefit from the eHealth Connect platform by having faster access to complete, well-organized medical records, which reduces time spent on administrative tasks and minimizes their frustration with incomplete or disorganized records. The indexed format and search features made reviewing complex histories easier and improved clinical decision-making. Streamlined workflows and higher quality of records contributed to reduced burnout.
The director of business operations explained: “Providing clinicians with records quickly and with [the records] being organized, they’re able to operate at a peak efficiency. They don’t have to waste time hunting down information and sifting through all this chaos. They’re able to get the right data when they need it so they can make decisions and treat patients faster. It’s not about paperwork but enabling them to maximize clinical impact.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
In Year 1, the composite processes 7,600 sets of patient records through the eHealth Connect platform for oncology and cardiology service lines. In Year 2, it adds 1,800 sets of records for orthopedics lines, totaling 9,400 sets of records processed through the eHealth Connect platform in Years 2 and 3.
Before deploying the eHealth Connect platform, physicians spent an average of 1 hour per patient reviewing and adding their own notes to patient records.
The deployment of the eHealth Connect platform immediately improves the productivity of these physicians by 30%, which saves the hospital system 2,280 hours in Year 1.
This productivity improves to 40% in Years 2 and 3 after enabling eHealth Connect on FHIR, saving the hospital system another 7,520 hours over that time.
Of the time saved, 80% is recaptured for work on other tasks.
The average fully burdened annual salary for a physician is $500,000.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact clinical time efficiency gains for physicians include:
The number and complexity of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The compensation of physicians and their prior states of efficiency.
Whether the hospital system optimizes its workflows to take advantage of the eHealth Connect platform more proficiently.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.4 million.
Time saved by physicians over three years
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Total patient record requests across service lines | A4 | 7,600 | 9,400 | 9,400 | |
| C2 | Average time spent per patient reviewing and notating records (hours) | Composite | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| C3 | Percentage of time saved using the eHealth Connect platform | Interviews | 30% | 40% | 40% | |
| C4 | Fully burdened salary for a specialist physician | Composite | $500,000 | $500,000 | $500,000 | |
| C5 | Percentage of time recaptured | TEI methodology | 80% | 80% | 80% | |
| Ct | Clinical time efficiencies for physicians | C1*C2*C3*C4* C5/2,080 | $438,462 | $723,077 | $723,077 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Ctr | Clinical time efficiencies for physicians (risk-adjusted) | $394,616 | $650,769 | $650,769 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,696,154 | Three-year present value: $1,385,500 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees explained that the eHealth Connect platform reduced operational costs by providing patient records in digitized form, which eliminated the need to scan, document, store, and securely dispose of CDs and paper files. The platform also reduced the incidence of repeat testing and imaging due to incomplete records. For one interviewee, outsourcing to eHealth Technologies proved more cost-effective than in-house processing when factoring in salaries, benefits, and turnover. Additionally, transplant programs could offset the eHealth Connect platform costs through Medicare reimbursement, further enhancing financial efficiency.
The nurse manager told Forrester their hospital system saved a lot of time previously spent preparing records to send to the medical records department: “We used to have to destroy a lot of CDs. We don't destroy CDs now; only once in a while. … We no longer have stacks of records. Everything is in [the EHR system]. There’s no more shredding and no more safekeeping of written records. We no longer send records down to medical records to be scanned into the record. None of that happens anymore.”
Asked if they had seen a reduction in multiple visits or redundant testing or imaging due to incomplete records, the VP of healthcare technology and informatics answered: “Yes, absolutely. If you can’t get the documentation from another account, you’re absolutely going to have to reimage or get another sample when that’s appropriate.”
The senior project director noted: “We did an analysis of what we were paying eHealth Technologies to do this versus what we would pay someone internally to do it. When it comes to salary and benefits and training and turnover, we found it was more cost-effective to outsource it to eHealth Technologies.”
