Choosing the device is reversible.
The contract underneath may not be.
Which device to buy, which data management layer runs on it, and the contract terms tied to it are three separate decisions with very different costs to reverse. This paper helps see them separately before you sign anything.
Written for point of care directors, health system lab and quality leaders, and administrators at large physician practices evaluating point of care connectivity. About an 11-minute read.
What's inside?
—
One purchase, three decisions, and why each reverses so differently.
The four pressures pulling point of care device inventories apart.
An honest case for staying with one vendor, and where it holds.
Four red flags in any bundled data management pitch.
Seven questions to answer before your next vendor call.
$32.9B
—
Global point of care diagnostics market in 2025, projected to nearly double by 2034.
Fortune Business Insights, 2026–2034
82%
—
Of U.S. practicing physicians employed by a hospital or corporate entity as of early 2026. Every acquisition brings its own device brands.
Physicians Advocacy Institute and Avalere Health, 2026
20+ Years
—
Since CLIA personnel and documentation requirements saw an overhaul as significant as the one CMS implemented in December 2025.
TRC Healthcare; CMS final rule, effective December 30, 2025
2001
—
The year an industry-wide point of care connectivity standard was introduced. Adoption is still uneven.
CAP Today; Endava
What is your current billing software costing you?
Slide to your lab's annual net collections and see what TELCOR's published improvement range is worth in real dollars.
Three Decisions, in Plain Language
A point of care purchase feels like one decision. It's three, and they don't cost the same to undo.
Vendor dependency rarely comes from the device a hospital owns. It comes from the data management layer and the contract that ride along with it. TELCOR was built to keep those decisions separate.
| DECISION | WHAT IT DETERMINES | COST TO REVERSE |
|---|---|---|
|
Which device to buy
|
Clinical fit at the bedside, ease of use for the operator, which tests are available where care happens.
|
Moderate to high. A device is a purchasing decision a hospital can revisit at the next refresh cycle.
|
|
Which data management layer runs on top of it
|
Result capture, operator training and certification records, QC, and how (and whether) results reach the LIS and EMR without manual entry.
|
Moderate to high, depending on how the contract for it was structured.
|
|
What the data management contract's term is tied to
|
Whether a hospital can look at a calendar and know when each device's data management commitment is next up for renewal.
|
Extremely high if the term is tied to the device and staggered across years. Low if every device is co-terminous on one recurring date.
|
The Real Problem
The same nurse runs a glucose check, a coagulation panel, and a urine test in one shift. When each device brand brings its own data management system, her training record, certification date, and competency documentation end up in two or three places, entered by different people who can't see each other's work.
"You've got duplication of effort and the opportunity for huge errors. And you have the opportunity then, at inspection time, where you don't have all the data for point of care testing in one place."
BECKY CLARKE, CO-FOUNDER, TELCOR
TELCOR: A Great Place to Work™
TELCOR customers see the value of choosing a vendor who has been recognized as a Great Place to Work. This prestigious certification is based on direct feedback from TELCOR employees, reflecting their positive workplace experiences. With decades of POC and RCM leadership, customers trust TELCOR for our transparency, responsiveness, and ability to turn complex processes into reliable measurable financial performance. It's not just software, it's a team committed to elevating every facility it serves.
-
TELCOR
Collections Performance
6-12% Increase, Up to 95% of Allowed AmountsOwnership Model
Client-Owned License, No Percentage of CollectionsDenial Management
Highly Configurable Rules EngineCustom Billing Rules
Payer-Level Configuration Tailored to Lab WorkflowsReporting & Analytics
Real-Time Dashboards; Client-Editable ReportingImplementation Support
Red-Carpet Rollout; Consistent Team Through Go-LiveSystem Flexibility & Ease of Use
Built with Lab Input for Practical UseClearinghouse Integration
Works with Client's Preferred ClearinghouseCustomer Support Responsiveness
Direct Responsive Access to Billing ExpertsPricing Transparency
Clear, Upfront Licensing and Billing -
Vendor 1
Collections Performance
Strong, but Proprietary Metrics; Varies by ClientOwnership Model
Revenue Share (%) ModelDenial Management
Advanced Tools with Payer-Specific Denial WorkflowsCustom Billing Rules
Some Customization, Often Requires Vendor InvolvementReporting & Analytics
Rich Reporting, But Not Always Client-AccessibleImplementation Support
Scaled Support Model; Varies by Client SizeSystem Flexibility & Ease of Use
Powerful but Known to be Rigid and ComplexClearinghouse Integration
Limited to Preferred Vendor PartnersCustomer Support Responsiveness
Tiered Model; Slower Response Times ReportedPricing Transparency
Opaque Pricing Tied to Revenue Share and Additional Fees -
Vendor 2
Collections Performance
Competitive but Variable; Depends on ConfigurationOwnership Model
Mix of License & Revenue Share Depending on Client SizeDenial Management
Good tools but less flexible without custom developmentCustom Billing Rules
Custom Rules Available But Less Client-DrivenReporting & Analytics
Strong Executive Reporting; Varies by ImplementationImplementation Support
Mixed Reviews Depending on Contract and Internal ResourcesSystem Flexibility & Ease of Use
Flexible, but Often Requires Vendor-Led ChangesClearinghouse Integration
Supports Multiple, but Integrations can be ComplexCustomer Support Responsiveness
Mixed Experience Based on Assigned Support TeamPricing Transparency
Generally Transparent, but Variable Across Agreements