Patient Access
Providers using this tag (41)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (27)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 8 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (10)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Patient Access” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 40 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Patient Access, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 38.7 | 20.1 | +18.6 | 40 |
| Access Clarity | 40.5 | 26.5 | +14 | 40 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.2 | 23.4 | +13.8 | 40 |
| Contract Governance | 18.7 | 6.5 | +12.2 | 40 |
| Discoverability | 69.8 | 61 | +8.8 | 40 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.8 | 14 | +3.8 | 40 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 10% | 10% | 0 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 12% | 13% | -1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 61% | 11% | +50 |
| Security | 100% | 96% | +4 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 20% | 13% | +7 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 1upHealth 75.7
- 2 Flexpa 72.4
- 3 NextGen Healthcare 71.7
- 4 Jefferson Health 70.4
- 5 Independence Blue Cross 68.7
- 6 Medblocks 65.4
- 7 Optum 61.7
- 8 Temple Health 61.1
- 9 Allscripts Healthcare Solutions 60.6
- 10 b.well 56.7
- 1 Medblocks 64.4
- 2 b.well 57.7
- 3 Flexpa 47.5
- 4 Prosper AI 46.9
- 5 Centene 46.6
- 6 Aetna 42.3
- 7 Optum 40.8
- 8 Independence Blue Cross 39
- 9 Devoted Health 38.7
- 10 Jefferson Health 36.9
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.