The director of business operations mentioned that platform-related costs specific to transplants are allowable on the Medicare cost report, so using eHealth Connect can reduce the costs for transplant programs: “[You can place this] on the Medicare cost report, and a percentage of it will be reimbursed at cost. So, yes, we are taking advantage of it.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
In Year 1, the composite processes 7,600 sets of patient records through the eHealth Connect platform for oncology and cardiology service lines. In Year 2, it adds 1,800 sets of records for Orthopedics lines, totaling 9,400 sets of records processed through the eHealth Connect platform in Years 2 and 3.
Before deploying the eHealth Connect platform, it cost the composite organization an average of $25 per patient to scan, document, store, and securely dispose of physical records (e.g., charts, images, pathology, lab reports) associated with each patient. The deployment of the eHealth Connect platform eliminates this cost for patient records processed through the portal.
The composite saves an additional $15 per patient on average across all patients from avoided repeat testing and imaging procedures due to incomplete records. The eHealth Connect platform eliminates this cost for patients whose records are processed through the portal.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact reduced operational costs include:
The number of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The costs to scan, document, store and securely dispose of physical medical records.
The costs to conduct redundant testing and imaging procedures due to complete records.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $826,000.
Savings from reduced operational costs over three years
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Total patient record requests across service lines | A4 | 7,600 | 9,400 | 9,400 | |
| D2 | Avoided cost per patient to scan, document, store, and securely dispose of physical records | Composite | $25 | $25 | $25 | |
| D3 | Avoided cost per patient of repeat testing/imaging due to incomplete records | Composite | $15 | $15 | $15 | |
| Dt | Reduced operational costs | D1*(D2+D3) | $304,000 | $376,000 | $376,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓5% | |||||
| Dtr | Reduced operational costs (risk-adjusted) | $288,800 | $357,200 | $357,200 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,003,200 | Three-year present value: $826,122 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees said having streamlined access to complete medical records enabled faster clinical decision-making and reduced delays in treatment and that this efficiency led to more productive first appointments, minimized patient leakage, and allowed providers to spend more time in billable care. Overall, these improvements enhanced patient throughput, reduced overhead, and accelerated billing and revenue cycles.
According to the director of business operations: “By improving access to complete medical records and reducing administrative delays, we’ve enhanced overall patient throughput and minimized our patient leakage. Having timely, well-prepared charts enables faster and more meaningful first appointments, which helps keep our patients engaged and moving forward in their care. This efficiency also frees up clinical staff from time-consuming administrative tasks, allowing them to shift from administrative overhead to high-value clinical interactions. As a result, evaluation and treatment decisions have happened more quickly, which naturally accelerates the entire billing and revenue cycle.”
When asked if the eHealth Connect platform enabled their hospital system to accelerate billing or reimbursements as a result of the faster time to treatment, the VP of healthcare technology and informatics said that it did: “It goes hand in hand. If you compress time to treatment, then the default answer is going to have to be ‘yes’ on that. I don’t know that I’ve looked at our revenue cycles but, yes — if your treatment’s quicker, revenue is going to be quicker as well.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
In Year 1, the composite processes 7,600 sets of patient records through the eHealth Connect platform for oncology and cardiology service lines. In Year 2, it adds 1,800 sets of records for Orthopedics lines, totaling 9,400 sets of records processed through the eHealth Connect platform in Years 2 and 3.
The revenue per patient for the three service lines averages $25,000, with an overall net margin of 5%.
With the eHealth Connect platform, the composite hospital system accelerates revenue by 5%.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact incremental profit from accelerated revenue include:
The number of patient records processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The average revenue and net margin for each service line.
The prior state of efficiency for each service line.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.2 million.
Incremental profit from accelerated revenue over three years
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Total patient record requests across service lines | A4 | 7,600 | 9,400 | 9,400 | |
| E2 | Average revenue per patient | Composite | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | |
| E3 | Percent of revenue accelerated by record retrieval efficiencies | Interviews | 5% | 5% | 5% | |
| E4 | Net profit margin | Composite | 5% | 5% | 5% | |
| Et | Incremental profit from accelerated revenue | E1*E2*E3*E4 | $475,000 | $587,500 | $587,500 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Etr | Incremental profit from accelerated revenue (risk-adjusted) | $403,750 | $499,375 | $499,375 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,402,500 | Three-year present value: $1,154,940 | |||||
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
Improved patient access and experience. Previously, some patients had to collect their own records, but the eHealth Connect platform removed this burden, making onboarding smoother and faster while increasing patient satisfaction and their confidence in their providers. According to the nurse manager at one hospital system: “It definitely increased patient satisfaction because when you try to send a patient out to collect a record, I know how hard it is. Now I tell them we’re going to get those records through the eHealth Connect platform, and they don’t have to worry about it. They just need to sign a release, which the eHealth Connect platform can push to them, and they can sign it on their phones, which makes it super easy.”
