Your GPO Contract Got You Access. It Didn’t Get You the Business.

Why a contract award and actual utilization are two very different things in healthcare

There is a particular kind of excitement that comes with winning a GPO contract. For a supplier, it can represent months of work: negotiations, pricing exercises, legal reviews, presentations, and more rounds of revisions than anyone wants to remember. When the agreement is finally signed, it feels significant because it is.

Then comes the question suppliers sometimes aren't prepared for.

Why aren't the hospitals buying?

I have encountered versions of that question throughout my career, and I understand where the confusion comes from. A supplier has just negotiated access to a large network of healthcare organizations. The pricing is in place. The terms have been agreed upon. The product is available under contract. From the outside, it can look as though the path to new business has been cleared.

Inside a health system, it looks quite different.

A GPO contract can make it possible for us to buy from you. It doesn't necessarily give us a reason to.

That difference between access and adoption is one of the most important things to understand about selling into healthcare.

The Contract Opens a Door

GPO agreements serve an important purpose. They allow healthcare organizations to take advantage of aggregated purchasing power, negotiated pricing, established terms, and contracting infrastructure that individual hospitals would otherwise have to recreate on their own.

What they don't do is make every purchasing decision for the organizations using them.

A health system may have several contracted options available within the same category. Meanwhile, it may already have an incumbent supplier, products sitting on shelves, clinicians who have used those products for years, established ordering patterns, distributor arrangements, preference cards, technology connections, and workflows built around the current state.

Putting another option on contract doesn't erase any of that.

So, when a supplier calls to tell us they are now available through our GPO, that information is useful. It simply isn't the whole conversation.

What we need to understand next is why changing from what we already have would make sense.

Changing a Product Is Rarely Just Changing a Product

This is where I think the provider perspective can be difficult to see if you haven't worked inside a health system.

Something that looks like a straightforward product conversion on paper can create a surprising amount of work behind the scenes.

Existing inventory has to be addressed. Item records may need to change. PAR locations may need to be updated. Preference cards can be affected. Clinicians and staff may require education. Distribution and replenishment need to be coordinated. Purchasing systems need accurate information. Depending on the category, there may also be equipment, interfaces, biomedical requirements, service agreements, or changes to clinical workflow.

None of those things automatically make conversion a bad idea. Health systems should challenge incumbent relationships when there is a meaningful reason to do so.

But there does need to be a meaningful reason.

Saving a few cents on an item while creating disruption somewhere else in the organization may not produce much value at all. On the other hand, a solution that improves an important clinical outcome, addresses a persistent service issue, reduces unwanted variation, strengthens supply reliability, or creates a substantial financial or operational benefit may easily justify the work required to make the change.

The contract tells us the commercial pathway exists.

It doesn't answer the more important question of whether we should use it.

The Conversation After the Award Matters More Than Suppliers Think

This is also why I am never particularly persuaded by a sales conversation that begins and ends with, “We're on your GPO contract now.”

Good. That removes one potential obstacle.

Now tell me what has changed for my organization.

What problem could you help us address? Is there something meaningfully different about your solution? Is there a weakness in our current state that you understand? What would improve clinically, operationally, or financially if we made the change?

Those are much more interesting questions than whether a contract number exists.

And they require suppliers to understand something about the organization they are approaching.

A GPO award may create access to hundreds of healthcare organizations, but those organizations aren't interchangeable. Their priorities, contracts, clinical practices, financial pressures, standardization strategies, technology environments, and existing supplier relationships can be very different.

The opportunity may be national.

The decision is still local to the organization making it.

Then Comes the Part We Don't Talk About Enough

Suppose the provider does choose your product.

The evaluation is completed. Stakeholders agree. The contract is activated. The conversion happens.

It would be tempting for both sides to call that success.

I wouldn't.

I have seen too many well-negotiated agreements fail to produce the value everyone expected because the work after the decision wasn't managed with the same discipline as the work leading up to it.

