No Service Agreement: Hospitals Take on Risky Repair Model

by Chris Gaerig 6/13/2011 7:53:00 AM

Over the last several months, I have spoken with a number of third-party service providers, which serve all facets of the medical industry. When discussing the economy, almost all of them respond similarly: with hospitals looking to save money, more and more frequently, they look to third-party service companies to repair existing equipment in an effort to avoid significant capital expenditures. However, a recent interview with Denny Durmis, VP of Global Service Business, MEDRAD, revealed a different take on how the economy is affecting his business.

In the last few years, Durmis has seen hospitals taking a risky approach to service contracts. Rather than undertaking the capital investment in new equipment or paying for service agreements on existing equipment, some facilities have been doing risk assessment and forgoing any coverage on their systems in the hope that the equipment won’t fail. This high-risk model can yield noticeable gains or significant costs and as such, may not be undertaken by many facilities. But Durmis has seen the trend frequently enough and believes it may be diminishing as the economy shows signs of recovery.

Has your hospital or biomed shop taken on more risk since the economic downturn? Was the prospect ever presented as a legitimate alternative to the traditional model? And if your shop has decided on this approach, do you expect to change your model in the coming future?

Comments

Posted by Stephen Walker, 6/14/2011 3:59:19 AM

I think you may be looking at this the wrong way.  Maybe these hospitals are beginning to trust their in-house staff a little more and they are able to service the equipment themselves.  If OEMs would stop ripping off the healthcare facilities and in-house maintenance programs with mandatory training in order to receive service manuals or to buy parts, this trend would have started long ago.

Posted by Jesse, 8/15/2011 8:32:28 AM

I think this is a flawed article at least from a stand point of the hospitals in the state of FL. Florida seems to have a system where they utilize their in house biomed staff to perform minor maintence on a very minimal number of devices. Everything else is contracted out usually to the manufacture of the device if available. Which is a downfall for any biomed looking to advance their skills in a field that requires constant education on new technology. I guess its better then being unemployed though.

Posted by Dave, 8/16/2011 4:21:57 PM

I have been in the biomed field for about 30 years in varying positions of responsibility, from technician to manager. In my experience I have found that the level of contracts depends on several factors. First, the level of expertise of the in-house staff, this obviously is the most important factor. I have had technicians that I sent to training on complex equipment and have found it to still be better to have contracts due to the lack of experience and the critical nature of the device. Remember that just because a person can take a class and a test doesn't mean the person can ACTUALLY repair or maintain the device. I have always said that as biomeds we are not experts, we are at best the most efficient resource for diagnosing the issue from the standpoint that we are directly on site. OEMs and some Independent organizations have their full concentration on one service line and are therefore able to obtain the "expert" skills through the constant contact with the devices.
Secondly, I have found that laboratory devices are best maintained through contracts as the cost of taking them at risk actually exceeds the cost of a contract. Take this example, I had 2 lab analyzers that required annual PMs, I priced the parts as well as a one time PM and both options exceeded the cost of a full service contract for one year. That to me is a "no-brainer" as some people say.
I do not believe that the vast majority of equipment should be under contract however, there will be obvious exceptions that will save money for facilities whether they be full service, PM or parts contracts.

Posted by Michael Herz, CBET-R, 8/27/2011 1:28:34 PM

I have been in the industry since 1982, OEM, Third-Party, ISO, and In-House Biomedical. There is a time and place for all Service Contracts. For the Biomedical Department to service the equipment, they need to be Trained.  First call on any equipment to diagnose and fix simple repairs reduces downtime and should be done in the biomedical department. PM's and major repairs depend solely on the expertise of the Biomedical Technician that is performing the service.The OEM Field Service Engineers are working on their specific equipment everyday, as they are the specialist. The institution should look into the different levels of Service contracts from the OEM to meet their needs when they purchase the equipment, including training for the in-house technician. If there is one piece of specialized equipment from one manufacturer and no training to the biomedical technician, it would be very hard for the institution to justify no service contract for that piece of complicated equipment.
For that piece of equipment to perform to the expectation of the end-user can only be guaranteed by the OEM.  The in-house biomedical department has a budjet, and that budjet should include many dollars for training their technicians, which would reduce contracts.  Simple math- No training dollars, no contract reductions!  We need to make sure that ALL biomedical personnel provide the best possible service to our end-user, so we have the best quality of care to the patient.

Add comment




biuquote
Loading



Categories

None

Tags