The director of operational and strategic initiatives for the same hospital system explained: “The eHealth Connect platform allows for us to consistently get information that our clinicians need to see to understand a patient’s history and focus on the treatment plan. It helps our clinicians feel more satisfied with their initial consults with patients, and patients feel reassured because they have all that information. And it could result in having patients get treatment sooner, which, in the cancer space, is a big deal.”
Reduced clinician burnout. The eHealth Connect platform helped reduce clinician burnout by delivering indexed and searchable documents directly into EHRs, which allowed clinicians to quickly access the information they need. This saved hours of administrative work, reduced stress, and enabled providers to focus more on patient care, improving both efficiency and job satisfaction. The director of operational and strategic initiatives noted: “There’s been a big focus on physician burnout, and this is something that I really think helps with that. … Anything we can do to help with making processes easier for [clinicians is beneficial].”
Support for complex, multisystem patient cases. The eHealth Connect platform provided the hospital systems with the ability to easily retrieve, organize, and index records from multiple source for patients with long, complex medical histories across multiple institutions, which is especially useful for transplant, oncology and complex care programs. The VP of healthcare technology and informatics explained: “[Maybe] we have a complex patient, and they may have in their journey been seen in multiple places. Maybe their cancer is old and now it’s recurring. Or they were someplace else, and they’re now getting seen by referral. It might be a complex cancer. It’s with these complex disease states where it’s multisystem and we need to go out and get information where eHealth Connect really shines.”
Scalability. As patient volumes increased, the interviewees’ hospital systems needed a solution that could scale without requiring more staff. The eHealth Connect platform enabled the systems to grow their service lines and patient throughputs without proportional increases in administrative headcount. The director of business operations said the platform’s ability to scale is among the most important benefits to their organization: “eHealth Connect has scaled with us as our volumes continue to increase, and we manage complex cases from all over the world. eHealth Technologies has been with us every step of the way.”
Integration with EHR systems. Integrating the eHealth Connect platform into EHRs allowed for seamless access to indexed records within existing clinical workflows, which reduced friction for users and improved adoption. According to the director of operational and strategic initiatives: “We integrated the eHealth Connect platform into [our EHR system], and that has been a huge win for users who are making the requests and checking on status. It’s how our providers get access to the clinical summaries, as well. It’s been great having the eHealth Connect platform integrated with [our EHR system].”
Improved quality of medical information. Interviewees agreed the eHealth Connect platform improved the quality of medical information delivered to clinicians by providing indexed, searchable, and consolidated patient records in a single PDF. Succinct patient executive summaries generated by AI made it easier to quickly locate critical data to develop effective care plans while a streamlined format reduced errors due to redundant data entry. This helped clinicians understand complex medical histories, identify comorbidities, and make informed decisions faster, which ultimately enhanced patient safety and care coordination. The senior project director said, “Having that one document that is searchable and indexed really helps our staff be able to look through it efficiently and tell the right story.”
Portal ease of use. Interviewees described the eHealth Connect portal as intuitive, easy to learn, and simple to navigate — even for new users. They explained that staff can quickly submit requests, track progress, and access organized records without needing extensive training, which streamlines workflows and reduces administrative burden. The director of operational and strategic initiatives noted: “The platform is really easy to use and really intuitive. It makes sense.”
