Your healthcare system needs innovative and efficient solutions to address pressures across tightening margins and resources.
But this push toward operational efficiency can come with perceived tradeoffs: Often the area that gets squeezed the most in challenging environments is access—worsening an already major problem for healthcare executives.
As leaders address access impacts, they’re often making an expensive error by looking outward rather than in.
This comes down to the build-versus-buy argument: On one hand, organizations can buy more capacity by adding staff, clinic space, and other expansions. But buying capacity is costly and less sustainable, especially given the many financial unknowns in this current reimbursement and economic climate.
On the other hand, leaders can make better use of previously bought capacity by being more strategic about their existing internal infrastructure. This is the more sustainable option, especially when it’s done in a way that prioritizes worker wellbeing.
Your healthcare system needs innovative and efficient solutions to address pressures across tightening margins and resources.
Breaking Down the Build-vs-Buy Debate: Factors to Consider
While buying capacity to address access may seem easier, it’s much more challenging in the long run. And it might not be as successful as building capacity by optimizing current investments.
One reason is cost.
Buying and leasing new space, recruiting more physicians, and other capacity-adding changes involve capital-intensive decisions, and the benefits of those investments are often not fully realized.


