Sign in

Blog · Wallet share and penetration · Healthcare and med-tech

Standardisation opportunities: facilities buying three brands of the same category

How a medical supplies company finds the health systems and facilities buying the same clinical category from several suppliers, from its own invoice lines and the category's known competitors: brand count per category per facility, the supplier's share within the category, the systems where sister facilities have standardised and this one has not, the value of standardising at the system's own rate, and the clinical and contract conversation that follows.

The short answerWithin a health system, sister facilities on the same contract often buy the same clinical category from different suppliers, because each department chose. From the supplier's own invoice lines and the facility's purchase data where the system shares it, or the supplier's share against the category norm where it does not, the report lists facilities where the supplier's share of a category is far below its share at sister facilities in the same system. The value is the system's own standardised rate applied to the outlier facility, and the conversation is with the system's value analysis committee, with the sister facility as the evidence.

A health system signed a contract that covers fourteen hospitals. Nine of them buy the contracted category almost entirely from the supplier; five buy it from three brands, because their departments chose before the contract or after. The supplier's own invoices, per facility, show the five. This guide sets out the standardisation measure, the sister-facility norm, the value, and the conversation.

The measures

Per facility, per category:

Supplier's share = supplier's sales ÷ facility's category purchases, where shared; else ÷ category norm for the facility's size Brand count = distinct suppliers in the category, where the system shares it

Per system, per category:

System norm = median supplier share across the system's facilities Outlier = facility share < a stated fraction of the system norm Value = (system norm − facility share) × facility's category purchases

The rows you need

  • Invoice lines: facility, category, product, value, date.
  • Facility master: facility, system, size, contract.
  • Shared purchase data: facility, category, supplier, value, where available.

Facility identifiers only.

The assertion

Σ facilities' supplier sales in the category = invoiced category revenue, per system

A facility with revenue and no system fails it and is listed; those are the unmapped acquisitions the facility hierarchy is missing.

A worked system view

One system, one category, fourteen facilities.

Facility Category purchases Supplier's share System norm Brands Reading Value at norm
F-01 to F-09 82% to 96% 88% 1 to 2 Standardised
F-10 $410,000 31% 88% 3 Outlier $234,000
F-11 $280,000 24% 88% 3 Outlier $179,000
F-12 $190,000 66% 88% 2 Below norm $42,000
F-13, F-14 91%, 89% 88% 1 Standardised

Two facilities on the same contract as nine standardised sisters buy a quarter to a third of the category from the supplier. The proposal to the system is that F-10 and F-11 do what F-01 to F-09 already do, and the exhibit is the system's own table.

The conversation

Level With About
System Supply chain lead, value analysis committee Standardisation across the two outliers, at the contract rate
Facility Department leads, with clinical support Conversion, training, the sister facility's experience

Where it goes wrong

External benchmark as the norm. The system's own facilities are the argument.

Facility hierarchy incomplete. The outliers are not in the system and the comparison is never made.

Read as a sales target for the department. It is a system-level proposal.

Share without brand count where data is shared. Three brands and two brands need different conversations.

Every quarter, per system per category

Mapped once, the invoice lines, the facility master and any shared purchase data produce the shares, the system norms, the outliers and the value every quarter. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The healthcare page describes the setup, and the facility identifiers guide covers the hierarchy the sister-facility comparison depends on.

Questions people ask

Does this need the customer's purchase data?

It is better with it. Many systems share category-level purchase data with contracted suppliers, or the GPO does. Without it, the supplier's own share against the category norm for facilities of that size still finds the outliers; with it, the brand count per facility is exact.

Why sister facilities?

Because they are the strongest argument. A facility in the same system, on the same contract, with the same clinical protocols, that has standardised on the supplier's product is evidence that the outlier could. The norm from the system's own facilities beats any external benchmark.

Who is the conversation with?

The system's supply chain lead and the value analysis committee, with clinical support. It is not a sales call to the department; it is a standardisation proposal at the system level, and the report is the exhibit.