.png)
Frameworks, core principles and top case studies for SaaS pricing, learnt and refined over 28+ years of SaaS-monetization experience.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Selecting the right pricing metric for SaaS solutions targeting oncology centers represents a critical strategic decision that impacts both provider adoption and vendor sustainability. With cancer care becoming increasingly complex and data-driven, oncology centers require specialized software that supports clinical decision-making, workflow optimization, and patient management—but how should these solutions be priced? This article examines the three primary pricing models—per seat, per transaction, and per outcome—to determine which best serves the unique needs of oncology-focused healthcare technology.
The Unique SaaS Landscape in Oncology Centers
Oncology centers operate in a distinctive healthcare niche with specific requirements for their software solutions. These specialized facilities manage complex treatment protocols, coordinate multidisciplinary care teams, track patient outcomes across lengthy treatment journeys, and navigate complicated reimbursement models. Any SaaS pricing strategy must account for these operational realities while aligning with how value is created and perceived.
Oncology centers SaaS solutions typically encompass:
- Clinical decision support systems
- Treatment planning tools
- Patient engagement platforms
- Revenue cycle management
- Outcomes tracking and analytics
- Clinical trial matching services
- Interoperability solutions supporting HIPAA compliance and HL7 FHIR standards
Evaluating Per-Seat Pricing for Oncology SaaS
Per-seat (or per-user) pricing represents the traditional SaaS pricing model, charging based on the number of users accessing the system.
Advantages for oncology settings:
- Predictable costs with straightforward budgeting
- Simple for procurement departments to understand
- Works well for tools used consistently by dedicated staff
- Easier implementation of enterprise pricing agreements with larger oncology networks
Disadvantages:
- May not align with actual value creation in cancer care
- Can create barriers to adoption across the multidisciplinary team
- Potentially encourages credential sharing, compromising security
- Often requires complex price fencing to manage different user types
According to a 2022 survey by Healthcare IT News, only 37% of specialized healthcare SaaS vendors rely primarily on per-seat pricing, down from 58% five years earlier, indicating a shift away from this model.
Assessing Per-Transaction Pricing in Oncology Contexts
Per-transaction (or usage-based pricing) models charge based on specific activities performed within the software, such as treatment plans created, patient records processed, or reports generated.
Advantages in oncology settings:
- Aligns costs with actual software utilization
- Scales naturally with practice growth
- Works well for solutions with variable usage patterns
- Supports flexible tiers based on volume
Disadvantages:
- Can create budget unpredictability
- May discourage usage during financial constraints
- Requires transparent monitoring of transactions
- Complex to implement within existing procurement frameworks
Usage-based pricing has gained traction in healthcare SaaS, growing from 15% to 29% of implementations between 2018 and 2023, according to Bessemer Venture Partners' healthcare SaaS report.
Examining Outcome-Based Pricing for Oncology SaaS
Perhaps the most innovative approach, outcome-based (or value-based) pricing ties software costs directly to measurable improvements in clinical, operational, or financial metrics.
Advantages for oncology settings:
- Directly aligns vendor success with clinical improvements
- Reduces upfront investment risk for centers
- Creates genuine partnership between vendor and provider
- Potentially qualifies for value-based care incentives
Disadvantages:
- Requires sophisticated outcomes measurement capabilities
- Introduces complexity in contract negotiations
- May involve longer sales cycles
- Demands clear attribution of outcomes to software usage
Research from KLAS indicates that while only 8% of healthcare software vendors primarily use outcome-based pricing today, 47% are piloting or planning to implement such models within the next two years.
Finding the Best Fit for Oncology Center SaaS
When determining the optimal pricing metric, several factors specific to oncology centers should be considered:
1. Workflow Integration Patterns
How deeply is the SaaS solution embedded in daily workflows? Tools that serve as occasional references might benefit from transaction-based models, while core systems used throughout the day by dedicated staff may justify per-seat licensing.
2. Value Creation Mechanisms
Does the software primarily create value through widespread access (supporting per-seat), specific high-value transactions (supporting per-transaction), or measurable improvements in care delivery (supporting outcome-based)?
3. Budget and Procurement Considerations
Oncology centers often operate within rigid budgeting frameworks that may prefer the predictability of per-seat pricing, even when other models better reflect value creation.
4. Competitive Landscape
What pricing models do competing solutions use? Differentiation through pricing structure can provide competitive advantage, but too much deviation from market norms may complicate sales cycles.
5. Data Capabilities
Outcome-based pricing requires robust data infrastructure compliant with HIPAA regulations and often leveraging HL7 FHIR standards for interoperability. Without these capabilities, simpler pricing models may be necessary.
The Hybrid Approach: Emerging as Best Practice
Rather than choosing a single pricing metric, the most successful oncology SaaS vendors are increasingly implementing hybrid models that combine elements of different approaches:
- Base + Usage: A reduced per-seat fee coupled with usage-based components
- Tiered Outcome Thresholds: Per-seat or per-transaction pricing with rebates or discounts tied to achieved outcomes
- Module-Based Differentiation: Different pricing metrics for different modules within a comprehensive platform
According to Gartner, 62% of healthcare SaaS vendors now employ some form of hybrid pricing strategy, up from 35% in 2019.
Implementation Considerations for Oncology SaaS Pricing
Regardless of the chosen pricing metric, successful implementation requires:
- Transparent Discounting Policies: Clear enterprise pricing frameworks that account for volume without creating perception of inequity
- Value-Based Segmentation: Different pricing approaches for different customer segments based on their value perception
- Strategic Price Fences: Mechanisms to prevent revenue leakage while maintaining pricing flexibility
- Compliance-Aware Contracting: Ensuring all pricing models adhere to healthcare regulations, particularly around HIPAA and potential kickback concerns
Conclusion: The Future Points to Hybrid Value-Based Models
While no single pricing metric represents a universal solution for oncology center SaaS, the industry is clearly moving toward models that better align costs with value creation. The most forward-thinking vendors are implementing hybrid approaches that combine the predictability of per-seat licensing with elements of usage and outcome-based models.
For oncology-focused SaaS providers, the recommendation is clear: begin with a deep understanding of how your solution creates value within cancer care workflows, then design a pricing structure that aligns your financial incentives with those of your customers. As the oncology software market matures, those who can demonstrate clear ROI through their pricing models will ultimately prevail.
For oncology centers evaluating SaaS solutions, look beyond the headline price to understand how the pricing structure will scale with your organization and whether it properly reflects the value you expect to derive from the software. The right pricing metric should feel like a partnership framework rather than a transaction model.