Readers Write: Why Healthcare Organizations Take So Long to Make Buying Decisions and How We Can Fix It (Part 3 of 4)
Why Healthcare Organizations Take So Long to Make Buying Decisions and How We Can Fix It (Part 3 of 4)
By Bruce Brandes
Bruce Brandes is founder and CEO of Lucro of Nashville, TN.
In Part 2 of this series, we discussed the importance of first clearly defining and aligning regarding the problem a buyer seeks to solve before evaluating products. The next key element is to invite trusted colleagues to contribute insights and experience in the context of that problem and possible solutions.
Below we will share more about the type of buying decisions most impacted by a lack of trust and explore how healthcare buyers can gain more confidence in the choices they must make.
There are three buckets of non-labor spend in health systems:
- Supply chain — traditionally influenced by group purchasing organizations (GPOs.
- Pharma — traditionally influenced by pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs).
- “Everything else,” which falls into a category known as purchased services (traditionally managed less centrally).
Purchased services represent 20-30 percent of a hospital’s expenses and include a wide array of vendors ranging from health IT and digital health to outsourced professional and ancillary support services. Many health systems are seeking to drive standardization, minimize duplication, and realize greater value related to purchased services.
Vendor selections for purchased services are generally complex, collaborative processes. With input required from so many key stakeholders for a purchase commitment of a significant amount, how do risk-averse health systems ever make a buying decision? The challenge is exacerbated by an array of third-party sources of market insight, including consultants, industry associations, purchasing groups, etc., all with their own opinion about the “best” vendor for that area of focus.
If you are responsible for this buying decision, who do you trust? How can you efficiently synthesize so many disparate data points of opinion about the best product in the market to put them all into context to make the right decision for your organization?
Healthcare buyers take many of these outside opinions with a grain of salt, skeptical of the motivations of some. Vendors may compensate the “non-partisan” organizations to endorse their products. Unsolicited information received from cold calls or spam emails can rarely be trusted.
When you are making a strategic hire to your team, do you ever expect the personal and professional references given you by the candidate to say anything too negative? More commonly, even before an interview, it is wise to do a quick check of LinkedIn to seek common connections that you know will give you more clear and honest insight (this works in both directions for the candidate and organization).
Similarly, buyers want an efficient, private way to tap into trusted colleagues across their professional network, those who have experience in tackling this same problem in an organization like theirs.
The time and cost associated with deciphering vendor claims, vs. hype, vs. reality are untenable for the entire industry. With today’s time and financial pressures, physical site visits and reference calls are (finally) antiquated. Thus, it is critical to gain necessary insights from those you trust to reduce the risk associated with strategic vendor selections.
The value of a trusted network is compounded when this collaboration is contextualized with the problem and potential solutions under consideration. As trusted communities come together, the entire industry can benefit.