DOCSLIB.ORG

Healthcare It Industry Update │ Q3 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE │ Q3 2016 www.harriswilliams.com Investment banking services are provided by Harris Williams LLC, a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA and SIPC, and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Harris Williams & Co. is a trade name under which Harris Williams LLC and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd conduct business. 0 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 HEALTHCARE IT PRACTICE OVERVIEW CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . WHAT WE’RE READING Harris Williams & Co. is pleased to present our review of Q3 Healthcare IT . KEY HEALTHCARE MACRO activity. This report provides commentary and analysis on current capital market INDICATORS trends and merger and acquisition dynamics within the Healthcare IT industry. PUBLIC MARKETS . PUBLIC COMPARABLES We hope you find this edition helpful and encourage you to contact us directly if . M&A ACTIVITY you would like to discuss our perspective on current industry trends and M&A . PRIVATE PLACEMENT ACTIVITY opportunities or our relevant industry experience. IPO ACTIVITY OUR PRACTICE CONTACTS Sam Hendler Harris Williams & Co. is a leading advisor to the Healthcare IT industry. Our global Managing Director practice includes professionals across the firm from Harris Williams & Co.’s [email protected] Technology, Media & Telecom Group and Healthcare & Life Sciences Group. +1 (617) 654-2117 Jeff Bistrong HW&Co. Healthcare IT Taxonomy Managing Director [email protected] +1 (617) 654-2102 . Patient-Facing Solutions Mike Wilkins . Care Delivery: Managing Director Operational Efficiency [email protected] +1 (415) 271-3411 . Care Delivery: Clinical / Acute Thierry Monjauze Managing Director . Care Delivery: [email protected] Clinical / Non-Acute +44 20 7518 8901 CARE DELIVERY EMPLOYERS ORGANIZATIONS PATIENTS . Care Delivery: Turner Bedrup Clinical / Post-Acute Managing Director INSURERS CLINICIANS [email protected] . Pharma & Devices +1 (804) 915-0110 . Revenue Cycle Cheairs Porter Management Managing Director [email protected] . Population Health & Risk +1 (804) 915-0130 Management James Clark Managing Director [email protected] HW&CO. Healthcare IT Market Map +1 (804) 915-0119 Please contact HW&Co. for proprietary detailed HCIT market map Geoffrey Smith Managing Director [email protected] +1 (804) 915-0195 Dan Linsalata Vice President [email protected] +1 (617) 654-2122 www.harriswilliams.com www.harriswilliams.com PAGE | 1 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 WHAT WE’RE READING UBER, CIRCULATION COLLABORATE ON HOSPITAL PILOT PROGRAM FOR PATIENT TRANSPORTATION Healthcare Informatics 9/28/2016 Boston-based startup Circulation, as Uber’s preferred healthcare platform partner, is launching a digital healthcare transportation platform as a pilot program at several East Coast acute care and children’s hospitals. The pilot program is designed to reduce the number of missed doctor’s appointments by providing on-demand transportation options to get patients, especially disabled, elderly or low-income patients, to and from medical appointments. Read the full article here. CLINICAL HEALTH APPS OUTPACING FITNESS TRACKERS AMONG INVESTORS AND INNOVATORS Healthcare IT News 9/27/2016 New research determined that health apps and devices with a clinical focus are more likely to grow in popularity this year than consumer-focused products. “Investment trends in digital health are shifting from consumer wellness applications to clinically driven solutions that drive better health outcomes at lower costs,” the report said. “This next wave focuses on encouraging consumers and patients to change health-related behaviors...” Read the full article here. WASHINGTON DEBRIEF: HOUSE COMMITTEE LEADERS PLEDGE HEIGHTENED ATTENTION TO HEALTH IT IN 2017 Healthcare Informatics 9/19/2016 A key House Committee held a hearing [in September] to explore how healthcare technology can create efficiencies in care delivery, improve outcomes and reduce cost. Read the full article here. HHS GIVES $87 MILLION TO BOOST HEALTH CENTER IT Healthcare IT News 9/15/2016 More than 1,300 health centers across the U.S. and its territories will be given $87 million for information technology enhancements. The money is meant to to support health IT enhancements aimed at speeding these providers' shift toward value-based care, through better data exchange, clinical decision support, patient engagement and more, according to HHS. Read the full article here. CMS: PROVIDERS CHOOSE PACE FOR QUALITY PAYMENT PROGRAM IN 2017 EHRIntelligence 9/9/2016 In advance of the final rule for the Quality