Real-time updates. The eHealth Connect portal provides real-time updates that allow staff to monitor the status of medical record retrievals and quickly respond to patient needs. Users can track each step in the workflow, see when records are being processed, and even view communication logs with external providers, which enhances transparency and confidence in the process. Clerical staff can ensure medical records arrive before patients do, allowing providers to review the information before appointments. The nurse manager told Forrester: “We have access to instant status, and I think that’s one of the greatest things ever to be able to tell the patient: ‘We’re working on this. We are really trying, but Dr. Smith’s office is being challenging.’ Just being able to have that little bit of information is useful if we need to involve the patient.”
The VP of healthcare technology and informatics explained how the eHealth Connect platform streamlined the process for requesting records in two ways: “First, it made the process more user-friendly. Then, on the back end, because it was more user-friendly, it was a more efficient process as well. The request got to eHealth Technologies quicker. Once it got to eHealth Technologies, we could actually monitor them working on it. You could monitor every step in that workflow. Previously, we couldn’t monitor it. Now you can track specimens and see where they’re at in the process, where they’re at in the pipeline, and when they will be arriving.”
The senior project director described working with eHealth Technologies to customize communications for different teams: “Our teams asked for more frequent updates on where things stand. eHealth Technologies took that feedback and created some automations where the system provides those updates on a daily basis. Our teams provided some feedback on the timing and messaging of those updates, which eHealth Technologies was open to so they’re in the process of improving.”
The interviewee continued: “[eHealth Technologies has] given us options for the different groups. We have 40 to 50 users, but some are for a spine program, some are for a joint program. [For each] program, they’ve allowed us to customize whether we want them to hold all the records until they have them or send them as they receive them; and whether to send them on the date requested and tell us what’s missing and then resend it. They’ve given us a lot of customization options so that we can tailor updates according to program.”
Improved KPIs. Interviewees said that after implementing the eHealth Connect platform, their hospital systems reported notable improvements in KPIs such as turnaround time, completeness of medical records, and patient throughput. One interviewee said turnaround time for medical records dropped from three to five weeks to 2.87 days across thousands of requests. Another said the percentage of patients seen with complete medical histories before appointments rose from 60% to 100%. These improvements led to faster clinical decision-making, reduced delays, and enhanced operational efficiency.
According to the nurse manager: “There is a marked improvement in days to collect. Collection is seven to 10 days at most, where it was three to five weeks before eHealth Connect.” The same interviewee noted completeness of records also improved: “In our team, patients with complete histories before appointments is 100% now, where it was only 60% prior to eHealth Connect.”
The improved turnaround on records also had a positive effect on speed to treatment for patients. According to the VP of healthcare technology and informatics: “Prior to this process, it would take weeks. Looking at turnaround times now, these are drastically quicker than what was probably a couple weeks before. From that standpoint, you’re cutting weeks off of the treatment time.”
Improved collaboration with other hospital systems. Streamlining the retrieval of external medical records enhanced trust and efficiency in the referral process, which improved collaboration with other hospital systems and healthcare providers. Interviewees said referring providers and third-party administrators appreciate the speed and reliability of the eHealth Connect platform, which makes it easier to coordinate care across institutions and encourages more referrals. According to the senior project director: “We talk about the eHealth Connect platform when we meet with clients. … Part of that is removing the burden of medical record collection, and we speak about our partnership with eHealth Technologies and how we can do that so quickly.”
Service and support from eHealth Technologies. Interviewees consistently praised the eHealth Technologies service team for its responsiveness, reliability, and partnership-oriented approach. They highlighted how quickly the team resolves issues, provides hands-on assistance, and adapts to feedback, which makes them feel supported and confident in the process. According to the director of business operations: “[eHealth Technologies is] a great operational partner. There’s been maybe one occurrence where they had some issues on their end, and [support] proactively contacted us up front and kept us aware of what was going on as it was resolved. That's incredibly rare and more like a Black Swan event. … I feel that I can contact them at any moment, and they’ll pick up. If I e-mail [support], the team will respond incredibly fast and help us in any way that it can. If we have some sort of urgent situation with a transplant, they’re there ready to help.”
