Article
A well-built car will underperform if it isn’t properly maintained. It may still run. It may still get you where you need to go. But it consumes more fuel, requires more effort, and introduces risk over time.
Procurement in many health systems operates in a similar way: The systems are in place, contracts are negotiated, orders are processed, and invoices are paid. On the surface, everything is working. But beneath, small inefficiencies—often difficult to see and even harder to measure—begin to add up, and over time, they can cost organizations millions.
There’s no single cause behind these inefficiencies. Instead, they stem from a combination of data challenges, manual processes, and the inherent complexity of healthcare supply chains.
Unlike other industries, where procurement has been heavily automated and optimized, healthcare historically has prioritized investment in patient-facing technologies. Healthcare supply chain operations, however, often have been left to operate with fragmented systems and limited automation, creating a disconnect between what organizations negotiate and what is realized.
For example, a contract may establish a price for a product—but between contract, item master, purchase order, distributor, and invoice, there are multiple points where that price can shift. By the time the transaction is complete, organizations may be paying more than expected without realizing it.
It’s not an isolated issue. It’s systemic.
Five areas tend to surface repeatedly.
The item master is the foundation of procurement, defining what is purchased, how it’s categorized, and how it connects to contracts and suppliers. When that data is inconsistent—duplicate records, missing attributes, incorrect units of measure—it can introduce friction at every downstream step. In practice, this often shows up as teams working with slightly different versions of the same product or pricing information—each one technically valid but not fully aligned. Over time, those small discrepancies make it harder to reconcile purchasing activity or trust the outputs of reporting.
It’s like running a vehicle with inconsistent sensor readings. Nothing may fail outright, but the system is no longer operating with a fully reliable view of what’s happening.
Despite advances in procurement technology, a significant portion of purchasing activity still relies on manual effort. Teams spend time placing orders, tracking confirmations, and resolving exceptions, often across email, spreadsheets, and disparate systems. And in many cases, key details—order status, pricing confirmations, backorders—are managed outside of core systems, requiring follow-up and coordination across multiple touchpoints. As that work scales, visibility becomes more fragmented. Instead of a single, unified view, information is distributed across individuals and tools, making it harder to understand what’s happening in real time.
It’s the operational equivalent of relying on manual gauges instead of a dashboard—it’s functional but limited in how much insight it provides at any given moment.
Contracts are often viewed as the primary mechanism for controlling cost, but a contract marks the beginning of your savings—not the end.
Between contract negotiation and final payment, multiple variables such as item data discrepancies, unit-of-measure mismatches, distributor markups, or misaligned contract tiers can affect pricing. The result is that organizations may believe they are receiving contracted pricing when, in reality, they are not.
One of the more challenging aspects is that the transaction itself may appear correct. The purchase order price and invoice price often match, creating a sense of alignment even while both may differ from the contracted rate. Over time, these small variances, often hidden, accumulate across thousands of transactions and can represent a meaningful gap between expected and realized savings.
Further along the process, invoicing introduces another layer of complexity. A significant portion of invoices, particularly for indirect spend and purchased services, still arrive in paper or PDF form and must be manually processed, validated, and entered into financial systems. This is especially true for categories like facilities services, maintenance, and other non-clinical spend, where invoices are less standardized and more difficult to capture electronically.
These manual processes are time intensive, error-prone, and resource heavy, often driving up processing costs and delaying payments. They also can strain vendor relationships and lead to missed early payment discounts. Additionally, large portions of spend may sit in broad, miscellaneous categories, limiting visibility into what is being purchased and how pricing compares over time—making it more challenging to connect expenses with financial strategy.
Even when individual components are functioning, the system isn’t always fully aligned.
Procurement workflows often vary across departments or facilities. Policies may not be standardized or consistently enforced, and in some organizations, processes are not formally documented at all. This variation makes it difficult to establish a shared way of operating across the organization. Improvements in one area don’t always translate to others, and teams may approach the same task in different ways. Over time, that lack of consistency makes it harder to scale changes or maintain alignment, particularly in larger systems with multiple facilities.
One of the more challenging aspects of these issues is how difficult they are to quantify. Unlike major capital investments or revenue shifts, inefficiencies in procurement are distributed across thousands of transactions. They show up as small variances—slightly higher prices, incremental labor effort, or delayed processing—rather than a single, visible line item.
As a result, they rarely rise to the level of executive attention. Yet industry estimates suggest that without a well-functioning procure-to-pay process, these inefficiencies can represent 3–5% of total supply chain spend—a meaningful impact for any health system.
Each of these challenges introduces its own friction, but together, they limit visibility across the procurement lifecycle. That lack of visibility is what ultimately holds organizations back.
Health systems that address these gaps tend to focus on the same core principles: cleaner data, greater automation, and more consistent workflows—not as isolated fixes, but as part of a coordinated approach to managing procurement end to end. Their goal isn’t simply to make processes faster. It’s to create a clearer line of sight so leaders can understand what’s happening, respond earlier, and manage performance with greater precision.
In many ways, it’s less about rebuilding the system and more about tuning it to ensure that each component is aligned, responsive, and working as intended.
Without that visibility, procurement doesn’t just become harder to manage. It becomes harder to control. And like a car that still runs but is poorly tuned, it will keep moving forward—just inefficiently, burning more fuel, costing more over time, and delivering far less performance than it should.
Learn more about Vizient Procure-to-Pay.
Senior Vice President of Procure-to-Pay Solutions (P2P)
Bejan Shamsy is the senior vice president of Procure-to-Pay Solutions (P2P), Vizient’s suite of procurement technologies and services designed to improve supply chain efficiency by automating the entire requisition-to-payment process, in addition to improving the quality and integrity of supply chain data...
Associate Vice President, eCommerce Services and P2P Solutions Engineering
Bruce Moilan is associate vice president, eCommerce Services and P2P Solutions Engineering at Vizient, where he leads the eCommerce Exchange and Transaction Management team and supports client and stakeholder education on P2P solutions. He brings more than 25 years of experience in supply chain...
