One of the most persistent challenges in healthcare third-party risk management (TPRM) is the lack of consensus on certifications and assurance models. Healthcare leaders often disagree on what constitutes sufficient evidence for vendors to demonstrate compliance with security expectations. This inconsistency not only creates confusion but also leads to inefficiencies and increased costs across the board.
In theory, certifications and assurance models provide a standardized way for healthcare vendors to prove they meet security and compliance requirements. However, the reality is far from that. Some healthcare entities strongly promote and even mandate HITRUST certifications as a gold standard for vendor security. These organizations value HITRUST’s comprehensive approach to evaluating compliance with frameworks like HIPAA, NIST, and others.
Conversely, other organizations may accept SOC 2 attestations or alternative industry certifications and assurance models as sufficient. SOC 2 reports focus primarily on data security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy, and they are widely recognized across industries. However, while SOC 2 can offer insights into a vendor's security posture, it does not provide the same level of healthcare-specific assurance as HITRUST.
Further complicating the landscape are healthcare entities that do not mandate formal certifications or assurance models. Instead, these organizations often rely on manual, questionnaire-based assessments to evaluate vendors. This method may offer flexibility, but it comes at a significant cost. The manual nature of these assessments introduces inefficiencies, consumes valuable resources, and often lacks the rigor of more structured certification processes.
The lack of standardization has a direct impact on vendors as well. Vendors that serve multiple healthcare clients often face a patchwork of requirements, forcing them to invest in multiple certifications and assurance processes. This not only increases operational complexity but also leads to higher compliance costs. In some cases, vendors might have to allocate resources toward certifications that are not universally recognized or valued.
The healthcare sector needs a more standardized approach to certifications and assurance models. By collectively agreeing on a core set of certifications or at least establishing a clear hierarchy of acceptable assurance models, healthcare organizations can streamline TPRM processes. This would not only reduce redundancy but also foster greater transparency and trust between healthcare entities and their vendors.
Until such a consensus emerges, healthcare leaders must navigate this fragmented landscape with care. Encouraging open dialogue between healthcare entities and vendors, as well as advocating for cross-industry standards, can help reduce confusion and inefficiency. Ultimately, adopting a more consistent approach to certifications and assurance models is crucial for advancing healthcare TPRM and cybersecurity while minimizing the burden on vendors.