Partnership with eHealth Technologies. Interviewees also consistently described eHealth Technologies as more than just a vendor, but as a trusted partner deeply invested in the success of their organizations. They praised the eHealth Technologies executive leadership team for building strong relationships, being responsive and collaborative, and going above and beyond to support their evolving needs. According to the director of business operations: “Our relationship [with eHealth Technologies] is a major strength. They’ve built incredible rapport with our staff and truly feel part of our team. In an era increasingly dominated by AI, their human connection sets them apart through clear communication, rapid response, and a deep commitment to our mission. This rare partnership is invaluable beyond eHealth Connect driving business impact by automating resource-heavy manual workflows. As a leader in healthcare data exchange interoperability, [eHealth Technologies] ensures we stay way ahead of the industry evolution, making it more than just a vendor, but a true innovation partner.”
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement the eHealth Connect platform and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
Ability to expand to other service lines. Most interviewees said that because the eHealth Connect platform has proven its value in streamlining workflows and improving patient care, their hospital systems are actively planning to expand the platform into additional service lines. Several have already extended the use beyond initial implementations, with more service lines and specialties being added. According to the senior project director: “We did just expand the eHealth Connect platform to the medical oncology team. … It’ll be our solution for the foreseeable future.”
Ability to add integration. Two interviewees said they are in active discussions with eHealth Technologies about integrating with their EHR systems. They explained that these integrations are seen as major time-savers that would enable seamless access to indexed records directly and eliminate the need to download and re-upload documents. According to the VP of healthcare technology and informatics: “I brought in eHealth Technologies and said, ‘Let’s talk about a workflow that’s more automated, where the provider puts in an order within [my organization’s EHR system], and it will automatically route to pathology and put the order in. The integration will absolutely [lead to more] time savings once we get it up and running.”
Adoption of clinical trial matching and clinical summaries. The director of operational and strategic initiatives said their hospital system is enthusiastic about adopting the eHealth Connect platform’s clinical summaries and clinical trial matching features, recognizing the potential to enhance care for complex patients. They explained that while the full implementation is still underway, early feedback from physicians has been overwhelmingly positive: “The clinical summary and clinical trial matching will be a huge value for our teams. … They love it. It’s a satisfier that is desperately needed.”
Ability to grow operations. The director of business operations noted their organization plans to grow operations with eHealth Technologies playing a central role in enabling that expansion through scalable, efficient workflows. They said: “Over the next three years, specifically in partnering with eHealth Technologies in transplants, we’re really focused on optimizing our roles and having strong patient access while scaling through our outreach efforts. As our referral base grows and we reach more communities, eHealth Technologies’ operational consistency is right there with us every step of the way supporting high quality and efficient transplant services across a broader geographic area.”
Improvement of workflows. The director of operational and strategic initiatives said their organization is still actively working to improve its internal workflows to better leverage the platform’s capabilities, particularly by streamlining scheduling and record request processes. They explained: “We’re doing eHealth Technologies a disservice here, at least in the cancer center side, because we still have disjointed scheduling processes with the different groups. … We’re revamping that workflow. … We’re going to have that centralized team submit requests through the eHealth Connect portal and have the medical records team do more clinic prep.”
The interviewee added: “Even us working through the workflow challenges we’ve had has been one of the biggest benefits. It has forced us to look at how to streamline and make things consistent across the board. We still have a lot of work to do, but it’s not on eHealth Technologies. It’s on us.”
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ftr | Planning and implementation costs | $35,578 | $5,500 | $5,157 | $0 | $46,235 | $44,840 |
| Gtr | Ongoing costs | $0 | $1,105,529 | $1,277,143 | $1,277,143 | $3,659,815 | $3,020,054 |
| Htr | Training and change management | $6,082 | $6,082 | $6,082 | $0 | $18,246 | $16,637 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $41,660 | $1,117,111 | $1,288,382 | $1,277,143 | $3,724,296 | $3,081,531 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees said their organizations’ planning and implementation costs included one-time initial setup fees, which included a connection to their hospitals’ EHR systems, plus fees to set up additional service lines. Internal planning and implementation time included time spent with nurses and physicians reviewing and revising workflows and designing clinically appropriate templates for patient medical record collection purposes.
