Skip to main content Accessibility help

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders

  • Fiona A. Miller (a1), Pascale Lehoux (a2), Stuart Peacock (a3), Valeria E. Rac (a1) (a4), Jeff Neukomm (a1), Carolyn Barg (a1), Jessica P. Bytautas (a1) and Murray Krahn (a1) (a5)...



Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task.


We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions.


GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; “total cost” was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier.


Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.


Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Fiona A. Miller, E-mail:


Hide All
1.Graves, K (2011) Global best practices in medical device procurement--A road map to system success. J Med Market 11, 101108.
2.Montgomery, K (2007) Schneller E. Hospitals' strategies for orchestrating selection of physician preference items. Millbank Q 85, 307335.
3.Arshoff, L, Henshall, C, Juzwishin, D, et al. (2012) Procurement change in Canada: An opportunity for improving system performance. Healthc Manage Forum 25, 6669.
4.Kastanioti, C, Kontodimopoulos, N, Stasinopoulos, D, et al. (2013) Public procurement of health technologies in Greece in an era of economic crisis. Health Policy 109, 713.
5.Meehan, J, Menzies, L, Michaelides, R (2017) The long shadow of public policy: Barriers to a value-based approach in healthcare procurement. J Purch Supply Manage. 23, 229241.
6.Callea, G, Armeni, P, Marsilio, M, et al. (2017) The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices. Soc Sci Med 174, 8995.
7.Sorenson, C, Kanavos, P (2011) Medical technology procurement in Europe: A cross-country comparison of current practice and policy. Health Policy 100, 4350.
8.Robinson, J (2008) Value-based purchasing for medical devices. Health Affairs (Millwood) 27, 15231531.
9.Poder, TG (2017) Using the health technology assessment toolbox to facilitate procurement: The case of smart pumps in a Canadian hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 5462.
10.Trippoli, S, Caccese, E, Marinai, C, et al. (2018) Value-based procurement of medical devices: Application to devices for mechanical thrombectomy in ischemic stroke. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 166, 6165.10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.028
11.Arrowsmith, S, Linarelli, J, Wallace, D (2000) Regulation public procurement--National and international perspectives. Kluwer Law International.
12.Lian, P, Laing, A (2004) Public sector purchasing of health services: A comparison with private sector purchasing. J Purch Supply Manage 10, 247256.
13.Healthcare Supply Chain Network (2012) RFP Health Goods. Common Tendering and Contracting Templates.
14.Nollet, J, Beaulieu, M (2003) The development of group purchasing: An empirical study in the healthcare sector. J Purch Supply Manage 9, 310.
15.Leather, R, Gardner, M, Green, M, et al. (2013) Charting a course for cardiac electrophysiology training in Canada: The vital role of fellows in advanced cardiovascular care. Can j Cardiol. 29, 15271530.
16.Karjalainen, K, Kemppainen, K (2008) The involvement of small- and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement: Impact of resource perceptions, electronic systems and enterprise size. J Purch Supply Manage. 14, 230240.
17.Garfield, S, Zack, L (2015) User experience a novel, but critical element in payer and purchaser value analysis of medical Technologies. Value Health 18, A48.
18.Lingg, M, Merida-Herrera, E, Wyss, K, et al. (2017) Attitudes of orthopedic specialists toward effects of medical device purchasing. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 4653.
19.Bröchner, J, Camén, C, Eriksson, H, et al. (2016) Quality and legal aspects in public care procurement. TQM J. 28, 648663.
20.Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for healthcare decision making--an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19, 13.
21.Marsh, K, Ijzerman, M, Thokala, P, et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for healthcare decision making--emerging good practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19, 125137.
22.Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B (2007) Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 916.
23.Marsh, K, Ganz, M, Hsu, J, et al. (2016) Expanding health technology assessments to include effects on the environment. Value Health 19, 249254.
24.Bryan, S, Mitton, C, Donaldson, C (2014) Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ 23, 379383.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders

  • Fiona A. Miller (a1), Pascale Lehoux (a2), Stuart Peacock (a3), Valeria E. Rac (a1) (a4), Jeff Neukomm (a1), Carolyn Barg (a1), Jessica P. Bytautas (a1) and Murray Krahn (a1) (a5)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.