When integrating advanced healthcare technologies across a health system, three hidden challenges can erode the value of investments, strain resources and weaken results.
Mixed equipment fleets
Health systems often find themselves with a mixed equipment fleet acquired over years of incremental investment. These systems and devices of varied makes, models and ages can lead to inefficiencies.
-
Training burdens. Multiple interfaces, protocols and workflows can increase training demands, scheduling complexities, patient care distractions, and contribute to cognitive overload.
-
Operational fragmentation. Equipment with differing capabilities, protocols and maintenance often creates a “lowest common denominator” approach to standardization, disrupting workflows and undermining advanced technology capabilities.
-
Missed optimization. Redundant equipment and functionality, and varied maintenance protocols can hinder the benefit of advanced technologies, strain budgets and limit operational gains.
Consider: A system-wide, long-term plan to invest in, integrate and adopt advanced healthcare technologies to help unlock the benefits and efficiencies of a standardized fleet and maximize the value of investments.
60% of imaging assets at or beyond useful service life1
Aging equipment contributes to mixed fleet capabilities, disrupted workflows, and increased service costs. It is not unusual for approximately 30% of equipment to be over 10 years old—and for imaging systems, 14% to 30% are found to be at the end of their useful life. Nearly 1 in 2 imaging systems are kept up to 9 years beyond their average useful life, with each additional year requiring about 25% higher maintenance costs.1
Multiple vendor ecosystems
The administrative and operational challenges of multiple vendors can be underestimated.
-
Administrative Burden. Teams managing a breadth of vendors with unique contracts and service agreements face greater complexity.
-
Fragmented Workflows. Equipment users must navigate unique processes, platforms and protocols for every vendor.
-
Reduced Productivity. The combined effect complicates workflow, drains resources and hurts productivity.
Consider: Harmonizing vendor management to help reduce administrative and operational strain, freeing up staff to focus on higher-value initiatives.
40+ vendors to manage1
Multiple vendor ecosystems increase administrative and clinical complexity. The national average is around 20 vendors, but some health systems manage over 40.1
Transactional Relationships
Transactional vendor relationships focus on short-term cost savings but often result in deeper inefficiencies and missed opportunities.
-
Fragmented progress. Isolated investments often fail to align with system-wide objectives.
-
Minimal support. Transactional vendors often leave health systems to manage integration alone. But with limited technology expertise, disruptions can increase, potential can be missed, and implementation can slow or fail.
-
Workforce challenges. Insufficient change management and staff buy-in can lead to frustration and delayed adoption.
Consider: Long-term relationships with trusted partners with aligned outcomes to drive sustainable success.
5% value creation2
Care Alliance is customized to maximize value for health systems, aligned to their specific goals. For several large regional health systems, their Care Alliance are projected to deliver approximately 0.5% to 5% of their 2024 annual revenue in value over a 7-14 year period, including:2
0.4% reduction in operating costs
0.5% cost avoidance in capital expenditures
0.5% in margin improvement
Consider a sustainable solution
A Care Alliance with GE HealthCare is a strategic, long-term collaboration tailored to a health system’s unique priorities. These relationships combine expert guidance with customizable technology and service solutions to help achieve complex goals faster. It’s a fresh approach to shared, sustainable growth.
Learn more about Care Alliance
1. Based on GE HealthCare analyses using data voluntarily provided by participating organizations. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the findings, the results are subject to limitations inherent in self-reported data and the methodologies applied.
2. The projections provided are illustrative and not indicative of any single health system’s actual results. Projections are based on internal analysis of GE HealthCare and insights developed through direct engagements with several large, not-for-profit, U.S.-based regional health systems—each operating approximately 15-30 hospitals and more than 100 outpatient care sites. Results will vary based on individual organizational strategies, unique structures, operations and strategic context. Data on file.
