Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

Health systems want peer prices more than a spend dashboard.

An analytics company’s launch plan and price list both rested on one concept test: would health systems pay for supply-spend analytics, which part should lead and how should it charge? Interviews with 150 supply chain and finance leaders produced the report in 11 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 150

Illustrative report

Health System Supply Spend Analytics

Would health systems pay for supply-spend analytics, and which part of the concept should lead the launch?

Study architecture

Test the conceptAppeal of the full concept, top-two box

Score the modulesAdoption likelihood for each of three modules

Choose the priceFlat fee, share of savings or fee per bed

Scope

A module buyers already run in house can score low on adoption however good it looks, and a question on current tools shows which one that is.

Sample

150

Supply chain and finance leaders who co-sign supply contracts.

Research by

Study typeConcept test

ScenarioIllustrative

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Peer price benchmarking leads adoption, and most large systems already run their own dashboard

Supply chain and finance leaders who co-sign supply contracts like the concept as a whole and split sharply on its parts. Peer price benchmarking leads adoption and the spend dashboard trails, because most large systems already run their own. A flat fee per facility is the preferred price model, with large systems more open to a share of verified savings.

67%n = 150

find the full concept appealing

100index

peer price benchmarking, the top module

75%n = 80

of large systems already run a dashboard

48%n = 150

prefer a flat fee per facility

Figures rounded. Base n = 150 supply chain and finance leaders unless stated.

Top lines

1Two in three leaders find the concept appealingConcept appeal by system size03

2Peer price benchmarking leads adoption, and the spend dashboard trailsAdoption index by module04

3Most large systems already run a spend dashboard of their ownThe tool in use today05

4A flat fee per facility leads, and large systems lean toward shared savingsPreferred price model06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

150 supply chain and finance leaders

Segments

80 large systems, 70 community hospitals

Method

AI-moderated interviews with a concept test

Screener

Co-signs supply contracts

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

150

Supply chain and finance leaders who co-sign supply contracts.

Audiences

80 at large health systems and 70 at community hospitals.

Method

Concept test

Full concept first, three modules rated one by one, then a price choice.

The brief

Client

A health analytics software company

Decision

Which module to lead with, and how to price it

Stage

Concept test, before launch

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a three-module concept test

Measured

Concept appeal, adoption by module, price model, current tools

Sample

Large health systems and community hospitals

Headline figures

Appeal67%

find the full concept appealing, top-two box

Lead module100

adoption index for peer price benchmarking, against 47 for the spend dashboard

Price model48%

prefer a flat fee per facility to a share of savings or a fee per bed

The question

Is supply-spend analytics worth a health system’s budget?

The company built a spend dashboard first, then added two modules: peer price benchmarking, which compares what hospitals pay for the same item, and contract compliance alerts. The product team needed to know which part buyers want, whether that differs by system size, and how they would rather pay.

How appealing do supply chain and finance leaders find it?

Which part of it drives adoption, and does that differ by system size?

Which price model would buyers accept?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
The product team names the decision.
Will health systems pay for our supply-spend analytics, and which part should we lead with? The kickoff turned it into three questions: whether the concept appeals, which part drives adoption by system size, and which price model buyers accept.
2Design
Three modules, two system sizes.
Supply chain and finance leaders who co-sign supply contracts made the cut: 80 at large systems, 70 at community hospitals. The concept was split into its three modules, each rated for adoption in rotated order, and every interview closed on a price model choice.
3Fielding
150 leaders, in their own words.
Quant and qual ran in one conversation by voice or text, a median 27 minutes, and any low module score prompted a probe on the reason. The researcher read all 174 and removed 24 for rushed responses or no contract sign-off, leaving 150.
4Analysis
The dashboard scores last.
The researcher ranked the three modules on adoption likelihood: peer price benchmarking scored 100 and the spend dashboard came last at 47. A current-tools question showed why: most large systems already run a dashboard in house.
5Readout
A flat fee, benchmarking first.
Module scores and price choice by system size filled the 32-page report, which the researcher shared live with the product team alongside the full data file. The launch now leads with benchmarking at a flat fee per facility; the dashboard is an add-on.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing, but its parts are far apart. Peer price benchmarking drives adoption, and the spend dashboard the company built first scores last, because most large systems already run one in house. On price, a flat fee per facility leads overall, while large systems lean toward a share of verified savings.