Payment Program — comprising both the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs) — the CMS has relaxed demands on eligible providers in 2017. "In recognition of the wide diversity of physician practices, we intend for the Quality Payment Program to allow physicians to pick their pace of participation for the first performance period that begins January 1, 2017." Read the full article here. INSURANCE STARTUP OSCAR QUITS TWO MARKETS, RETHINKS OBAMACARE PLANS Bloomberg 8/23/2016 Health insurance startup Oscar Insurance will reevaluate its approach to Obamacare after suffering significant losses under the U.S. program and will pull out of two markets next year. “The individual market isn’t working as intended and there are weaknesses in the way it’s been set up,” CEO Mario Schlosser said in an interview. “We want to focus on the markets we understand well, we want to focus on the markets where we have our own model in place. Read the full article here. PAGE | 2 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 KEY HEALTHCARE MACRO INDICATORS U.S. HEALTHCARE SPENDING U.S. AGING POPULATION ($ in trillions) (percent age 65 and older) $6.0 National Health Expenditures 20.0% HC Expediture as % of GDP 20.0% 20.2% $5.0 19.3% 19.0% $4.0 16.1% $3.0 18.0% $2.0 13.0% 17.0% 12.6% 12.4% $1.0 - 16.0% '08 '10 '12 '14 '16P '18P '20P '22P '24P 1990 2000 2010 2020P 2030P 2040P 2050P HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT PRIMARY CARE SUPPLY (enrolled lives in millions) (number of physicians in thousands) Total Physicians (in 000s) % Independent 19.7 821 17.4 794 723 15.5 683 13.5 11.4 10.0 57% 8.0 49% 6.1 4.5 37% 3.2 33% '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '00 '05 '13 '16E U.S. EMR ADOPTION - HOSPITAL U.S. EMR ADOPTION - AMBULATORY (percent adoption by EMRAM stage) (percent adoption by EMRAM stage) Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '12 '13* '14 '15 *represents Q1 2014 data (2013 year-end data unavailable) PAGE | 3 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 PUBLIC MARKETS MEDIAN REVENUE GROWTH (2012 – 2015) MEDIAN REVENUE GROWTH (2015 – 2016E) Clinical / Administrative 14.0% Clinical / Administrative 13.6% Payer-Focused 6.7% Payer-Focused 6.4% Pharma 17.6% Pharma 4.1% Consumer Healthcare 31.3% Consumer Healthcare 27.1% Euro HCIT 10.4% Euro HCIT 4.4% MEDIAN EBITDA MARGIN (2016E) MEDIAN EBITDA GROWTH (2015 – 2016E) Clinical / Administrative 23.5% Clinical / Administrative 14.0% Payer-Focused 30.8% Payer-Focused 15.3% Pharma 24.8% Pharma 18.9% Consumer Healthcare 36.4% Consumer Healthcare 12.6% Euro HCIT 25.3% Euro HCIT 9.3% MEDIAN CAPEX / REVENUE (2016E) MEDIAN TEV / 2016E EBITDA Clinical / Administrative 5.0% Clinical / Administrative 12.7x Payer-Focused 2.9% Payer-Focused 15.0x Pharma 3.3% Pharma 21.0x Consumer Healthcare 4.7% Consumer Healthcare 14.1x Euro HCIT 3.7% Euro HCIT 12.1x HISTORICAL STOCK PERFORMANCE (SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2016) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Clinical & Administrative Payer-Focused Pharma Consumer Healthcare Euro HCIT S&P 500 PAGE | 4 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 PUBLIC COMPARABLES VALUATION AND OPERATING METRICS As of September 30, 2016 ($ in Millions, except per share amounts) Stock Performance Current % of LTM TEV / EBITDA Mkt Cap TEV Price LTM High Revenue % Growth EBITDA Margin LTM 2016 Clinical / Administrative EMR Cerner Corporation $20,762 $20,717 $61.48 90.0% $4,657 19.8% $1,434 30.8% 14.4x 12.7x athenahealth, Inc. 4,814 4,975 122.37 71.8% 1,012 21.2% 139 13.7% 35.8x 21.1x Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. 2,429 3,914 13.02 82.5% 1,432 4.3% 219 15.3% 17.9x 13.5x Quality Systems, Inc. 695 752 11.30 64.6% 493 (0.4%) 76 15.4% 9.9x 8.8x Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. 350 501 25.86 43.7% 227 17.6% 36 15.9% 13.9x 8.8x Median $2,429 $3,914 71.8% $1,012 17.6% $139 15.4% 14.4x 12.7x RCM / Performance Nuance Communications, Inc. $3,946 $5,792 $14.11 64.7% $1,947 0.2% $394 20.2% 14.7x 8.3x Premier Inc. 1,494 4,384 31.52 83.9% 1,163 6.6% 354 30.5% 12.4x 9.4x Advisory Board Company 1,728 2,279 42.92 78.3% 803 4.5% 222 27.6% 10.3x 11.8x Evolent Health Inc 1,014 1,110 22.71 84.6% 192 98.6% (46) NM NM NM Median $1,611 $3,331 81.1% $983 5.5% $288 27.6% 12.4x 9.4x Other Administrative Omnicell, Inc. $1,363 $1,547 $37.68 93.0% $599 23.7% $76 12.6% 20.5x 14.2x HealthStream, Inc. 837 698 26.37 93.6% 219 4.6% 31 14.1% 22.6x 20.1x Vocera Communications, Inc. 455 337 16.84 98.7% 113 8.3% (11) NM NM NM Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Inc.
Recommended publications
  • D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis V1 Project Deliverable