The senior project director described implementation as a team effort that was conducted in stages: “We implemented one group at a time, starting with our spine teams enterprisewide. The initial implementation was probably 20 relationship owners on our side, plus one or two people from health information management. Most were subject matter experts — the clinical people who were actually going to be using it. It really didn’t take a lot of time, probably less than 5 hours each over the course of a couple weeks for that group.”
The nurse manager said: “The process to develop the templates was so interesting. eHealth Technologies had some draft or standard templates that we went through with the nurses first to determine what was absolutely needed, and then we presented it to the surgeons, and they basically blessed it.”
Pricing may vary. Contact eHealth Technologies for additional details.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The composite organization pays a one-time fee of $30,000 to eHealth Technologies to set up eHealth Connect on FHIR for oncology.
To add cardiology and orthopedics, the composite pays additional fees of $2,500 each in Years 1 and 2.
To set up the eHealth Connect platform for each service line, clinical operations managers spend 20 hours working with eHealth Technologies and its internal teams.
The composite hospital system’s IT team spends 15 hours setting up the eHealth Connect platform for the first service line. It spends an additional 10 hours per service line to set up the second and third service lines in Years 1 and 2, plus 10 hours to integrate the platform with its EHR system in Year 1.
Nurses and physicians in each service line spend 5 hours and 2 hours, respectively, reviewing and providing input on templates used to collect the appropriate patient medical information for each service line.
The fully burdened annual salary for a clinical operations manager is $120,000.
The fully burdened annual salary for an IT staff member is $65,000.
The fully burdened annual salary for a nurse is $100,000.
The fully burdened annual salary for a physician is $500,000.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact costs associated with planning and implementation include:
The scope of the project (i.e., the number of service lines implemented).
The efficiency and compensation rates of the teams involved in the planning and implementation process.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $45,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | One-time fee to set up eHealth Connect on FHIR integration | eHealth Technologies | $30,000 | |||
| F2 | Fee to set up additional service line | eHealth Technologies | $0 | $2,500 | $2,500 | |
| F3 | Subtotal: eHealth Technologies fees | F1+F2 | $30,000 | $2,500 | $2,500 | |
| F4 | Time spent by clinical operations managers (hours) | Interviews | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| F5 | Fully burdened salary for a clinical operations manager | Composite | $120,000 | $120,000 | $120,000 | |
| F6 | Subtotal: Cost of planning and implementation for clinical operations management | (F4/2080)*F5 | $1,154 | $1,154 | $1,154 | |
| F7 | Time IT staff spends on planning and implementation (hours) | Interviews | 15 | 20 | 10 | |
| F8 | Fully burdened salary for an IT staff member | Composite | $65,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 | |
| F9 | Subtotal: Cost of planning and implementation for IT staff | (F7/2,080)*F8 | $469 | $625 | $313 | |
| F10 | Time nurses spend on planning and implementation (hours) | Interviews | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| F11 | Fully burdened salary for a nurse | Composite | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | |
| F12 | Subtotal: Cost of planning and implementation for nurses |
(F10/2,080) *F11 |
$240 | $240 | $240 | |
| F13 | Time physicians spend on planning and implementation (hours) | Interviews | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| F14 | Fully burdened salary for a specialist physician | Composite | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | |
| F15 | Subtotal: Cost of planning and implementation for physicians |
(F13/2,080)* F14 |
$481 | $481 | $481 | |
| Ft | Planning and implementation costs | F3+F6+F9+ F12+F15 | $32,344 | $5,000 | $4,688 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Ftr | Planning and implementation costs (risk-adjusted) | $35,578 | $5,500 | $5,157 | ||
| Three-year total: $46,235 | Three-year present value: $44,840 | |||||
Evidence and data. The annual costs of the eHealth Connect platform for the interviewees’ hospital systems vary based on the number and complexity of patient records requested. But interviewees characterized ongoing management of the portal as minimal, averaging 25 hours per service line over the course of each year.
According to the director of business operations: “The payment structure is based on the number of requests that we do. As we do more transplants, that’s growing with us. … [eHealth Technologies] did have a nice win recently where, because of [the company’s] AI, they were able to actually reduce our costs, which was pretty cool because they were able to automate more. They were able to pass along some of those cost savings.”