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing

¹ Q5. How appealing is this concept for your organization? Five-point scale, n = 150.

² Q4. Who signs supply contracts at your organization? Single select, n = 150.

Leaders saw the full concept before any module was scored. 67% rate it appealing, top-two box, and 9% unappealing¹. Community hospitals rate it a little higher than large systems, 70% against 65%. Appeal holds across supply chain and finance roles, which matters because both functions sign in 58% of organizations.

67%n = 150

rate the concept appealing

9%n = 150

rate it unappealing

70%n = 70

of community hospitals rate it appealing

65%n = 80

of large systems rate it appealing

Appeal of the full supply-spend concept

Concept appeal, five-point scale (n = 150)

Appealing, top-two box, by system size

Who co-signs supply contracts (n = 150)

Both functionsSupply chain leadFinance lead

Five-point scale; top-two box = very or somewhat appealing. Shares are rounded. Base n = 150 leaders, 80 at large health systems and 70 at community hospitals.

Supporting evidence

Leaders who rate the concept highly name the same reason first: seeing what peer hospitals pay. § 3.2
Most unappealing ratings come from systems that already buy a benchmarking service. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Peer price benchmarking leads adoption, and the spend dashboard trails

¹ Q6. How likely would your organization be to adopt this module? Five-point scale, asked for each module, n = 150.

² Q7. What level of detail would peer price data need? Open response, coded, n = 150.

Each module was shown on its own, in rotated order, and rated for adoption. Peer price benchmarking scores 100, contract compliance alerts 73 and the spend dashboard 47¹. Benchmarking leads in both system sizes. The dashboard does better at community hospitals than at large systems, a gap top line 3 explains. Across all leaders, 39% would likely adopt the dashboard on its own.

100index

peer price benchmarking, the top module

73index

contract compliance alerts

47index

spend dashboard, last of three

3modules

shown one at a time, in rotated order

Adoption likelihood for each module, indexed to the top module

Adoption index (n = 150)

Would likely adopt the spend dashboard, by system size

Order of modules, both system sizes

1Peer price benchmarking
2Contract compliance alerts
3Spend dashboard

Five-point adoption likelihood, rescaled so the top module = 100; scores are relative and do not sum to 100. The system-size panel shows top-two box shares for the dashboard.

Supporting evidence

Compliance alerts rank second in both groups and draw the most questions about integration. § 4.2
Leaders who rate benchmarking highest want prices at the item level, for the exact product they buy. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Most large systems already run a spend dashboard of their own

¹ Q8. What does your organization use today to track supply spend? Single select, n = 150.

² Setup questions coded from open responses to the dashboard module, community hospitals n = 70.

Every leader was asked what they use today to track supply spend. 75% of large-system leaders already run a spend dashboard in house, against 21% at community hospitals¹. Large systems built theirs with in-house analysts, while community hospitals mostly work from spreadsheets (56%). Across all 150 leaders, half already run one. So the dashboard trails overall and holds up where no one has built one.

75%n = 80

of large systems run a dashboard in house

21%n = 70

of community hospitals do

56%n = 70

of community hospitals work from spreadsheets

51%n = 70

of community hospitals would likely adopt the dashboard

The tool in use today for supply spend, by system size

Run a spend dashboard in house

Main tool today, community hospitals (n = 70)

SpreadsheetsIn-house dashboardPurchased tool

Main tool today, large systems (n = 80)

In-house dashboardPurchased toolSpreadsheets

Single select; shares are rounded. Asked of all 150 leaders after the module ratings. An in-house dashboard is one built and kept running by the system’s own analysts.

Supporting evidence

Large-system leaders describe their dashboards as built and staffed: switching would retire work already paid for. § 5.2
Community hospitals working from spreadsheets rate the dashboard close to the alerts module and ask most about setup help. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

A flat fee per facility leads, and large systems lean toward shared savings

¹ Q9. Which way of paying for this service would your organization prefer? Single select, n = 150.