    D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis V1 Project Deliverable

    Collective Wisdom Driving Public Health Policies Del. no. – D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis v1 Project Deliverable This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020-SC1-2016-CNECT) under Grant Agreement No. 727560 D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements 29/09/2017 Analysis v1 D2.1 State of the Art and Requirements Analysis v1 Work Package: WP2 Due Date: 01/09/2017 Submission Date: 29/09/2017 Start Date of Project: 01/03/2017 Duration of Project: 36 Months Partner Responsible of Deliverable: SIEMENS Version: 1.0 Final Draft Ready for internal Review Status: Task Leader Accepted WP leader accepted Project Coordinator accepted Dimosthenis Kyriazis (UPRC), Ilias Maglogiannis (UPRC), Christos Xenakis (UPRC), Argyro Mavrogiorgou (UPRC), Athanasios Kiourtis (UPRC), George Peppas (UPRC), Carlos Cavero (ATOS), Santiago Aso (ATOS), Antonio De Nigro (ENG), Francesco Torelli (ENG), Domenico Martino (ENG), George Moldovan (SIEMENS), Kosmin- Septimiu Nechifor (SIEMENS), Salvador Tortajada Velert (HULAFE), Sokratis Nifakos (KI), Tanja Tomson (KI), Jan Janssen (DFKI), Serge Autexier (DFKI), Petrina Smyrli (BIO), Andreas Menychtas (BIO), Author name(s): Christos Panagopoulos (BIO), Chris Orton (ICE), Usman Wajid (ICE), Thanos Kosmidis (CRA), Ricardo Jimenez-Peris (LXS), Patricio Martinez (LXS), Marta Patino-Martinez (UPM), Rafael Fernandez (UPM), Michael Boniface (IT-INN), Vegard Engen (IT- INN), Daniel Burns (IT-INN), Mitja Lustrek (JSI), Maroje Soric (ULJ), Patrick Weber (EFMI), John Mantas (EFMI),
  • Chapter 11 AC Group's 2007 Annual Report the Digital Medical Office Of

