Methodology for Gartner Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 2025 Ranking

Our methodology focuses on six metrics listed. The opinion measures for the ranking are Peer Opinion with 25% weight and Gartner Analyst Opinion with 25% weight. The quantitative measures for the ranking are financial performance, quality of patient care, ESG and risk management metrics. 

• Aggregate bond rating from S&P Global, Moody’s and Fitch are used as a proxy for financial health of the health systems with a 15% weight.

• Premier’s 15 Top Health Systems study provides a measure for quality of patient care with a 20% weight.

• ESG metric is at 10% weight based on engagement with Healthcare Anchor Network (HAN) and Practice Greenhealth.

• Risk Management metric at 5% weight is based on engagement with Healthcare Industry Resilience Collaborative (HIRC).

Figure 1: Metrics for 2025 Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25

Consistent with Gartner’s cross-industry Supply Chain Top 25 research methodologies, the Gartner Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 ranking is derived from two main analyses, which are combined into a total composite score:

• Quantitative measures: These measures provide a view into how companies have performed in the past and establish proxy connections between financial health, performance and supply chain excellence.

• Opinion components: These components offer a qualitative assessment of value chain leadership and demonstrated supply chain performance — crucial characteristics of our Top 25.

The centerpiece of the qualitative opinion component of our methodology is the Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 Capabilities Model. It guides both peers and analysts in forming their opinions and considering which health systems to select for The Gartner Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25. The model — driven by the core set of capabilities depicted in Figure 2 — highlights activities in the healthcare value chain that help improve human life.

Figure 2: Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 Capabilities Model

Organizations receiving the most recognition have combined strong foundational capabilities with targeted progress in all of the areas we outline in Figure 2. Although success in execution requires more than developing the supply chain capabilities contained in our model, the industry recognizes that on its path to improving human lives a health system can benefit from the principles captured in our model. Regardless of a health system’s supply chain maturity, this model can be used to frame and set parameters for its strategic goals.

We partnered with an objective third party for the quality of patient care component of our methodology. The Premier 15 Top Health Systems study has evaluated hospitals and health systems using publicly available data for more than 30 years and provided this data to Gartner’s Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 for 15 consecutive years. The research is based on clinical, operational, financial and patient perception of care measures that form a balanced scorecard.

The scorecard is composed of key measures of health system performance, including:

• Risk-adjusted mortality

• Risk-adjusted complications

• Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs)

• 30-day patient readmits

• 30-day mortality

• Average length of stay (ALOS)

• Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB)

• Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)

The composite score derived from these measures reflects excellence in hospital care, quality and leadership. Health systems do not apply for Premier’s 15 Top Health Systems selection process, cannot opt in or out, and winners do not pay to market their honor.

We use Premier’s data for the following two components of the process:

• Selecting a meaningful group of health systems to include in our ranking. We start with Premier’s list, select the top-level parent for any health system and verify that each has over $2 billion in operating expenses to qualify.

• Determining a quantifiable proxy for health systems’ quality of care.

Quality of Patient Care. We use the percentile score from the Premier 15 Top Health Systems study as the first quantifiable metric. We use this metric to develop a force-ranked score for each health system’s quality of patient care. While we use Premier’s actual quantitative assessment from the study for our ranking calculation, we show only the performance tier for each health system in our final annual report.

The four tiers are:

• 15 Top Health Systems award winners

• Top Quintile (Top 20%, excluding 15 Top Health Systems award winners)

• Second Quintile (61% to 80% Performance)

• Third Quintile or Lower (0% to 60% Performance)

Financial Performance. The second quantifiable metric used to assess health systems is bond rating. We use bond rating as a proxy for the financial performance of health systems. Although not perfect, the bond rating reflects the financial discipline and management effectiveness of a health system. We used ratings from Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s and Fitch to develop an aggregate bond rating composite score. For consistency, we mapped bond ratings from all rating services to the S&P scale.

ESG Metric. For the fourth year in a row, we are incorporating an ESG metric into our methodology. The ESG component as part of our ranking has been well received by most health system supply chain leaders. For 2025, we have kept our overall methodology consistent with how we calculated it in 2024, giving a 10% weighting to ESG. One change for this year is that membership with HAN will equal 75% component weight for ESG and Practice Greenhealth membership component weight will be at 25%.

For the last two years, there were points awarded for membership with HAN, submitting diverse spend Tier 1 data to HAN and signing Impact Purchasing Commitment. This year health systems have expressed difficulties with tracking and reporting diversity spend data due to regulatory issues. Our goal is to give every health system an opportunity to score points in this ESG metric and not penalize health systems that cannot submit diversity data this year. Therefore, the ESG scoring this year will be based on health systems displaying foundational capabilities while they are also reacting to cost pressures in their supplier networks. 

To summarize, as shown in Figure 3, ESG component for the ranking this year will be based on membership in  Healthcare Anchor Network (HAN) and Practice Greenhealth as these are foundational steps. 

• Healthcare Anchor Network (HAN) membership: 75%

• Practice Greenhealth membership: 25%

Figure 3: ESG Component Weight for 2025

This change accomplishes two primary objectives for this year.

1. Continued engagement with HAN shows that health systems are proactively working on their ESG goal. Based on our Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 ranking from 2024, 92% of the health systems from the Masters and the Top 25 list scored some ESG points in the ranking and 18% received full ESG credit. Supply chain has a huge impact on ESG overall for health systems impacting sustainability, economic development and even health equity. We encourage health systems to continue working with HAN and commit to increasing their spend with local businesses.
   
   
2. Similarly, continued engagement in Practice Greenhealth shows focus on sustainability as a component of ESG. The Healthcare Anchor Network is an amazing partner for ESG commitment and it partners with Practice Greenhealth for the Impact Purchasing Commitment. We encourage health systems to continue working with Practice Greenhealth and measure the impact on making their supply chain sustainable.

Collectively, these supply chain-focused ESG efforts help health systems reduce environmental impact, promote social responsibility, and enhance long-term resilience in healthcare delivery.

Risk Management Metric. We are using a risk management metric as part of our methodology at a 5% weighting (see Adding Risk Management to the Healthcare Supply Chain Top 25 Methodology). This component of the ranking credits health systems for taking a leading role in their approach to risk management through increasing engagement with the not-for-profit industry group, Healthcare Industry Resilience Collaborative (HIRC). The allocation of this 5% weighting was granted according to increasing levels of engagement with HIRC standards (see Figure 4).

HIRC will provide Gartner data in each of these categories, per its own internal guidelines as communicated to its members in each category:

• Resiliency Engaged is focused on being an engaged member of HIRC by attending more than 50% of its meetings. This engagement level represents 30% of the available score for this component.

• Resiliency Accountable tracks health systems having dedicated resources for risk management activities. Along with this resource allocation, points will be awarded for having a formal supply chain business continuity plan and being able to report spend with HIRC transparency and resiliency badged suppliers. This engagement level represents 30% of the available score for this component.

• Resiliency Leader tracks health systems implementing resiliency standards with suppliers. This involves simply including HIRC resiliency standard term questions in competitive bids with suppliers. This engagement level represents 40% of the available score for this component.