² A share of savings was described as a percentage of the savings the hospital’s own finance team verifies.

Leaders chose one of three price models. 48% prefer a flat fee per facility, 35% a share of verified savings and 17% a fee per bed¹. The split follows system size: 61% of community hospitals choose the flat fee, while 44% of large systems would take a share of savings, the largest group among them. Community hospitals tie the choice to the annual budget; large systems have finance teams who can verify a saving.

48%n = 150

prefer a flat fee per facility

35%n = 150

prefer a share of verified savings

61%n = 70

of community hospitals choose the flat fee

44%n = 80

of large systems choose a share of savings

Preferred price model, overall and by system size

Preferred price model, single select (n = 150)

Community hospitals (n = 70)

Large health systems (n = 80)

Single select; shares are rounded. Each model was described with the same scope of service, so only the way of paying changed.

Supporting evidence

Leaders who prefer shared savings want each saving verified by their own finance team before any fee is paid. § 6.2
Leaders who turn down a fee per bed say it charges for the size of the system; they want to pay for how much the service is used. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The concept

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing.

67% rate the full concept appealing, top-two box, and 9% find it unappealing. Community hospitals rate it a little higher than large systems, 70% against 65%.

Appealing, top-two box67%

Neutral24%

Not appealing9%

Concept appeal, five-point scale · n = 150

Question 2 · The modules

Peer benchmarking leads, and the flagship dashboard scores last.

Peer price benchmarking scored 100 on the adoption index, contract compliance alerts 73 and the spend dashboard 47. Benchmarking led in both system sizes.

Peer price benchmarking100

Contract compliance alerts73

Spend dashboard47

Adoption likelihood by module, indexed to 100 · n = 150

Question 2 · The reason

Most large systems already run a dashboard of their own.

A question on current tools, asked of all 150, explained the gap. 75% of large-system leaders already run a spend dashboard in house, against 21% at community hospitals, where most still work from spreadsheets and the dashboard scores higher.

75%large systems

21%community hospitals

Run a spend dashboard in house · n = 80 vs n = 70

Question 3 · The price

A flat fee leads, except at large systems.

48% prefer a flat fee per facility, 35% a share of verified savings and 17% a fee per bed. Community hospitals favor the flat fee (61%), while 44% of large systems would take a share of savings.

Flat fee per facility48%

Share of verified savings35%

Fee per bed17%

Preferred price model, single select · n = 150

“We built our own dashboard years ago and two analysts keep it running. What I can’t build is what the hospital across town pays for the same box of gloves.”

Supply chain director · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Peer prices

“When three peers pay less for the same product, my next call is to the vendor.”

Hospital finance director

In-house tools

“Another dashboard just means another login. We already have one that our analysts trust.”

Supply chain vice president

Paying for it

“A flat fee I can budget. A share of savings means arguing every quarter about what counts as a saving.”

Community hospital CFO

What the software company did

Three moves made with the report.

1The launch · from finding 2

Led the launch with peer price benchmarking.

Benchmarking, the module both system sizes scored highest, now opens every sales conversation and leads the first release.

2The dashboard · from finding 3

Made the spend dashboard an add-on.

It is now sold separately to systems without one of their own, mostly community hospitals still working from spreadsheets.

3The price · from finding 4

Priced the launch at a flat fee per facility.

A flat fee per facility leads the price list, with a share of verified savings offered to large systems that ask for it.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next concept test question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Market entry

Is supply-spend analytics worth a health system’s budget?

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

The product team names the decision.

Will health systems pay for our supply-spend analytics, and which part should we lead with? The kickoff turned it into three questions: whether the concept appeals, which part drives adoption by system size, and which price model buyers accept.

2Design

Three modules, two system sizes.

Supply chain and finance leaders who co-sign supply contracts made the cut: 80 at large systems, 70 at community hospitals. The concept was split into its three modules, each rated for adoption in rotated order, and every interview closed on a price model choice.