    Chapter 11 AC Group's 2007 Annual Report the Digital Medical Office Of

    Chapter 11 AC Group’s 2007 Annual Report The Digital Medical Office of the Future Performance A. Methodology The majority of previous EMR evaluations have been limited to self-reported functionality. Although high rankings in this arena often indicate a superior product, the reviewers are aware that in some cases this correlation does not always hold. There may be some highly ranked products offering the full range of functionality that from the end user’s point of view may have features, organization or display that are limiting. The converse may also occur where a product that achieves a lower ranking because it offers less that full functionality nonetheless offers highly innovative features that would be advantageous for all end users. In short, although scores from self-reported functionality are extremely useful, they do not capture rich qualitative information that could significantly influence the practitioner’s decision of which system to choose. The purpose of this document is to help a physician evaluate a vendor’s solution. The document is divided into separate product demonstrations. If the practice is interested in one fully integrated system, then have the vendor complete and interact with this entire document. If the practice is only interested in a Document Image Management solution, complete sections B and D. If the practice is only interested in a comprehensive EMR/EHR application, then complete sections B and E. Speed is essential Time the execution of the tasks and record how long they take. You may be surprised at the significant difference in the results. Speed is extremely important during physician documentation.
  • This Is the 19Th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. the First

    This Is the 19Th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. the First

    This is the 19th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. The first time Ispoke here was in 2002. It is amazing how this great event has grown, and I am honored to be here. 1 2 A couple weeks ago, we wrote in our quarterly letter that we believe that a narrow group of cool kid stocks have disconnected from traditional valuations and formed a bubble. This got a lot of criticism. Half the critics thought we were talking our book, even though we didn’t name names. The other half were upset that we didn’t tell them which stocks we were short. Since we can’t seem to please anybody, I’ve decided to validate both criticisms. Today, I’m going to illustrate the bubble basket doing a deep dive into one of the companies, while not disclosing the others. This company is an excellent company with an excellent product, run by a well‐meaning and honest, though occasionally promotional CEO. The world may be a better place if it succeeds, and even though we are short, I am in no way rooting for it to fail. Its main problem is that it isn’t positioned to succeed the way the bulls hope, as the assumptions the bulls are making are not plausible. The stock is simply at the wrong price. It’s caught up in a bubble and could easily fall 80% or more from its recent peak. Let me introduce you to athenahealth. 3 I think athena deserves a smaller capitalization, and I’m not just referring to how it fails to capitalize the first letter of its name.
  • Lessons from The

    Lessons from The

    Ideas from the NHS Dr. Francis Wong, MBBS, MBA, MPH www.franciswong.com September 2018 Purpose Background: The NHS (National Health System) is the largest single-payer system in the world and was ranked #1 in the Commonwealth Fund’s Health Care System Performance Rankings in 20171 (US placed #11). It achieved particularly high scores in Care Process (prevention, safe care, coordination & patient engagement), Access (timeliness & affordability) and Equity. The NHS is also one of the world’s largest employers with around 1.5m staff nationwide. In 2014, the UK spent 9.8% of GDP on healthcare2. Of course, it is not without shortcomings, but I am immensely proud of the NHS and stand behind its founding principles. As a physician who has worked in both UK and US, I believe there is much that the countries can learn from each other. My goals for this document are: • Outline several examples of successful, promising and even controversial innovations in the UK’s National Health Service with an emphasis on primary care. • Briefly describe their impact on care delivery in the UK. • Hypothesize how these innovations might be applied to a US employer-based model. 1 Commonwealth Fund: Mirror, Mirror 2017 2 NHS spends about EU average as percentage of GDP on health Primary Care as Gatekeeper Overview Impact Relevance In England, there are approximately 340M GP Primary care as a gatekeeper to specialists is The gatekeeping role of primary care in the UK consultations a year with an average of 6 visits not a novel concept in the US and is a defining originated over 100 years ago, prior to the per year.
  • Download Thesis

    Download Thesis

    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ Big data approaches to investigating Child Mental Health disorder outcomes Downs, Jonathan Muir Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Oct. 2021 BIG DATA APPROACHES TO INVESTIGATING CHILD MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER OUTCOMES JOHNNY DOWNS Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2017 Department of Psychological Medicine Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience King’s College London ABSTRACT Background: In the UK, administrative data resources continue to expand across publically funded youth-orientated health, education and social services.
  • NHS Data: Maximising Its Impact on the Health and Wealth of the United Kingdom Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Jack Halligan James O’Shaughnessy & Ara Darzi Contents