Products don't magically become standardized because a contract was signed. Pricing doesn't always load correctly. Old items don't disappear from purchasing behavior overnight. Clinicians don't necessarily change established habits because an announcement went out. Off-contract purchases can continue. New employees arrive without knowing the history behind the decision. Substitutions happen. Utilization drifts.

Months later, someone looks at the numbers and wonders where the savings went.

The answer is often somewhere between contract award and actual behavior.

That space deserves much more attention than it gets.

A Supplier's Role Doesn't Have to End at the Signature

The supplier partners I value most understand this.

They don't disappear after implementation and reappear six months later for a business review. They stay close enough to know whether the conversion is actually working.

They help anticipate inventory issues. They coordinate education appropriately. They communicate supply concerns before they become emergencies. They bring useful utilization information forward. If something isn't going as expected, they help figure out why rather than immediately defending the product or pointing to the contract.

There is an important distinction here. I don't expect a supplier to run the health system's implementation for us. Ownership on the provider side still matters.

What I do expect from a strong partner is an interest in whether the outcome we agreed upon is actually being achieved.

That is a very different relationship from simply making the sale.

Health Systems Have to Own Their Side of the Agreement

Providers aren't innocent in this either.

We can spend months negotiating an agreement, calculate an impressive savings opportunity, celebrate the contract, and then pay surprisingly little attention to whether the organization actually follows it.

That is not a supplier problem. That's ours.

If we make a sourcing decision, we need a plan for implementation. Stakeholders need to understand what was decided and why. Exceptions need to have a legitimate reason. Utilization needs to be visible. Performance needs to be measured. Someone needs to own the relationship after the sourcing team moves on to the next category.

Otherwise, “contracted savings” can become little more than a number in a presentation.

The real measure is what happened after the agreement went live.

Did purchasing behavior change? Did the clinical or operational outcome improve? Did we receive the service level we expected? Did the financial value actually materialize? Did the relationship perform the way both sides said it would?

Those are harder questions.

They are also the ones that matter.

Access, Adoption and Performance Are Three Different Things

Perhaps the simplest way to think about all of this is that there are really three milestones, not one.

A contract creates access.

The healthcare organization still has to choose adoption.

And after adoption, both parties have to deliver performance.

Each one requires something different.

That is why I would never tell a supplier that winning a GPO agreement isn't important. Of course it is. In many cases, it is what gets you into the conversation in the first place.

I would simply caution against confusing that achievement with customer commitment.

The signature at the GPO level may give you an opportunity to compete. The provider still needs a reason to change, and once it does, the work of turning that decision into measurable value has only begun.

Final Thoughts

Some of the strongest supplier relationships I have seen were not created when the contract was awarded. They were created in everything that happened afterward.

A supplier understood the organization's priorities rather than assuming contract access guaranteed business. The provider was disciplined enough to implement the decision it made. Both sides paid attention to performance. When something went wrong, they worked through it.

That is where a contract becomes more than negotiated pricing on paper.

It becomes a working relationship.

For suppliers, the better question after a GPO win may not be, “How much business does this contract give us?”

It may be, “What do we still need to earn?”

There is usually quite a bit.

And that is where the real opportunity begins.

Continue your Professional Journey

Healthcare supply chain is interconnected. Contracting, sourcing, clinical decision-making, implementation, utilization, operations, and supplier performance don't happen independently, and understanding how those pieces fit together matters whether you work for a provider or an industry partner..

Ready to Take the Next Step?

📚 Download Free Resources
Explore practical tools and educational resources created for healthcare supply chain professionals and industry partners.

📧 Subscribe to The Hub Weekly
Get new articles and perspectives on the issues shaping healthcare supply chain and provider-supplier relationships.

🎓 Learn More About the Healthcare Supply Chain Foundations Certification
Build a stronger understanding of the people, processes, terminology, and decisions that shape how healthcare supply chain actually works.