The Shift From Device Visibility to Measurable Impact: Health Systems’ New Criteria for IoT Security Platforms, KLAS Finds

IoT security in Healthcare Shifts Toward Measurable Outcomes, New KLAS Findings Show

Breaking news: Health systems are moving beyond basic device visibility in IoT security. A January 2026 KLAS assessment captures insights from interviews conducted between late 2024 and late 2025, highlighting a pivotal shift toward measurable results, faster risk remediation, and tighter integration with security workflows.

What’s changing in the IoT security market?

Healthcare buyers are increasingly demanding platforms that translate asset visibility into actionable outcomes. The emphasis is on reducing manual effort, accelerating risk triage, and delivering clearer guidance for remediation. Vendors are pressed to show how their tools integrate with clinical engineering and security teams to close gaps after risks are identified.

Where platforms are used—and why it matters

The scope of use now spans several core areas: ongoing device visibility, threat monitoring and response, remediation of device vulnerabilities, and network segmentation. This breadth signals that health systems view IoT security tools as components of broader operational security programs,not stand-alone products.

Table: Key focus areas and buyer expectations

Area of Use	buyer Expectation	Common Vendor Focus
Device/Asset visibility	Foundational requirement with demand for measurable outcomes	clear dashboards; reproducible reports
Threat Monitoring & Response	Timely detection and coordinated action across teams	Integrated workflows; automation to reduce latency
Vulnerability Remediation	Prioritized fixes and traceable remediation paths	automated playbooks; prioritized risk scoring
Network Segmentation	Effective segmentation to limit blast radius	Policy-driven controls and rapid enforcement

Integration and automation rise on the buying checklist

As requirements mature, buyers seek stronger integrations and greater automation, especially within dashboards that aid daily decision-making. Some customers report that existing integrations exist in theory but fail to function smoothly in practice, creating disconnects between visibility and downstream action.

There is growing demand for platforms that connect directly to security information and event management systems and network detection and response tools. This alignment is seen as essential to reducing alert fatigue and maximizing existing security investments.

Usability, training, and operational value

Usability and training emerge as critical determinants of sustained value in large, complex environments. Some platforms demand significant security engineering expertise, which can widen gaps between well-resourced organizations and lean teams across IT, facilities, and compliance. Buyers also want consistent training and customizable reporting to support ongoing change management in clinical settings.

Market energy centers on healthcare alignment

in vendor consideration patterns, some players demonstrate strong market energy due to alignment with healthcare needs and sustained support for segmentation, remediation, and monitoring after risk identification.Others are viewed as mid-range in market energy, tied to perceived fit, maturity, and the pace of innovation.

The report also warns that scores can shift as more feedback is gathered, and readers should interpret ratings with awareness of sample size. A notable industry development cited is the December 2025 announcement that a major platform provider will acquire Armis, with closing anticipated in 2026—an event likely to influence competitive dynamics.

Takeaways for health systems

• move beyond visibility: require proof of measurable outcomes like reduced manual effort and faster remediation.
• Test real-world integrations, especially with SIEM and NDR, to cut alert fatigue and maximize existing investments.
• Evaluate dashboards for day-to-day operations, prioritization, segmentation support, and cross-team remediation workflows.
• Assess the level of expertise needed to operate at scale and scrutinize training accessibility and consistency across roles.
• Weigh vendor fit and healthcare alignment alongside product capability, recognizing that data-poor vendors can shift as more feedback arrives.

“Visibility into device activity is now foundational,” the assessment notes, underscoring the shift toward outcomes-oriented security in healthcare IoT ecosystems.

What’s next for buyers and vendors?

Expect ongoing emphasis on integration maturity,automation,and user-amiable interfaces that support multi-team workflows. The industry will likely see further consolidation and strategic moves as large platforms pursue deeper healthcare alignment and safer, more efficient patient care operations.