    NHS Data: Maximising Its Impact on the Health and Wealth of the United Kingdom Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Jack Halligan James O’Shaughnessy & Ara Darzi Contents

    NHS data: Maximising its impact on the health and wealth of the United Kingdom Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Jack Halligan James O’Shaughnessy & Ara Darzi Contents 02 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 04 FOREWORD 05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 08 INTRODUCTION: MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF NHS DATA 12 PUBLIC OPINION AND ENGAGEMENT 16 DATA GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS 20 DATA QUALITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 24 CAPABILITIES 26 INVESTMENT SUGGESTED CITATION Ghafur S, Fontana G, Halligan J, O’Shaughnessy J, Darzi A. NHS data: Maximising its impact 28 VALUE SHARING on the health and wealth of the United Kingdom. Imperial College London (2020) doi: 10.25561/76409 34 REFERENCES Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people who contributed to this document through interviews/ attendance at a round table and have agreed to be acknowledged: NAME ORGANISATION Dr. Natalie Banner * Understanding Patient Data Professor Sir John Bell * The Academy of Medical Sciences Kate Cheema British Heart Foundation Professor Diane Coyle University of Cambridge Douglas de Jager * Human.ai Rachel Dunscombe * NHS Digital Academy Dr. Andrew Elder Albion Capital Lord Valerian Freyberg * House of Lords John Godfrey * Legal & General Joanne Hackett * Genomics England Dr. Hugh Harvey * Hardian Health Eleonora Harwich * Reform A total of 26 one-to-one interviews were held with individuals with a strong Geoff Heyes Mind interest in this topic. Interviewees included representatives from government, Dr. Dominic King Google Health the NHS, academia, industry (technology and life sciences), research Dr. Jack Kreindler * Centre for Health & Human Performance institutions, charities and data privacy organisations. We have not consulted the public or healthcare professionals for the purposes of this paper, as we Michael MacDonnell * Google Health chose to focus on experts in the data policy and governance space.
  • Athenahealth Master Services Agreement Third Party Terms

    Athenahealth Master Services Agreement Third Party Terms

    ATHENAHEALTH MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT THIRD PARTY TERMS secrets. Client shall hold in confidence and take reasonable measures, but PART 1 - GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. not less than the measures taken by Client to safeguard its own confidential The following Third Party Terms apply to all Athena sublicenses of information, to safeguard and prohibit access to, and copying or disclosure Third Party Items (as defined in the Athenahealth Master Services of, any and all confidential information and materials provided hereunder, Agreement) to Client pursuant to agreements that Athena has made with its including, but not limited to, confidential information in or about the Third third party licensors (“Third Party Licensors”): Party Items, any updates to any of them and any user manuals for them. A. Client will not modify the Third Party Items or the substance of the M. IN NO EVENT SHALL ATHENA OR A THIRD PARTY LICENSOR data contained therein. (OR ITS SUPPLIERS), OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS OR EMPLOYEES, BE LIABLE TO CLIENT OR ANY OTHER B. Except as authorized by the applicable Third Party Licensor or as PARTY FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, permitted under Part 2 herein, Client will not use any Third Party Item (or any EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, RELIANCE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY data derived from it) in a computer service business or in network, time- LOSS OF USE, DATA OR, BUSINESS, PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF OR IN sharing, multiple-CPU or multiple-user arrangements (including the Internet CONNECTION WITH (1) THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE THIRD and Intranets), or link or interface them with any other equipment, software, PARTY ITEM; (2) THE INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, DELAY OR data, network or communications system except in and as part of INABILITY TO USE ANY THIRD PARTY ITEM, RELATED EQUIPMENT OR athenaNet®.
  • Digital Health in the UK: an Industry Study for the Office of Life Sciences

