Epic优先并不意味着只选Epic：医院仍在哪些领域向初创公司采购
Epic-First Doesn’t Mean Epic-Only: Where Hospitals Are Still Buying from Startups
Epic对医院IT的控制正在加强——然而，令人惊讶的是，仍有相当数量的医疗系统表示他们愿意从其他地方采购。
本周，Redesign Health发布的研究证明了这一点。这家风险投资公司调查了全美112位来自基于Epic的医疗系统的高管，包括CEO、CIO、CMIO和其他高级决策者，以了解他们对Epic的看法以及从外部供应商采购的意愿。
研究发现，总体而言，Epic仍然占据市场主导地位。医院更青睐Epic，信任其技术，并预计未来会更多地依赖它。
例如，71%的受访者将所在机构描述为“Epic优先”，并且没有一位受访者表示他们默认偏好外部供应商。超过90%的受访者还表示相信Epic最终会提供与任何外部供应商一样好的AI工具。
由以下机构提供赞助帖子2026年面向全球劳动力的Top 7现代AI驱动EAP提供商发现2026年顶尖的AI驱动EAP提供商。比较Kyan Health和Spring Health等平台的分诊速度、全球覆盖范围和临床质量，以改善员工福祉。
作者：Tiffany Cabasso，Kyan Health运营总监 | FSP心理学家然而，就目前而言，医院在特定情况下仍愿意向初创公司采购。其中一种情况是当产品明显优于Epic所提供的产品时，49%的受访者表示外部供应商必须展示出比Epic自身解决方案“显著更高”的ROI才能赢得交易。
另一种情况是采购可以由部门或服务线层面赞助，而不是通过中央IT部门进行。超过一半的受访者表示，部门领导完全有权做出这些决定——至少目前是这样，在工具最终被纳入更大IT团队的轨道之前。这对初创公司来说是一个有意义的漏洞，因为这意味着销售推介不必先通过Epic的主场。
当Epic在某个特定类别中的产品还不够强大时，医院也愿意选择外部供应商。当被问及哪些类别最适合初创公司以这种方式赢得业务时，受访者指向了面向临床医生的AI，如环境记录（48%）和影像AI（44%）。根据Redesign的报告，这两个类别是Epic历来比专业供应商行动缓慢或重视程度较低的领域——而患者AI助手和收入周期AI也紧随其后。
该报告最令人惊讶的发现之一是，初创公司的业绩记录对医疗系统客户的实际影响可能很小。
由以下机构提供赞助帖子缩小职场心理健康中的质量-可负担性差距在一次采访中，Kyan Health联合创始人兼首席商务官Konstantin Struck讨论了Kyan如何以可负担的价格为中端市场和企业雇主提供优质的员工心理健康护理。
作者：Stephanie Baum
近三分之二的受访者表示，他们可能或极有可能从拥有三个或更少活跃客户的全新初创公司购买产品——这一比例仅比他们从拥有数百家客户的成熟供应商购买的可能性低12个百分点。
总体而言，这些发现显示出一个既在整合又在碎片化的市场。在医院IT的广泛、通用用途部分，Epic正变得更加占据主导地位——而一个相对狭窄的通道仍然对愿意解决特定问题、证明强大ROI并以最小摩擦进行集成的初创公司开放。
Redesign的研究描绘了一幅图景，显示Epic并没有对初创公司关闭大门，但它确实让准入条件变得更加具体。
照片：rudall30，Getty Images
Epic
‘s grip on hospital IT is tightening — yet a surprising number of health systems say they’re still willing to buy elsewhere.
This week, Redesign Health released research proving this. The venture firm surveyed 112 executives at Epic-based health systems across the country — including CEOs, CIOs, CMIOs and other senior decision-makers — to understand how they view Epic and their willingness to buy from outside vendors.
The study found that in general, Epic still owns the market. Hospitals prefer Epic, trust its technology and expect to rely on it even more going forward.
For instance, 71% of the survey’s respondents describe their organization as “Epic-first,” and not a single respondent said they prefer external vendors by default. More than 90% also expressed confidence that Epic will eventually deliver AI tools as good as any outside vendor’s.
However, for the time being, hospitals are open to buying from startups in specific situations. One of these scenarios is when the product is dramatically better that what Epic is offering, with 49% of respondents saying external vendors must show a “significantly higher” ROI than Epic’s own solution to win the deal.
Another scenario is when the purchase can be sponsored at the department or service-line level, rather than routed through central IT. More than half of respondents said that department leaders have full autonomy to make those calls — at least for now, before the tool eventually gets pulled into the orbit of the greater IT team. This is a meaningful loophole for startups because it means the sales pitch doesn’t have to clear Epic’s home turf first.
Hospitals are also willing to select an outside vendor when Epic’s product in a given category just isn’t strong enough yet. When asked which categories are best-suited for startups to win business this way, respondents pointed to clinician-facing AI like ambient scribing (48%) and imaging AI (44%). These are two categories where Epic has historically moved slower or placed less emphasis than specialized vendors — and patient AI assistants and revenue cycle AI weren’t far behind, according to Redesign’s report.
One of the report’s most surprising findings is how little a startup’s track record might actually matter to health system customers.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would be likely or very likely to purchase from a net-new startup with three or fewer live customers — which is only 12 percentage points behind their likelihood of buying from an established vendor with hundreds of customers.
Overall, the findings show a market that is consolidating and fragmenting at the same time. Epic is growing even more dominant when it comes to the broad, general-purpose parts of hospital IT — while a somewhat narrow lane remains open for startups willing to solve a specific problem, prove a strong ROI and integrate with minimal friction.
Redesign’s research paints a picture that shows Epic hasn’t closed the door on startups, but it has made the terms of entry a lot more specific.
Photo: rudall30, Getty Images