Engage with us

Which integration would most cut alert fatigue in yoru environment? How do you balance ease of use with the need for rigorous security controls when scaling iot security?

Share your experiences and insights in the comments below, or join the discussion on social media to help shape best practices in healthcare IoT security.

Zero‑Trust Network Segmentation – micro‑segmenting each device class to contain breaches.

From Device Visibility to Measurable Impact – What Health Systems Demand

Health systems are moving past “I know what’s on the network” and asking, “What concrete risk reduction does my IoT security platform deliver?” The 2025 KLAS iot Security Report shows a 38 % jump in the proportion of hospitals that rank impact‑based metrics above pure inventory counts. stakeholders now expect security solutions to translate data into actionable outcomes—lower infection rates, reduced downtime, and demonstrable compliance savings.

Legacy Focus on Inventory and visibility

* Device discovery tools once satisfied auditors by listing every connected monitor, infusion pump, and imaging system.

* Static dashboards highlighted asset counts but rarely linked those numbers to security events.

* Compliance checklists (HIPAA, NIST 800‑53) could be signed off without proving that vulnerabilities were actually mitigated.

Why Visibility Alone Is No Longer Enough

1. Attack surface expansion – IoT devices now account for ≈ 30 % of all network endpoints in U.S. hospitals (KLAS, 2025).
2. Regulatory pressure – FDA’s post‑market cybersecurity guidance (2023) requires evidence of risk reduction, not just risk identification.
3. Financial scrutiny – C‑suite executives demand ROI calculations; a “visible” device list without cost‑benefit data fails the CFO’s test.

---

KLAS’s New Evaluation Framework for iot Security Platforms

KLAS restructured its rating model around three pillars: Visibility, Control, and Impact. Each pillar receives a weighted score that reflects the shift toward measurable outcomes.

Core Scoring Categories

• Asset Discovery & classification – accuracy of automated inventory.
• Vulnerability Prioritization – use of exploit‑based scoring (CVSS + contextual risk).
• Automated Remediation – patch orchestration, configuration enforcement, and zero‑touch updates.
• Threat Detection & Response – AI‑driven anomaly detection tuned for medical device traffic.
• Outcome Reporting – dashboards that translate security events into reduced incident frequency, downtime minutes, and compliance credits.
• Integration & Interoperability – seamless data flow with EHR, SIEM, and clinical workflow systems.

Weighting Shifts Toward Outcome‑Based Metrics

Pillar	2023 Weight	2025 Weight
Visibility	35 %	20 %
Control	30 %	30 %
Impact	35 %	50 %

The Impact column now drives half of the final score, forcing vendors to prove measurable security benefits.

---

Key Criteria Health Systems Use to Choose an IoT Security Platform

1. Integrated Risk Scoring – combines device criticality, patient exposure, and exploit likelihood into a single, actionable risk index.
2. Real‑Time Threat Analytics – AI/ML models that flag anomalous device behaviour within seconds of occurrence.
3. Outcome‑Based Reporting – KPI dashboards that show reductions in device‑related incidents, meen‑time‑to‑remediate (MTTR), and compliance audit findings.
4. Regulatory Alignment – built‑in templates for HIPAA, FDA Post‑Market Management, and NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
5. scalable Cloud Architecture – supports multi‑site health systems without sacrificing latency for life‑supporting devices.
6. Zero‑Trust Network Segmentation – micro‑segmenting each device class to contain breaches.
7. Vendor Transparency – public breach‑notification timelines and third‑party audit reports (SOC 2, ISO 27001).

---

Practical Tips for Vendors to Align with the New Criteria

• Map security events to clinical outcomes – e.g., tie a ransomware alert on a infusion pump to potential medication‑error risk.
• Publish baseline metrics – show pre‑deployment incident rates and post‑deployment improvements in a side‑by‑side chart.
• Offer API‑first reporting – let health IT teams feed security KPIs into existing performance‑management tools.
• Bundle compliance automation – automatically generate HIPAA risk‑assessment PDFs after each scan.
• Simplify policy orchestration – use drag‑and‑drop rule builders that mirror clinical workflow steps.

