Private-label usually starts as a cost conversation.
A branded product often costs more. A private-label option often costs less. On paper, both generally meet the spec. So why pay extra? That question is fair. But it’s incomplete. In healthcare, we don’t buy products to own them forever. We buy products to perform a specific task for a specific amount of time. The real question is simple:
Is the private-label product really better once you factor in performance, durability, and everything it takes to support it? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. The job is knowing the difference. Unit cost is not the same as the product cost. Unit price is what’s on the PO. Cost is what happens after the PO.
If a product is cheaper but needs to be replaced more often, creates more work for staff, or fails in ways that create downstream issues, then the cheaper product isn’t actually cheaper. We only reallocated the cost, specifically moving the cost from supply chain to nursing time, patient experience, or risk.
That’s why minimizing cost can be a trap when acquisition price becomes the only metric.
So what actually determines value?
When evaluating private-label versus branded products, a few practical factors matter more than anything else.
Consistency and performance: Products that meet the same written specs can behave very differently in real-world use. Consistency matters because healthcare runs on muscle memory. When products behave differently, clinicians notice quickly. That moment creates doubt and erodes trust in the product.
Durability and product lifetime value: This is where a lot of decisions break down. If one product costs twice as much but lasts three times as long for the patient, the math is not complicated. Replacement cycles matter, and replacement is never free.
Workflow impact: If a lower-cost product requires more repositioning, more monitoring, or more staff interaction, the initial PO savings show up as extra work somewhere else, usually in labor hours.
Service and support: Training, responsiveness, fill rates, and guarantees/warranties all count. These factors rarely show up on spreadsheets, but they matter quickly when something goes wrong.
Despite all this, a private-label option can work well and deliver complete value to the customer.
Private label can be exactly the right choice in categories where performance differences are hard to detect, longevity is not critical, and patient interaction is limited. Commodity supplies and short-use items often fit in this bucket. In these cases, paying a premium rarely changes outcomes, and private-label can free up dollars for areas where value is more visible. For example, surgical tape, gauze, syringes, face masks, and many other temporary products would fit into this category. Healthcare facilities certainly spend a lot of money here, and cost savings for private-label products can grow quickly.
Problems arise when the same cost-first logic is applied across every category.
Products used continuously, or those that affect mobility, positioning, skin integrity, comfort, or safety, need to be evaluated differently. In these areas, small performance gaps quickly become operational and risk problems. A lower-priced product that fails sooner or behaves inconsistently introduces variability, added work, and risk. Any apparent savings can disappear quickly at the aggregate accounting level, but often remain invisible within departmental silos.
In summary, there’s no absolute argument for products being all branded or all private-label. Strong supply chains segment categories deliberately. They use private label where differences don’t matter and invest more in areas where performance, durability, and consistency directly affect care delivery and the patient’s perception of value. Cost pressure isn’t going away. However, buying the cheapest product and buying the best value are not the same thing. The organizations that get this right will spend less over time, increasing all the metrics that matter for a successful and sustainable healthcare facility.
Photo: IvelinRadkov, Getty Images
Jonathan Treiber is Chief Executive Officer of Skil-Care, a 40-plus-year U.S.-based manufacturer of patient safety, mobility, and rehabilitation products serving hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities, homecare, and education settings worldwide. He brings more than 20 years of experience building and leading companies focused on adoption, operational execution, and commercialization. Jonathan previously co-founded and served as CEO of RevTrax, leading the company through a successful exit, and began his career in investment banking at Citigroup.
This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.
