Without timely reassessment, material changes in a vendor’s security posture can go undetected between formal reviews.

Why It Matters

Most assurance mechanisms provide a point-in-time view even when vendor environments continue to change after approval. Services expand, systems change, new downstream providers are introduced, and security incidents alter the risk profile. A review that was reasonable at onboarding might lose relevance before the next scheduled assessment.

“Modern businesses rely heavily on third-party partnerships to create value and drive innovation, but they are expanding faster than organizations can manage the risks. According to KPMG research, 83 percent of executives plan to expand their partner networks in the next one to three years, yet 71 percent admit that they have trouble getting their partners to align on goals.” - KPMG 2026 Global Third-Party Risk Management Survey

Limited monitoring also weakens the organization’s response to risk already accepted. A vendor approved with conditions may require enhanced oversight, time-bound remediation, or reassessment when a material event occurs. Without reliable triggers, the exception remains open while the business continues to depend on the service.

What the Evidence Shows

• New 3^rd party research coming soon from HITRUST and CHIME* surveyed over 100 qualified TPRM leaders and found that the vendor approval process took a median of 28 days with almost 1/3 taking 31-60 days to complete.

• The Mitratech 2025 Third-Party Risk Management Study reported that only 29% of organizations could assess risk across the full vendor lifecycle, and that organizations actively monitored only 40% of their vendors on average. 

What TPRM Leaders Can Do

• Set monitoring depth and reassessment frequency according to vendor risk and operational criticality.
• Trigger reassessment when service scope, system access, data handling, control ownership, or downstream dependencies materially change.
  
• Connect incident intelligence, remediation status, and monitoring data to the original approval decision.
  
• Apply enhanced monitoring and clear escalation paths to vendors operating under approved exceptions.
  

Continuous oversight does not require the same intensity for every vendor. It requires enough risk-based monitoring to recognize when the facts behind an earlier decision have changed.

Coming Up in the Next Blog in the Series

If you missed the first blog in the series, please check out it here. Be sure to follow HITRUST on LinkedIn and X to know when the last blog in the TPRM Top 10 series, Closing Perspective on The TPRM Top 10, is posted.  

*CHIME Digital Health Analytics. Third-Party Risk Management Assurance: Strategic Market Validation Survey. Commissioned by HITRUST.  College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, Digital Health Analytics 2026. Survey of 100 third-party risk management practitioners at U.S. healthcare provider organizations with annual revenue of $1 billion or more, fielded August 2026.

Incomplete or unreliable information weakens risk decisions and delays action.

Why it Matters

For vendors already known to the organization, the central challenge is often the quality of the information available. Assurance artifacts may omit critical details, provide vague descriptions, or fail to demonstrate the vendor’s actual security posture. TPRM teams then spend additional time asking questions and requesting evidence that should have been clear at the outset.

“I don’t like wasting time with them back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.” -- TPRM Leader commenting on the challenges with vendor evidence

Poor data can distort onboarding approval decisions, risk tiering, and offboarding resulting in higher risk to the organization. If a relationship is misclassified or its scope is misunderstood, the organization may apply the wrong level of due diligence throughout the vendor lifecycle.

What the Evidence Shows

• New 3^rd party research coming soon from HITRUST and CHIME* surveyed over 100 qualified TPRM leaders and found that “Difficulty getting information” ranked as the second most important challenge.

 TPRM leaders consistently describe to HITRUST their problems receiving assurance artifacts that leave critical questions unanswered regarding scope, inherited controls, fourth-party dependencies, and actual security effectiveness.

What TPRM Leaders Can Do

• Set minimum information requirements for scope, data handling, control coverage, and exceptions.
• Use standardized, independently validated evidence to improve consistency and reduce repeated follow-up.
  
• Treat data quality as a control over the TPRM process because weak inputs can invalidate sound review methods..

TPRM programs do not need more documents for their own sake. They need complete, trustworthy, and decision-ready information that can support consistent risk judgments.

Coming Up in the Next Blog in the Series

If you missed the first blog in the series, please check out it here. Be sure to follow HITRUST on LinkedIn and X to know when the next blog in the TPRM Top 10 series, Vendor Risk Is Changing Faster Than Reassessment Cycles, is posted.  

*CHIME Digital Health Analytics. Third-Party Risk Management Assurance: Strategic Market Validation Survey. Commissioned by HITRUST. Ann Arbor, MI: College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, Digital Health Analytics 2026. In July 2026, HITRUST commissioned CHIME Digital Health Analytics to conduct a blinded market-validation survey of 102 qualified respondents from separate healthcare provider organizations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue. Respondents represented security and GRC leadership, TPRM ownership, procurement and vendor management, legal and contracting, and executive leadership. Every participating organization actively managed at least 200 third-party vendors, and 87% managed more than 500.

Heavy dependence on a small number of providers can turn one vendor incident into a broader enterprise disruption.

Why It Matters

Traditional vendor reviews examine one relationship at a time. Concentration risk only becomes visible when the organization steps back and looks across the portfolio. Several vendors may rely on the same cloud platform, data processor, software, or geography. A single disruption can therefore affect multiple business processes at once, even when each direct vendor appeared manageable on its own.

The risk is especially pronounced when the underlying provider supports critical operations and few substitutes exist. The same factors that make a vendor strategically important can also make recovery slower, migration more expensive, and business pressure more intense. Relationship-level approval does not answer the portfolio-level question of how much dependency the enterprise has accumulated.

“…a single vulnerability in a third party can quickly ripple across the entire business, grinding operations to a halt.” -- KPMG 2026 Global Third-Party Risk Management Survey

What the Evidence Shows

• According to the2023 EY Global Third-Party Risk Management Survey, only 9% of organizations included concentration risk in the Risk Inventory Reporting process.
• Avoiding concentration risk requires understanding the supply chain. In the Panorays 2025 CISO Survey, only 3% of organizations had full insight across their entire supply chain.

• New 3^rd party research coming soon from HITRUST and CHIME* surveyed over 100 qualified TPRM leaders and found that vendor incidents had already caused clinical or operational disruption for approximately 22% of respondents.

What TPRM Leaders Can Do

• Map critical business processes to the vendors and shared service providers that support them into a portfolio for enhanced visibility.
• Analyze concentration by provider, platform, service category, and geography across the portfolio.
  
• Include downstream providers when evaluating concentration and continuity exposure.
  
• Define contingency, substitution, and exit plans for dependencies that exceed the organization’s practical tolerance.

Concentration risk is often created gradually, one reasonable vendor decision at a time. Managing it requires a portfolio view that shows where several acceptable relationships combine into one unacceptable dependency

Coming Up in the Next Blog in the Series

If you missed the first blog in the series, please check out it here. Be sure to follow HITRUST on LinkedIn and X to know when the next blog in the TPRM Top 10 series, Unreliable Vendor Data Undermines Risk Decisions, is posted.  

*CHIME Digital Health Analytics. Third-Party Risk Management Assurance: Strategic Market Validation Survey. Commissioned by HITRUST. Ann Arbor, MI: College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, Digital Health Analytics 2026. In July 2026, HITRUST commissioned CHIME Digital Health Analytics to conduct a blinded market-validation survey of 102 qualified respondents from separate healthcare provider organizations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue. Respondents represented security and GRC leadership, TPRM ownership, procurement and vendor management, legal and contracting, and executive leadership. Every participating organization actively managed at least 200 third-party vendors, and 87% managed more than 500.