3Fielding

150 leaders, in their own words.

Quant and qual ran in one conversation by voice or text, a median 27 minutes, and any low module score prompted a probe on the reason. The researcher read all 174 and removed 24 for rushed responses or no contract sign-off, leaving 150.

4Analysis

The dashboard scores last.

The researcher ranked the three modules on adoption likelihood: peer price benchmarking scored 100 and the spend dashboard came last at 47. A current-tools question showed why: most large systems already run a dashboard in house.

5Readout

A flat fee, benchmarking first.

Module scores and price choice by system size filled the 32-page report, which the researcher shared live with the product team alongside the full data file. The launch now leads with benchmarking at a flat fee per facility; the dashboard is an add-on.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing

¹ Q5. How appealing is this concept for your organization? Five-point scale, n = 150.

² Q4. Who signs supply contracts at your organization? Single select, n = 150.

67%n = 150

rate the concept appealing

9%n = 150

rate it unappealing

70%n = 70

of community hospitals rate it appealing

65%n = 80

of large systems rate it appealing

Appeal of the full supply-spend concept

Concept appeal, five-point scale (n = 150)

Appealing, top-two box, by system size

Who co-signs supply contracts (n = 150)

Both functionsSupply chain leadFinance lead

Five-point scale; top-two box = very or somewhat appealing. Shares are rounded. Base n = 150 leaders, 80 at large health systems and 70 at community hospitals.

Supporting evidence

Leaders who rate the concept highly name the same reason first: seeing what peer hospitals pay. § 3.2
Most unappealing ratings come from systems that already buy a benchmarking service. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Peer price benchmarking leads adoption, and the spend dashboard trails

¹ Q6. How likely would your organization be to adopt this module? Five-point scale, asked for each module, n = 150.

² Q7. What level of detail would peer price data need? Open response, coded, n = 150.

100index

peer price benchmarking, the top module

73index

contract compliance alerts

47index

spend dashboard, last of three

3modules

shown one at a time, in rotated order

Adoption likelihood for each module, indexed to the top module

Adoption index (n = 150)

Would likely adopt the spend dashboard, by system size

Order of modules, both system sizes

1Peer price benchmarking
2Contract compliance alerts
3Spend dashboard

Five-point adoption likelihood, rescaled so the top module = 100; scores are relative and do not sum to 100. The system-size panel shows top-two box shares for the dashboard.

Supporting evidence

Compliance alerts rank second in both groups and draw the most questions about integration. § 4.2
Leaders who rate benchmarking highest want prices at the item level, for the exact product they buy. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Most large systems already run a spend dashboard of their own

¹ Q8. What does your organization use today to track supply spend? Single select, n = 150.

² Setup questions coded from open responses to the dashboard module, community hospitals n = 70.

75%n = 80

of large systems run a dashboard in house

21%n = 70

of community hospitals do

56%n = 70

of community hospitals work from spreadsheets

51%n = 70

of community hospitals would likely adopt the dashboard

The tool in use today for supply spend, by system size

Run a spend dashboard in house

Main tool today, community hospitals (n = 70)

SpreadsheetsIn-house dashboardPurchased tool

Main tool today, large systems (n = 80)

In-house dashboardPurchased toolSpreadsheets

Single select; shares are rounded. Asked of all 150 leaders after the module ratings. An in-house dashboard is one built and kept running by the system’s own analysts.

Supporting evidence

Large-system leaders describe their dashboards as built and staffed: switching would retire work already paid for. § 5.2
Community hospitals working from spreadsheets rate the dashboard close to the alerts module and ask most about setup help. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Supply-spend analytics · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

A flat fee per facility leads, and large systems lean toward shared savings

¹ Q9. Which way of paying for this service would your organization prefer? Single select, n = 150.

² A share of savings was described as a percentage of the savings the hospital’s own finance team verifies.