Describing ongoing management, the senior project director said: “Within my office, there are three or four of us who have direct connections with eHealth Technologies and deal with them on a weekly basis, whether it’s escalations or concerns or questions or looking at data. We’re also working with the 40 to 50 people who are submitting those requests. They come to us if they’ve got any questions or feedback. They also have a direct line to eHealth Technologies if they need it, but we prefer it to come through us so that we can see trends and escalate things as needed.”
The nurse manager told Forrester: “My particular group does not have a regular IT meeting. I’ll get a question from time to time. It’s a pretty minimal amount of time and only when an issue comes up. We had an issue a couple months ago and learned how and who to escalate to. We created a better workflow with who gets notified for what pieces. Everyone’s worked well together.”
Pricing may vary. Contact eHealth Technologies for additional details.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
Based on the number and complexity of patient records requested, the composite organization pays annual fees of $1,050,000 in Year 1 and $1,212,000 in Years 2 and 3.
Each year, the composite’s clinical operations managers spend an average of 25 hours per service line overseeing the eHealth Technologies relationship.
The fully burdened annual salary for a clinical operations manager is $120,000.
Risks. Organizational differences that may impact costs associated with ongoing management include:
The volume and complexity of patient record requests processed through the eHealth Connect platform.
The efficiency and compensation rates of the clinical operations teams charged with ongoing management.
Licensing agreement and other volume discounts.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $3 million.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Fee based on volume and complexity of patient records | eHealth Technologies | $1,050,000 | $1,212,000 | $1,212,000 | |
| G2 | Time spent by clinical operations managers (hours) | Interviews | 50 | 75 | 75 | |
| G3 | Fully burdened salary for a clinical operations manager | Composite | $120,000 | $120,000 | $120,000 | |
| G4 | Subtotal: Cost of ongoing management for clinical operations management |
(G2/2080)* G3 |
$2,885 | $4,327 | $4,327 | |
| Gt | Ongoing costs | G1+G4 | $1,052,885 | $1,216,327 | $1,216,327 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | |||||
| Gtr | Ongoing costs (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $1,105,529 | $1,277,143 | $1,277,143 | |
| Three-year total: $3,659,815 | Three-year present value: $3,020,054 | |||||
Evidence and data. The interviewees generally described the training and change management process for the eHealth Connect platform as smooth, intuitive, and well-supported, though not without some internal challenges. They said eHealth Technologies provided effective initial training, including live sessions and training videos, and interviewees praised the company for being responsive and easy to work with. And users found the platform itself easy to learn and navigate, which helped ease adoption.
But some interviewees noted that while eHealth Technologies trained users how to use the portal, internal teams are responsible for defining what to request and how to use templates effectively, which is not something each of the organizations had clearly established beforehand. This led to the creation of internal best practices and ongoing coaching to optimize usage.
Interviewees explained that change management was easier for smaller teams but more complex for large departments in which the number of users and variability in workflows make consistent adoption more difficult. But despite these hurdles, the interviewees said they view the transition positively and appreciate eHealth Technologies’ willingness to adapt and support their organizations’ evolving needs.
The senior project director characterized the training and change management process as smooth: “It’s been relatively easy on our end, especially with the nonclinical staff, because it’s been a huge improvement for them not having to do that work. Doing that work was a dissatisfier — being on the phones, talking to providers offices — so they’ve seen this as a big win. So, that change management has been relatively easy.”
The director of operational and strategic initiatives said change management at their hospital system is more challenging: “The rollout and training eHealth Technologies did was great. What we’re finding now is we need to implement best practices for entering requests and [determine] the best way to do that and how to best use the templates. If I had realized this up front, I would have worked with eHealth Technologies to be more intentional about this. … eHealth Technologies’ training was focused on how to use the portal, and they were relying on us to instruct users on what we wanted them to submit. I think they were assuming that we had clear processes before, which we did not.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
For each service line, 10 medical records collectors, 10 nurses, and 20 physicians each receive an average of 1 hour of training on the eHealth Connect portal.
The fully burdened annual salary for a medical records collector is $50,000.
The fully burdened annual salary for a nurses is $100,000.
