The Taxonomy

Features

Every vendor in the index is assessed against thirteen capability axes in four groups. Each axis carries a letter grade and a source basis, and each is gradeable from public artifacts: vendor documentation, trust centers, regulatory databases, EHR marketplace listings, and published research.

How grades read

A
Strong, verifiable disclosure or evidence at the top of the axis scale.
B
Substantive disclosure or documented capability with minor gaps.
C
Claims made without documentation, or standard coverage silent on the AI-specific questions.
D
Material claims with no supporting methodology or verification path.
F
Absent disclosure where the product clearly requires it, or claims contradicted by public evidence.
Not Rated
Insufficient public evidence to assign a grade. Not a negative assessment.

Grades are not aggregated into a composite score. A grade reflects the assessed strength of the vendor’s disclosure and evidence on that axis, not a comparison to other vendors. See the Methodology for verification standards.

01 — AI Capability

AI Centrality

Whether artificial intelligence is the product itself, the engine of a core module, or a feature layer on a platform whose value stands without it. This axis is how a reader distinguishes an AI-native product from a platform with AI capabilities. The index includes companies across the full range.

Autonomy and Oversight Model

What the AI is permitted to do (draft, decide, or act) and how rigorously the vendor discloses its human oversight structure: escalation thresholds, supervision, override paths. Grades disclosure rigor, not autonomy itself. High autonomy with a documented oversight model can grade well; any autonomy with no disclosed oversight grades poorly.

Model and Technology Transparency

Disclosure of what is under the hood: proprietary models versus fine-tuned foundation models, training data claims, model cards, versioning and update practices.

Clinical and Operational Evidence

The strength of evidence behind performance and outcome claims, from peer-reviewed prospective multi-site validation at the top of the scale down to outcome percentages published with no methodology. Vendor-reported statistics are recorded as vendor-reported and never restated as independent results.

AI Safety and PHI Stewardship

How the vendor handles protected health information across the AI lifecycle, including use in training, retention, and de-identification, along with safety engineering disclosures such as guardrails, hallucination mitigation, and safety event reporting.

02 — Regulatory and Compliance

HIPAA and BAA Posture

Business Associate Agreement availability, the tier at which the BAA applies, and subprocessor disclosure. The specific BAA tier fact is recorded in the vendor pricing record; this axis grades the overall posture and disclosure quality.

Security Certifications and Trust Center

SOC 2 Type II, HITRUST, and ISO 27001 status, verified through public trust centers wherever possible, along with security incident disclosure practices.

FDA and Regulatory Status

Whether the product is FDA cleared or authorized as a Software as a Medical Device, operating under enforcement discretion, or positioned as non-device clinical decision support, verified against the FDA public databases. Grades clarity and appropriateness of regulatory positioning, not possession of clearance; products for which clearance is not applicable are not penalized.

AI Governance and Bias Disclosure

Substantive responsible AI commitments: published model cards, decision support transparency attributes for EHR-embedded tools, bias and fairness evaluations with stated methodology, third-party AI audits.

03 — Integration and Deployment

EHR and Interoperability Depth

Integration maturity with major EHR systems: native workflow embedding, SMART on FHIR applications, HL7 interfaces, or standalone operation, verified against EHR marketplace listings and integration documentation where available. For lanes where EHR integration is not the relevant surface, the axis is assessed against the relevant surface or marked not applicable.

Deployment Model and Data Residency

Documented deployment options (cloud, virtual private cloud, on-premises) along with United States data residency commitments and tenant isolation disclosures.

04 — Commercial

Commercial Transparency

Whether a buyer can learn what the product costs and how it is priced without a sales engagement: published tiers, published pricing basis, self-serve trial availability. Specific figures are recorded in the vendor pricing record, with estimates labeled as estimates. Vendors that publish no pricing are recorded as Contact the vendor and left ungraded on this axis; a failing grade is reserved for published pricing claims contradicted by evidence.

Setting and Specialty Coverage

Clarity about where the product is validated to operate (ambulatory, inpatient, emergency, behavioral health, post-acute, home) and specialty coverage where relevant. Narrow coverage clearly stated grades well; the measure is clarity and validation, not breadth.

AI Health Index

An independent reference for evaluating AI vendors in healthcare. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
July 19, 2026
The AI Health Index is an editorial reference, not a regulatory body. Vendor data is verified against published sources and public regulatory filings. Figures labeled “Estimated” have not been confirmed by the vendor. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Health Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746