INDUSTRY INFORMATION Educational Supply Chain Programs, continued...

Stonehill College, Easton, MA, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, University of Cincinnati, University of Houston, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, University of North Texas, Dallas, University of Oklahoma, Norman, University of Pennsylvania-The Wharton School, Philadelphia, University of San Diego, University of South Carolina, ment_of_management_science/index.php and operations_and_supply_chain_center/index.php

University of South Florida, Tampa, The Institute for Supply Management comprehensive state-by-state list:

GPO Headliners 2018

Most of the nation’s hospitals and a growing number of non-acute care facilities use the services of group purchasing organizations to some degree. While literally hundreds of GPOs and integrated delivery networks (IDNs) conduct business for their various members - including owners, shareholders and affiliates, many of them actually belong to one of the larger “parent” organizations, which represent a small percentage of the total number of GPOs in operation today. Here’s a glimpse at the top 10 based on GPO-reported annual purchasing volume. HPN lists the top GPOs with a minimum annual purchasing volume of $500 million in a broad range of product and service categories and that are not shareholders or members in other GPOs. These numbers represent fiscal year 2017 unless otherwise noted.

GPO Name 1. Vizient

2. Premier Inc. 3. HealthTrust

4. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 5. PDM Healthcare

6. The Resource Group (Ascension) 7. Intalere

8. U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Logistics Agency 9. Resource Optimization & Innovation 10. MAGNET Group

Disclaimers/Full Disclosure

1. Vizient reported fiscal year 2017 results at press time. The figure reported represents actual purchases through its contracts, independent of any distribu- tor fees or any other additional inflationary measurers. Vizient said the “APV reflects true dollar purchases through our GPO contracts.”

2. Premier re-emphasized its conservativism in reporting its APV as it “uses members’ actual spend data related to Premier contracts and not their total non- labor expense spend, which would be a much larger number.” Premier reiterated that it does not “believe that historically all GPOs used a similar or similarly conservative methodology.” Consequently, Premier shared the most recent number Premier executives use in presentations to current and prospective members.

4. The VA’s figure represents “VHA contracts that include about $14 billion in VHA FSS and NCS sales and $1 billion in VHA non-FSS and non-NCS sales. The $15 billion is largely healthcare-related and includes whatever is necessary to run VHA hospitals and clinics.”

5. PDM Healthcare chose not share its annual purchasing volume, due to its proprietary nature, but assisted HPN in ranking itself based on an unaudited analysis of member facilities’ actual dollars in aggregate for budgeted-for goods and services through manufacturers.

7. Intalere declined to disclose its annual purchasing volume, due to its proprietary nature, but assisted HPN in ranking itself based on an estimated, unau- dited analysis of the aggregate member facilities budgeted-for goods and services.

8. This total represents FY2017 medical spending for the Defense Logistics Agency of the Department of Defense. The DLA is a subset of the DoD that handles medical logistics. DLA medical spending comprises pharmaceuticals -- including vaccines, medical/surgical items, high-dollar capital equipment, hospital equipment, medical assemblies/kits and medical supplies that span laboratory, dental, optical, sports medicine and surgical implants.

9. Resource Optimization & Innovation (ROi) reported a figure that includes contract purchases in seven major categories – pharmaceuticals, medical/surgi- cal supplies, capital equipment, laboratory supplies, dietary/food service/nutrition supplies, purchased services and physician preference items. The figure does not count distribution volume.

10. MAGNET Group did not respond to HPN requests for comment. In past years, the GPO declined to disclose its annual purchasing volume, due to its proprietary nature, but HPN was able to list the GPO based on its relative position to the purchasing volume of the nearest competitors.

Please note that HPN strives to be as accurate as possible with these numbers that the GPOs report. Further, HPN acknowledges that historically some GPOs have derived their totals by such tactics as double-counting product purchases through manufacturers and distributors, as well as including purchasing volumes of facilities where they provide consulting services but do not provide direct contractual purchasing activity, and by counting a hospital’s entire purchasing volume even though the hospital funnels only a percentage through that GPO, among other strategies and tactics. HPN brings these caveats to readers’ attention to show that it strives to provide these numbers in good faith as a service and must trust the ethics of the responders in answering as truthfully as possible.

Source: Healthcare Purchasing News research via GPO self-reported data through interviews and available online sources and educated estimates where data were not available, October 2018 • HEALTHCARE PURCHASING NEWS • Industry Guide 2019 9

Location Irving, TX

Charlotte, NC Nashville

Washington Cleveland St. Louis St. Louis

Washington St. Louis

Web address

Mechanicsburg, PA APV

$99B* $60B . $39B. $15B* *

$7.7B. *

$6.9B. $2.8B* *

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80