When it comes to Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) in healthcare, one thing is abundantly clear: there is no single "gold standard" approach. Conversations with risk leaders across the industry consistently reveal that TPRM programs vary widely — not just in scope and sophistication, but in their very foundations. 

The fragmented reality of TPRM in healthcare 

The differences in TPRM programs are often driven by a mix of factors: organizational maturity, available budget, staffing levels, executive support, and overall risk culture. Some organizations have robust, tech-enabled TPRM programs leveraging tools like Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) platforms or cyber risk scorecards. Others lean heavily on standardized validated assessments like HITRUST or SOC 2 to evaluate vendor security postures. Then, there are still many healthcare organizations where TPRM efforts are centered around manual questionnaires and internal audits, sometimes augmented or entirely handled by external managed service providers. 

This diversity in approach doesn’t end with process. It extends to the way organizations define and assess risk itself. 

Take inherent risk scoring, for example. Some healthcare TPRM teams define a vendor’s criticality based on factors like total spending or organizational size. Others take a more data-centric view, focusing on the volume and sensitivity of protected health information (PHI) a vendor manages. Many others may consider service impact, integration with clinical workflows, or regulatory exposure. The result? A vendor deemed “critical” by one organization might be considered low-risk by another, even when delivering the same services. 

The cost of inconsistency  

The lack of alignment creates several big problems. 

First, it complicates the landscape for vendors. With no consistent expectations across the industry, vendors are forced to navigate a maze of questionnaires, audits, and assessment frameworks — each tailored to a different customer’s priorities and definitions of risk. For vendors supporting multiple healthcare clients, this patchwork of requirements can be frustrating, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. 

Second, it limits the usefulness of risk reporting. Many TPRM programs struggle to deliver clear, actionable insights across their vendor portfolio. Risk reports are often siloed and overly technical, focusing on the audit results of individual vendors without providing a holistic view. This makes it harder for executive leadership and non-technical stakeholders to understand third-party risk at the enterprise level — let alone make informed decisions based on it. 

Fostering greater alignment 

So, what’s the path forward? 

The reality is that while a single “gold standard” may not exist (or even be realistic), healthcare organizations can benefit from working toward greater consistency in how they define, assess, and report third-party risk. Aligning with industry-accepted frameworks like HITRUST can help. TPRM leaders should also collaborate with peers to establish common risk definitions and reporting models that better support communication with vendors and internal stakeholders. 

In the absence of a universal standard, progress comes from transparency, collaboration, and an ongoing effort to close the gaps — both internally and across the healthcare ecosystem.