Independent guidance on the services practices actually buy. The full provider directory sits behind every topic.
Paneling, payer enrollment, CAQH, timelines, vendor selection.
In-house vs outsource, pricing models, coding, payer contracts.
EHR selection by specialty, migration, practice-management software.
Consultants, MSOs, startup engagements, vetting and costs.
GetPracticeHelp recommends vendors for a living. That only works if our verdicts are independent of who pays us. Here is exactly how we evaluate, where sponsorship sits, how the directory and Get Matched work, and what we do when we get something wrong.
Editorial verdicts are produced by the GPH editorial team against published criteria, before any commercial conversation. Vendors can pay for clearly-labeled Featured and Sponsored placement -- and that placement is structurally separated from every verdict on the site. If sponsorship ever appeared to color a verdict, the independence positioning would be worthless. So we don't allow it.
Verdicts today are criteria-based editorial judgments against the published criteria below. We have not yet published numeric vendor scores; when we do, they will be produced by this same process and dated.
We set evaluation criteria and weights for the topic, published openly, before assessing any vendor.
Pricing pages, vendor documentation, payer data, and publicly available reviews and industry recognition -- sources stated, estimates labeled.
Each vendor is assessed against the same criteria by the editorial team. Vendors do not preview or approve verdicts.
Every comparison shows a review date and is re-checked on a schedule. Corrections update the page and its date.
The weights below are the live credentialing framework (v1.0). Every topic hub links back to its own version. Weights differ by topic -- speed matters more in credentialing; total cost of ownership matters more in EHR -- but the structure and the independence rules are identical.
Evaluation framework v1.0
Same structure, topic-specific weights
Comparison tables on each hub apply these criteria as best-for editorial judgments. Columns we have not yet evaluated are marked "not yet scored" -- never estimated, never filled by a vendor. The stated-figure columns on each table fill under the vendor-stated evidence rules below.
The comparison tables carry stated-figure columns -- "Stated turnaround," "Stated implementation," "Stated clean-claim rate," "Stated payer coverage," "Stated specialty coverage." These are not GPH scores. Here is exactly what fills them, and what an empty cell means.
A cell fills only from the vendor's own published material: product pages, official documentation, published SLAs, stated payer-network or specialty counts. Review-site aggregates, third-party articles, and our own estimates never fill a cell. A claim must carry a concrete figure, range, or count -- a superlative without a number does not qualify.
The cell shows the vendor's claim in compressed form. Every filled cell carries its basis -- the source URL and the date we verified it -- recorded in the page source, and claims are re-checked when the table's review date updates. These figures are vendor-stated, not GPH-measured: we verify that the vendor publishes the claim, not that the claim is true in your case. Verify against current vendor quotes before relying on one.
Where a cell still reads "not yet scored," the vendor publishes no verifiable figure for that column (or we have not yet completed verification). That is an evidence gap, not a quality judgment -- enterprise vendors in particular often publish no public turnaround or coverage figures. An honest empty cell beats an invented full one; we leave it empty.
Editorial verdicts (above) and directory listings are two different layers. Here is how the directory side works.
Any legitimate healthcare service provider relevant to independent practices can be listed. Listing requires no payment, no affiliate relationship, and no commitment. Vendors cannot pay to be listed -- or to remove a competitor. Inclusion requires an active, verifiable business with a genuine service offering for independent practices.
A "Verified" badge on a directory listing means the listing's profile has been claimed and reviewed by GPH; paid tiers include profile verification as part of onboarding, and the review standard is the same either way. Directory scores reflect listing data quality and fit signals. Both are directory attributes -- they are not editorial verdicts, and they are distinct from the criteria-based assessments in buyer guides.
Get Matched connects practice owners with relevant providers anonymously -- vendors do not see who submitted the request. Results show the top-ranked providers for your needs, ranked by category and practice fit plus reputation signals. Free-listed vendors compete on the same criteria; a paid Verified Partner tier adds a small, fixed ranking bonus, and paid placement slots, where present, are labeled. Payment can boost visibility within results -- it cannot place an unqualified vendor in them, and it cannot remove a qualified competitor.
We make money from clearly-labeled placements, listing tiers, affiliate commissions, and Get Matched -- never from editorial verdicts. The line between them is bright and permanent.
None of these can be purchased, accelerated, or removed by payment. Vendors do not review or approve editorial content about them before publication.
Always labeled, always visually separated, never mixed into a verdict. Tier status affects visibility -- never editorial selection.
Understanding the tiers is key to understanding the firewall: tier status affects placement, badges, and search priority -- it does not affect whether a vendor is listed or how it is described in editorial content.
A vendor cannot buy its way into a recommendation, a buyer-guide verdict, or an editorial shortlist -- and cannot buy the removal of a competitor. Full tier details →
We work from primary sources -- vendor documentation, public pricing, payer rules, industry benchmark data (MGMA, HFMA), and publicly available reviews. Where a figure is an estimate or a range, we say so. Where we have not verified a number, the page says "not yet scored" or carries an explicit verification note.
Found an error? Email [email protected]. We correct promptly and update the review date when a comparison changes. Vendors can request a re-review when their offering materially changes -- the re-review runs on the same published criteria.
Product surfaces carry the GPH editorial voice rather than a personal byline. Named-author analysis appears only where an outside expert contributes, and is labeled as such. Vendors never ghost-write or pre-approve coverage.
Every hub applies these standards. Open the credentialing hub to see the criteria, the comparison, and the sponsored separation together.