Better payer decisions depend on information provider organizations cannot treat casually: negotiated contracts, reimbursement terms, and claims data. Before bringing that information into an AI-powered workflow, teams need more than a vendor’s promise that it is secure.
Trek Health has completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination, a milestone reflected in our Trust Center. For provider teams and their security reviewers, the report offers independent evidence about the controls around the systems in scope. It supports your organization’s review rather than replacing it.
Why this matters for provider teams
Managed care, revenue cycle, and finance teams want to understand what payers should reimburse, where payments fall short, and which contract or policy changes require action. The information behind that work can be commercially sensitive, and claims data may carry additional obligations.
Trek Health connects reimbursement data, contracts, policies, and claims to help provider organizations improve payer performance. As teams evaluate these workflows, their security and compliance colleagues need a clear view of how the vendor handles information and which controls have been independently examined.
That is the practical value of a SOC 2 report. It gives reviewers something specific to evaluate, instead of asking them to rely only on a vendor’s assurances.
What Trek’s report covers
Securance Pro Assurance PLLC issued Trek’s SOC 2 Type 2 report for the examination period of July 1 through September 30, 2026. The examination covered controls described in our system description relevant to Security, Availability, and Confidentiality.
The auditors evaluated whether those controls were suitably designed and operating effectively during the examination period. No exceptions were noted in their testing.
Here is why the three criteria matter to a provider organization:
These are the criteria included in our examination, not a claim that they are the only criteria relevant to every provider’s review. Your organization’s requirements and intended use still matter.
Why Type 2 matters
A Type 1 report evaluates the design of controls at a specific point in time. A Type 2 report also evaluates whether the controls operated effectively over a defined period (AICPA guidance).
The distinction is practical. A policy describes what a company intends to do; a Type 2 examination evaluates evidence of how the controls operated. For a security reviewer, that adds an independent perspective to the vendor’s own documentation.
What the report does not establish
The report applies to the system, controls, criteria, and period described in it. It is not a guarantee that a security incident can never occur, and it should not be treated as validation of every product feature or AI-generated answer.
Processing Integrity and Privacy are separate criteria and are not included in Trek’s report. The examination also does not establish HIPAA compliance or replace obligations that may apply to an organization’s handling of protected health information. HHS does not recognize private Security Rule certifications as a substitute for those obligations (HHS guidance).
Independent security evidence and reliable product outputs are both important. They are different questions, and provider teams should evaluate both.
Security is an ongoing practice
Completing the examination is a milestone, not the end of the work. Access management, security training, monitoring, and the evidence behind those practices must remain part of day-to-day operations.
Our commitment is to keep that discipline in place as we build. Provider teams should expect a security program that continues beyond an examination window, not one that exists only to obtain a report.
How to review a vendor’s report
Whether you are evaluating Trek or another vendor, start with five questions:
- Period: What dates does the report cover, and what information is available about the period since then?
- Criteria: Which Trust Services Criteria are included, and which are outside the examination?
- Results: Were exceptions noted, and how has management addressed them?
- System boundary: Which systems and subservice organizations are covered, and does that scope match your intended use?
- Your responsibilities: Which complementary user entity controls does your organization need to implement?
Those questions help turn a report from a badge into useful evidence. They also keep the review grounded in what was actually examined.
Evaluating Trek for your organization? Visit our Trust Center to request the SOC 2 Type 2 report and discuss its scope with our team. We can help your security and procurement reviewers understand the examination period, controls, and responsibilities relevant to their review.
