HTM teams are critical partners in driving how technology supports care delivery

With evolving technologies, tighter budgets and mounting regulatory complexities, many acute care and academic health systems are reassessing the best way to run their Healthcare Technology Management (HTM) programs to reduce cost without jeopardizing service quality.

As part of this evaluation, organizations are increasingly examining how different operating structures align with their clinical, financial and operational priorities. Understanding the available approaches is a critical first step in determining the right fit.

There are three main models: self-operated, fully outsourced and hybrid. Model selection offers both strengths and weaknesses based upon the health system type. Here are some quick considerations:

Market model overviews: Which is right for you?

The self-operated traditional HTM model

In a self-operated model, the hospital or health system employs its own team of HTM professionals. These are experienced biomedical technicians who understand the ins and outs of operating and maintaining lifesaving devices like ventilators, defibrillators and pumps. Common in large academic medical centers and some independent acute care hospitals, this option gives healthcare leaders direct oversight over operations and ensures alignment with the health system’s care delivery.

But finding experienced technicians can be a challenge, which is why some health systems consider an outsourced or hybrid model.

Fully outsourced HTM: The vendor-managed model

In a fully outsourced model, a third-party provider takes on end-to-end management of the HTM function, which includes staffing, compliance, asset management and, often, strategic planning of the overall HTM program.

Hospitals often turn to outsourcing because turnkey solutions from a highly skilled supplier community provide both stability and efficiency. With fixed-fee models and performance measured against clear key performance indicators, outsourcing can deliver predictable costs and reliable service levels. For health systems that may not have the resources or infrastructure to develop a fully internal program, this approach allows systems to redirect internal teams to focus on clinical priorities while ensuring consistent, high-quality patient outcomes.

The hybrid model: Best of both worlds?

But if neither are quite the right fit: A hybrid approach combines internal management with selective external support. In this model, biomedical engineering technicians maintain autonomy over their core responsibilities such as routine scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of non-imaging and low-end imaging equipment. At the same time, external resources supplement areas where additional expertise or coverage is needed, such as with high-end imaging or sterilizer support. This balance provides immediate flexibility for teams and helps staff gradually build their in-house capacity to become more self-sufficient over time.

Pulling it together: Final thoughts on a comparative snapshot

As hospitals increasingly express a desire for more creative partnerships that can be tailored to their specific circumstances, healthcare leaders should consider how an HTM model could help by evaluating:

• What are our core strengths?
• Where do we need expertise or support?
• How will our choice position us for the next 5–10 years?

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution — nor should there be. Sustaining progress in HTM requires flexibility and cost discipline — paired with inventive partnerships that expand talent capacity, improve financial performance and ultimately enhance patient care outcomes.