48%n = 150

prefer a flat fee per facility

35%n = 150

prefer a share of verified savings

61%n = 70

of community hospitals choose the flat fee

44%n = 80

of large systems choose a share of savings

Preferred price model, overall and by system size

Preferred price model, single select (n = 150)

Community hospitals (n = 70)

Large health systems (n = 80)

Single select; shares are rounded. Each model was described with the same scope of service, so only the way of paying changed.

Supporting evidence

Leaders who prefer shared savings want each saving verified by their own finance team before any fee is paid. § 6.2
Leaders who turn down a fee per bed say it charges for the size of the system; they want to pay for how much the service is used. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The concept

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing.

67% rate the full concept appealing, top-two box, and 9% find it unappealing. Community hospitals rate it a little higher than large systems, 70% against 65%.

Appealing, top-two box67%

Neutral24%

Not appealing9%

Concept appeal, five-point scale · n = 150

Question 2 · The modules

Peer benchmarking leads, and the flagship dashboard scores last.

Peer price benchmarking scored 100 on the adoption index, contract compliance alerts 73 and the spend dashboard 47. Benchmarking led in both system sizes.

Peer price benchmarking100

Contract compliance alerts73

Spend dashboard47

Adoption likelihood by module, indexed to 100 · n = 150

Question 2 · The reason

Most large systems already run a dashboard of their own.

75%large systems

21%community hospitals

Run a spend dashboard in house · n = 80 vs n = 70

Question 3 · The price

A flat fee leads, except at large systems.

48% prefer a flat fee per facility, 35% a share of verified savings and 17% a fee per bed. Community hospitals favor the flat fee (61%), while 44% of large systems would take a share of savings.

Flat fee per facility48%

Share of verified savings35%

Fee per bed17%

Preferred price model, single select · n = 150

Three themes behind the numbers.

Peer prices

“When three peers pay less for the same product, my next call is to the vendor.”

Hospital finance director

In-house tools

“Another dashboard just means another login. We already have one that our analysts trust.”

Supply chain vice president

Paying for it

“A flat fee I can budget. A share of savings means arguing every quarter about what counts as a saving.”

Community hospital CFO

Three moves made with the report.

1The launch · from finding 2

Led the launch with peer price benchmarking.

Benchmarking, the module both system sizes scored highest, now opens every sales conversation and leads the first release.

2The dashboard · from finding 3

Made the spend dashboard an add-on.

It is now sold separately to systems without one of their own, mostly community hospitals still working from spreadsheets.

3The price · from finding 4

Priced the launch at a flat fee per facility.

A flat fee per facility leads the price list, with a share of verified savings offered to large systems that ask for it.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Is supply-spend analytics worth a health system’s budget?

How appealing do supply chain and finance leaders find it?

Which part of it drives adoption, and does that differ by system size?

Which price model would buyers accept?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The product team names the decision.

Three modules, two system sizes.

150 leaders, in their own words.

The dashboard scores last.

A flat fee, benchmarking first.

Four findings from the report.

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing.

Peer benchmarking leads, and the flagship dashboard scores last.

Most large systems already run a dashboard of their own.

A flat fee leads, except at large systems.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Led the launch with peer price benchmarking.

Made the spend dashboard an add-on.

Priced the launch at a flat fee per facility.

Bring us your next concept test question.

Real-World Evidence Vendor Landscape

AI Scheduling in Outpatient Clinics

Clinical Lab QC Materials Sizing

Is supply-spend analytics worth a health system’s budget?

How appealing do supply chain and finance leaders find it?

Which part of it drives adoption, and does that differ by system size?

Which price model would buyers accept?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The product team names the decision.

Three modules, two system sizes.

150 leaders, in their own words.

The dashboard scores last.

A flat fee, benchmarking first.

Four findings from the report.

Two in three leaders find the concept appealing.

Peer benchmarking leads, and the flagship dashboard scores last.

Most large systems already run a dashboard of their own.

A flat fee leads, except at large systems.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Led the launch with peer price benchmarking.

Made the spend dashboard an add-on.

Priced the launch at a flat fee per facility.

Bring us your next concept test question.

Real-World Evidence Vendor Landscape

AI Scheduling in Outpatient Clinics

Clinical Lab QC Materials Sizing