The fully burdened annual salary for a physician is $500,000.
Risks. Operational differences that may impact costs associated with training and change management include:
Familiarization time needed by users.
Local compensation rates.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $17,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Service lines onboarded | Composite | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| H2 | Medical records collectors per service line | Composite | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| H3 | Time spent on training and change management (hours) | Interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| H4 | Fully burdened salary for a medical records collector | Composite | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | |
| H5 | Subtotal: Cost of training and change management for medical records collectors | H1*H2*H3*H4/2,080 | $240 | $240 | $240 | |
| H6 | Nurses per service line | Composite | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| H7 | Time spent on training and change management (hours) | Interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| H8 | Fully burdened salary for a nurse | Composite | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | |
| H9 | Subtotal: Cost of training and change management for nurses |
H1*H6*H7* H8/2,080 |
$481 | $481 | $481 | |
| H10 | Physicians per service line | Composite | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| H11 | Time spent on training and change management (hours) | Interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| H12 | Fully burdened salary for a specialist physician | Composite | $500,000 | $500,000 | $500,000 | |
| H13 | Subtotal: Cost of training and change management for physicians | H1*H10*H11*H12/2,080 | $4,808 | $4,808 | $4,808 | |
| Ht | Training and change management | H5+H9+H13 | $5,529 | $5,529 | $5,529 | $0 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Htr | Training and change management (risk-adjusted) | $6,082 | $6,082 | $6,082 | $0 | |
| Three-year total: $18,246 | Three-year present value: $16,637 | |||||
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($41,660) | ($1,117,111) | ($1,288,382) | ($1,277,143) | ($3,724,296) | ($3,081,531) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $1,925,724 | $2,636,022 | $2,636,022 | $7,197,768 | $5,909,670 |
| Net benefits | ($41,660) | $808,613 | $1,347,640 | $1,358,879 | $3,473,472 | $2,828,139 |
| ROI | 92% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months |
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in eHealth Connect.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that eHealth Connect can have on an organization.
Interviewed eHealth Technologies stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to eHealth Connect.
Interviewed five decision-makers at four hospital systems using eHealth Connect to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Related Forrester Research
Shannon Germain Farraher, Ingenuity And Core Values Will Steady The Ship: Top Healthcare Provider Trends In 2025, Forrester Blogs.
The Seven Trends That Matter For US Healthcare Providers In 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., April 18, 2025.
Shannon Germain Farraher, Investing For Impact: The Power Of Clinical Intelligence, Forrester Blogs.
Clinical Intelligence Will Power The Intelligent Healthcare Organization, Forrester Research, Inc., April 3, 2025.
Arielle Trzcinski, Shannon Germain Farraher, Paddy Harrington, Takeaways From HIMSS25: Embrace Collaboration, Change, And Cybersecurity, Forrester Blogs.
Human Connection Is The Key To Provider Well-Being, Forrester Research, Inc., March 6, 2025.
Redefining Healthcare In An Always-On Digital Ecosystem, Forrester Research, Inc., November 7, 2024.
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by eHealth Technologies and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in eHealth Connect. For any interactive functionality, the intent is for the questions to solicit inputs specific to a prospect's business. Forrester believes that this analysis is representative of what companies may achieve with eHealth Connect based on the inputs provided and any assumptions made. Forrester does not endorse eHealth Technologies or its offerings. Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this model, eHealth Technologies and Forrester Research are unable to accept any legal responsibility for any actions taken on the basis of the information contained herein. The interactive tool is provided ‘AS IS,’ and Forrester and eHealth Technologies make no warranties of any kind.
eHealth Technologies reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
eHealth Technologies provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Caro Giordano
August 2025
ABOUT FORRESTER CONSULTING
Forrester provides independent and objective research-based consulting to help leaders deliver key transformation outcomes. Fueled by our customer-obsessed research, Forrester’s seasoned consultants partner with leaders to execute on their priorities using a unique engagement model that tailors to diverse needs and ensures lasting impact. For more information, visit forrester.com/consulting.
© Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.
https://mainstayadvisor.com/go/mainstay/gdpr/policy.html
PDF