---

Real‑World Case Studies

1. Mayo clinic – From 4,200 Unidentified Devices to a 62 % Decrease in Critical Vulnerabilities

• Challenge: Legacy asset inventory missed 18 % of network‑connected infusion pumps.
• Solution: Deployed a KLAS‑rated platform with AI‑driven discovery and risk scoring.
• Outcome: Within 90 days, discovered 750 hidden devices, patched 58 % of high‑severity CVEs, and reported a 62 % drop in critical vulnerabilities (Mayo IT Report, Q4 2024).

2. Kaiser permanente – Demonstrating ROI Through Downtime Reduction

• Challenge: Frequent network segmentation failures caused an average of 12 minutes of device downtime per incident.
• Solution: Integrated zero‑trust segmentation with automated remediation playbooks.
• Outcome: Mean‑time‑to‑remediate fell from 45 minutes to 8 minutes, translating into an estimated $1.3 M annual savings on lost clinical revenue (Kaiser Finance Review, 2025).

3. Cleveland Clinic – Compliance Credits Earned Via Integrated Reporting

• Challenge: Annual HIPAA audit required manual evidence collection for each device class.
• Solution: Platform generated real‑time compliance dashboards linked directly to device risk scores.
• Outcome: Audit time reduced by 73 %, and the clinic earned $450,000 in compliance‑related insurance discounts (Cleveland Clinic Risk Management, 2025).

---

Measurable Impact Metrics that Matter

• Incident Frequency Reduction – % change in device‑related security events per quarter.
• Mean‑time‑to‑Detect (MTTD) – seconds from anomalous behavior to alert generation.
• Mean‑Time‑to‑Remediate (MTTR) – minutes from detection to accomplished mitigation.
• Compliance Credit Score – points earned against HIPAA/NIST benchmarks.
• Operational Cost Savings – calculated from reduced downtime, fewer manual audits, and lower breach insurance premiums.
• Patient Safety Index – correlation between security improvements and adverse event rates (e.g., medication errors).

---

benefits of an Outcome‑Focused IoT Security Strategy

• Higher Executive Buy‑In – Tangible ROI accelerates budget approvals.
• Improved Patient Trust – Demonstrable security measures enhance hospital reputation.
• Reduced Regulatory risk – Automated compliance reporting minimizes audit findings.
• Scalable Security Posture – Outcome metrics guide consistent protection across new facilities.
• Proactive Threat Management – Early‑stage anomaly detection prevents full‑scale attacks.

---

Implementation Checklist for Health IT Leaders

1. Audit Current Visibility – Confirm percentage of devices with up‑to‑date inventory.
2. Define Impact KPIs – select at least three measurable outcomes (e.g., MTTR, compliance credits).
3. Select a KLAS‑Rated Platform – Verify that the solution scores ≥ 4.0 in the Impact pillar.
4. Map Devices to Clinical Risk – Prioritize assets based on patient exposure and criticality.
5. Deploy Zero‑Trust Segmentation – Isolate device groups before full integration.
6. Configure Automated Remediation – Enable patch‑auto‑apply for non‑clinical devices.
7. Integrate Reporting APIs – Feed security KPIs into existing performance dashboards.
8. Run a Pilot Phase – measure baseline vs. post‑deployment metrics over 60 days.
9. Iterate Policies – Adjust risk thresholds based on pilot results and clinical feedback.
10. Report to Stakeholders – Present impact data in quarterly C‑suite briefings.

---

Sources: KLAS IoT Security Report 2025; FDA Post‑Market Cybersecurity Guidance 2023; NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2022; Mayo Clinic IT Quarterly Review 2024; Kaiser Permanente Finance Review 2025; Cleveland Clinic Risk Management Publication 2025.