Value-Based Care Landscape (U.S.)

A curated, evidence-weighted overview of 20 companies across risk-bearing care delivery, enablement, analytics, and specialty VBC.

Contact for updates

Segment

Min confidence

Metric

Tip: use Min confidence to surface stronger evidence first.

Showing 5 of 5.

Segment	Population	Primary customer	Evidence	High conf.
Enablement / ACO	TBD	TBD	2	0
Enablement / ACO	TBD	TBD	4	0
Enablement / ACO	TBD	TBD	3	2
Enablement / ACO	TBD	TBD	2	1
Enablement / ACO	TBD	TBD	2	0

Methodology

Confidence scores are generated by a deterministic rubric (v1.0) in the tooling layer. The board displays those scores as provided in the dataset; it does not re-score in the UI.

Scoring Rubric (v1.0)

The transparency score is composed of: (1) Source reliability baseline (2) Explicit documentation signals. Scores are capped to a 1–5 scale to preserve interpretability.

Source Type	Base Score	Rule in Scoring Logic
CMS / Public datasets	5	Base score = 5
Peer-reviewed publication	4	Base score = 4
SEC filing / regulated disclosure	4	Base score = 4
Third-party audit	4	Base score = 4
Case study	2	Base score = 2
Press release	1	Base score = 1
Other	1	Base score = 1

Adjustment rules in v1.0 scoring:

+1 if population, timeframe, and comparator are all explicitly defined.
+1 if both metric definition and numeric effect are present.
+1 if methodology is described and base score is 4 or below.
Boolean unknown values are treated conservatively as false.

Methodology adjustments are only applied when the baseline source does not already imply structured documentation standards (e.g., CMS datasets).

Source type determines the initial baseline because regulated or externally validated disclosures are subject to higher documentation standards and accountability mechanisms. Marketing-driven materials receive lower baselines to reflect lower structural disclosure requirements.

Adjustment increments cannot elevate a claim beyond the structural transparency ceiling defined by its source type.

Source Type	Max Score
CMS / Public dataset	5
Peer-reviewed / SEC / Audit	5
Case study	4
Press release	3
Other	3

Limitations

The score evaluates transparency and reporting detail, not causal validity or clinical effectiveness.
The board uses extracted fields from linked sources and can inherit source omissions or ambiguity.
Merge deduplication removes exact duplicates by company + claim + year + URL; near-duplicates may remain.
Company ordering is deterministic but case-sensitive, and does not imply ranking.
The scoring framework is intentionally conservative and prioritizes explicit documentation over inferred intent.

Corrections Policy

Submit corrections through the Contact form with inquiry type Data correction. Include the company name, source URL, and the specific field or claim that should be changed.

Corrections are reviewed on a rolling basis and incorporated in subsequent data updates.

We do not remove accurate, publicly sourced information. Where disputes arise, entries may be marked “Under Review” pending verification.

Disclaimer

Transparency score ≠ clinical quality. A higher score means the underlying claim is more explicitly documented and auditable, not that outcomes are superior for all populations or settings.

Contact

Corrections, partnerships, and custom comparative analysis upon request.