    Digital Health in the UK: an Industry Study for the Office of Life Sciences

    Digital Health in the UK An industry study for the Office of Life Sciences September 2015 Contents Foreword 1 Executive summary 2 Part 1. Market introduction 6 Part 2. Telehealthcare 10 Part 3. mHealth 21 Part 4. Data Analytics 32 Part 5. Digitised health systems 39 Part 6. Conclusions on the digital health UK competitive position 45 Monitor Deloitte team 51 References 52 Foreword Welcome to the Monitor Deloitte report on Digital Health. This is one of a series of reports reflecting work commissioned by Office of Life Sciences in March 2015 on key healthcare and life science industry segments in the United Kingdom. Digital Health is an emerging industry arising from the intersection of healthcare services, information technology and mobile technology. Digital health innovations are only just starting to be more widely accepted as necessary for the future of efficient healthcare service delivery. As we address the behaviour, social, legal and technical challenges, over time, digital health advances have the potential to help increase access, decrease healthcare system costs and improve health outcomes. This report analyses trends in the digital health industry based on discussions with stakeholders, literature reviews and our work across the sector. It focuses on the United Kingdom but in the context of the global market and draws on examples from other countries. The report considers the challenges to growth, barriers to adoption, shifting dynamics and how the emergent industry is developing. The intention is to provoke discussion and offer readers an overview of the industry challenges and dynamics in the United Kingdom. We welcome your feedback and comments.
  • 3Rd Quarter 2014 FINAL BOOK

    3Rd Quarter 2014 FINAL BOOK

    SCOTT-MACON HEALTHCARE REVIEW: THIRD QUARTER 2014 Third Quarter 2014 Healthcare Review 2 Healthcare Overview, Mean Revenue Multiples 5 Healthcare Overview, Mean EBITDA Multiples 6 Analysis of Selected Healthcare 7 Merger and Acquisition Transactions July 1—September 30, 2014 Analysis of Selected 30 Publicly-Traded Healthcare Companies CONTENTS SCOTT-MACON Healthcare Investment Banking 2 THIRD QUARTER 2014 HEALTHCARE REVIEW Dear Clients and Friends, Scott-Macon is pleased to present our quarterly mens’ healthcare IT business for $1.3 billion; and Bob Healthcare Review covering the third quarter of 2014. If Patricelli’s Evolution1 has been sold to payments con- you haven’t done so already, please email me at ncor- glomerate WEX for 6.0x revenues. Other interesting tech- [email protected] to automatically continue receiv- nology deals include giant Allscripts picking up Oasis in ing our publications in the future as we are transitioning to the EHR space; Google acquiring telehealth player Lynx digital publishing with email distribution. Design; Premier announcing two more deals for Aperek Pages five and six represent a visual snapshot of and TheraDoc; and Sunquest owner Roper closing on the average multiples for all of the healthcare, medical Strategic Healthcare Programs. Turning to the Outsourc- and pharmaceutical transactions that either closed or were ing segment, clinical services giant Sheridan Healthcare announced during the third quarter, along with the average was acquired by AmSurg for $2.4 billion, representing multiples for the major publicly-traded healthcare, medi- 2.5x revenues. Point-of-care diagnostics leader Alere an- cal and pharmaceutical companies. nounced it is in talks for a sale to an investor group for Beginning on page 7 we present the mergers and $7.8 billion, or 2.6x revenues.
  • A Survey of U.S. Healthcare IT Industry Landscape

    A Survey of U.S. Healthcare IT Industry Landscape

    July 28, 2016 Industry Research Department, Mizuho Bank Mizuho Industry Focus Vol. 183 A Survey of U.S. Healthcare IT Industry Landscape Global Corporate Advisory Americas Tim Wang, CFA, 2016 [email protected] 〈Summary〉 ○ U.S. Healthcare IT industry is booming. Over the recent years, many companies have had robust growth and the sector has attracted huge inflow of private and public investments. There are many types of HCIT companies, operating with different business models and participating in various segments of HCIT. In this report, we try to first identify the drivers behind HCIT growth and then delineate the dynamics in each HCIT segment. ○ Key drivers of HCIT are also the underlying drivers of the U.S. healthcare system, namely Obamacare, the transition to value-based reimbursement model, rising consumerism, industry consolidation, etc. Within HCIT, major drivers include the HITECH Act, advancement of technology, and the convergence of healthcare, IT, and consumer industries. ○ The booming HCIT market is in transition. Incentives for EHR created by the HITECH Act have largely run their course. In the future, the marketplace will be driven less by government subsidies and more by private spending. To earn revenues from private payers, HCIT companies increasingly need to demonstrate the clinical and financial value of their offerings. To achieve this, HCIT companies need to collaborate closely with their customers. ○ For the various HCIT segments, we see three especially promising areas – integration of remote patient monitoring either through wearables or other devices with data analytics and intervention capabilities; big data analytics by Artificial Intelligence; and telemedicine. We expect stable growth for RCM, PM, payer solution segments.
  • 2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING Market Share, Mindshare, and Renewal Research and Report Provided by Reactiondata Table of Contents

