Greetings!
Big, Robust and Super-Sized
Utilization Savings Won’t Be Uncovered With Just Any Old
Benchmarking Tool!
We all know that a hammer is used
to strike nails, a drill is use to make holes and a screw driver is
use to turn screws. We call this using the precise tool for
the right job to get the best results!
Then why do we continue to use the
wrong benchmarking tool to uncover our utilization savings?
The answer is that we don’t know there was a better tool to get the
job done – right the first time!
I remember talking to a supply
chain manager a months ago who told me that he was working with
three databases (a spend manager, analytics manager and clinical
manager), but still couldn’t uncover his hospital’s
utilization misalignments. Yet, our measurements showed that he had
$4.2 million in utilization misalignments that were invisible to
him.
Here’s my point! If you don’t
have a utilization benchmarking tool to pin point, with
certainty, where your big, robust and super-sized utilization
savings reside you are missing an extremely important
power tool in your toolbox.
When you consider that a hospital,
system or IDN can have 18,000 to 48,000 or more products (in 176
categories of purchase) in their MMIS system, where do you get
started probing for these hidden savings?
My suggestion to you is to build, borrow or buy such a benchmarking system to uncover 76% of
your new savings opportunities – BEYOND PRICE. So that you will have
all of the exact tools that you will ever need -- for every
job -- which you will be required to get done as a supply
chain professional.
Your Partner
in Supply Chain Savings,
Robert T.
Yokl
President &
Chief Value Strategist
P.S.
If you would
like to see how our proven and “client tested”
UTILIZER™
utilization benchmarking tool works, we would be happy to give you a
“test drive”.
Schedule your
test drive here.

Rushing To Judgment
Sabotages Most Value Analysis Projects!
“ Speed Isn’t The Goal Of A Value
Analysis Project, But Diligence Is”
We are all in a hurry to
have quicker, faster and more rapid value analysis savings
and quality improvements for our healthcare organization. In doing
so, this “rush to judgment” sabotages most value analysis
projects.
Here’s why!
I call this behavior going with
the “first best idea” your value analysis project manager
comes up with to save money or improve quality. Instead of searching
out the “second”, “third” or even “fourth” best savings ideas
before deciding on the most cost effective savings idea that leaves
no money on the table -- untouched.
This reminds me of a trocar value
analysis study (the hospital was buying seven functionally
equivalent trocars) I audited a few years back. In a meeting that I
was present, the project manager recommended to her value team
members that they should standardize on one disposable trocar from
their GPO at a savings of $25.000. I then interjected that this was
a great “first best idea”, but what would be their “second
best idea”?
After some brainstorming the team
came up with the idea of going back to reusable trocars, which would
save them $50,000 annually. I then said this was an excellent
“second best idea”, but what would be their “third best idea”.
After some discussion it was suggested that the team should consider
re-posable trocars at a savings of $75,000 annually.
What was the team’s final
decision?
That’s right the team decided to
implement the $75,000 savings idea. But wouldn’t have made this
decision without my coaching because they where on the road to
rushing to judgment before exploring at least three “best savings
ideas” before making their ultimate decision.
That’s why no value analysis
project should be completed with at least three “best savings
ideas” being evaluated. To do less is to sabotage your value
analysis projects before they even get started.