    2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING Market Share, Mindshare, and Renewal Research and Report Provided by Reactiondata Table of Contents

    2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING Market Share, Mindshare, and Renewal research and report provided by ReactionData Table of Contents Introduction 5 About Industry Insights 6 2015 Purchases 7 Purchase Intention By Hospital Size 8 EHR 13 EHR Market Share 14 GE Healthcare 18 Epic 24 MEDHOST 26 EHR Renewal 28 Data Analytics 29 Data Analytics Market Share 30 McKesson 34 Data Analytics Mindshare 36 Data Analytics Renewal 40 Patient Engagement 41 2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING | 2 Patient Engagement Market Share 42 Patient Engagement Mindshare 46 Allscripts 50 Patient Engagement Renewal 52 Population Health Management 53 Population Health Management Market Share 54 Population Health Management Mindshare 58 The Advisory Board 59 Population Health Management Renewal 64 Revenue Cycle Management 65 RCM Market Share 66 MedAssets 70 RCM Mindshare 71 RCM Renewal 75 Data Security 76 Data Security Market Share 77 Data Security Mindshare 81 Data Security Renewal 85 2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING | 3 ICD-10 Migration 86 ICD-10 Migration Market Share 87 ICD-10 Migration Mindshare 91 ICD-10 Migration Renewal 95 Conclusion 96 Appendix A 97 Survey Participants by Role 97 Appendix B 98 3M 98 Cerner 98 CPSI 98 eClinicalWorks 98 MEDITECH 99 Appendix C 100 Participating Facilities 100 2015 HEALTHCARE TECH PURCHASING | 4 Introduction US healthcare providers are poised to spend billions in 2015 on information technology. The jobs, promotions, and bonuses of many healthcare professionals depend upon a few key questions. • Where will this money be spent? • Which vendors are poised to gain market share? • Who is poised to miss out? Over a recent three week period, we used our enterprise data platform (Reaction) to find out.
  • Cerner Corporation 2015 Annual Report at the Center of Everything We Do Stands Our Commitment to Improve Health and Care for the Individual

    Cerner Corporation 2015 Annual Report at the Center of Everything We Do Stands Our Commitment to Improve Health and Care for the Individual

    Cerner Corporation 2015 Annual Report At the center of everything we do stands our commitment to improve health and care for the individual. We design our technologies to be open, scalable and data-driven. And through our global relationships, we create healthier stories of improved care, lowered costs, increased safety, aligned priorities, long-term value and changed lives – for the organization, the community, the individual and grandfathers and granddaughters. Cerner Corporation 2015 Annual Report Table of Contents: Annual Report 2015 Board of Directors . 2 Leadership . 3 Cerner’s Long-Term Performance . .4 Letter to Our Shareholders, Clients and Associates . 5 Appendix: Reconciliation of 2015 Non-GAAP Results to GAAP Results . 14 Form 10-K . 15 Business and Industry Overview . 18 Risk Factors . 26 Properties . 38 Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities . 40 Selected Financial Data . 41 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . 42 Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk . 55 Controls and Procedures . 55 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters . 58 Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules . 59 Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm . 64 Consolidated Balance Sheets . 66 Consolidated Statements of Operations . 67 Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income . 68 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows . 69 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity . 70 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements . 71 Basis of Presentation, Nature of Operations and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies . 71 Business Acquisitions . 77 Investments . 81 Fair Value Measurements . 82 Receivables . 83 Property and Equipment .