DenQAIPatient-centered ownership

Independent scale · Purchasing and vendor control

Make every cost, promise, safety question, and commercial relationship visible.

Use the workbench for one practice today—or to learn what a transparent shared purchasing pilot should require later. It calculates costs, identifies missing records, and preserves clinical choice. It does not rank vendors, approve products, negotiate prices, or create a buying group.

Open the workbenchDownload the guided Excel workbook ↓

Before you enter numbers

Know the question, gather the records, and choose how deep to go.

Decide whether the entered offers are truly comparable, which costs are documented, which are scenarios, whether the vendor or GPO relationship is supportable, and which records remain missing.

First useful review
25–40 minutes for a first comparison
What you receive
A plain-language comparison of documented landed cost and separately labeled scenario cost, plus open records, safety checks, and launch-readiness questions
1

Gather these first

  • Written quotes for the exact configuration and same annual volume
  • Package size, unit of measure, expected usable units, freight, tax, fees, rebates, and recurring costs
  • Source, regulatory, lot/expiration, storage, recall, warranty, service, substitution, and acceptance records
  • GPO or buying-club membership, renewal, commitment, rebate, data-use, sponsorship, and exit terms
2

Guided review

Start here if you are learning the decision or do not have every record yet.

  • Replace the three fictional offers with coded alternatives.
  • Enter one annual volume and usable-unit definition.
  • Read documented landed cost per usable unit, then inspect the separate scenario costs.
  • Open only the sourcing checks that could reverse the purchase.
3

Detailed review

Use this after the first result, or with advisers and stronger records.

  • Review every GPO, rebate, data, service, and exit term.
  • Test the hypothetical member-control and governance ideal.
  • Carry unresolved records and pause conditions to qualified reviewers.
  • Use Excel or the advanced files only after the on-page summary is understood.
Your output order
  1. Read and print the plain-language result on this page.
  2. Download the Excel decision workbook when one is available.
  3. Save a DenQAI project file if you want to reopen your inputs.
  4. Use raw CSV only for advanced data work.

Three terms that prevent false savings

Normalize the denominator before comparing the discount.

Documented landed cost includes invoice-supported price, freight, tax, fees, and rush cost, less only rebates actually received for the same period.

Purchasing scenario cost keeps estimated labor, storage, waste, returns, downtime, recurring dependencies, training, and optional exit assumptions visible without presenting them as paid invoice facts.

Unit normalization makes package sizes and usable quantities comparable. A cheaper box can still cost more per usable unit.

Rebate realization separates a promised rebate from money or credit actually received for the same period. The workbench deducts only the latter.

Local purchasing workbench · fictional example loaded

Compare the whole relationship without letting the tool choose the vendor.

Normalize one annual volume, keep promised rebates separate from money received, clear sourcing and governance checks individually, and preserve a record another reviewer can challenge.

Privacy and competition boundary

Use coded offers and aggregate assumptions only.

No patient data, credentials, identifiable competitor strategy, payer fees, confidential contracts, or unredacted quotes belong here. DenQAI does not receive or store this project.

No blocked pattern detected

This automated screen is limited. You remain responsible for the file.

1 · Scope and owner mandate

Define what is being compared before entering a price.

Patient-centered purchasing mandate

2 · Three comparable offers

Normalize package size, usable units, annual volume, service, labor, waste, rebates, and exit.

Select one coded offer to edit. The comparison below preserves every included offer without ranking or recommendation.

Annual volume and usable units

Documented invoice costs

Scenario assumptions—not invoice costs

Rebates and exit

Quote evidence

Annual item spend$9,840

Packages × price before other costs.

Documented landed cost$10,470

Invoice cost, freight, tax, documented fees, and received rebates only.

Documented usable-unit cost$4.4515

2,352 modeled usable units.

Separate scenario costs$1,133

Labor, storage, waste, problem handling, downtime, and recurring assumptions.

Modeled total cost$11,603

Documented landed cost plus the separate scenario.

Undelivered promised rebate$600

Shown as an evidence gap, not a discount.

3 · Plain-language decision summary

Read the whole comparison before opening advanced data.

These are calculated cost views, not vendor rankings. Quality, patient safety, clinical suitability, support, evidence, data, and exit remain separate.

Included offerAnnual item spendDocumented landed costDocumented unit costAnnual scenario3-year modeled costWith optional exitQuote evidence
Coded offer A$9,840$10,470$4.4515$1,133$34,808$34,808Open
Coded offer B$9,240$10,530$4.477$1,766$36,887$36,887Open
Coded offer C$10,320$9,970$4.2389$1,087$33,172$33,172Open

Calculation rule: documented landed cost includes item spend, freight, tax, documented fees, rush cost, and rebates actually received. Labor, storage, waste, problem handling, downtime, recurring costs, installation, and exit remain separately labeled assumptions. Promised rebates are never deducted until received.

4 · Risk-tiered sourcing

A cheaper box does not clear identity, provenance, regulatory, traceability, storage, recall, warranty, substitution, acceptance, or data questions.

Exact identity and configurationOpen
Authorized source and product provenanceOpen
Regulatory status and labelingOpen
Lot, expiration, condition, and quantityOpen
Storage and handling requirementsOpen
Recall, correction, and complaint processOpen
Warranty, service, parts, and downtime supportOpen
Substitution and clinical-exception authorityOpen
Acceptance testing, training, data, and exitOpen

5 · GPO or buying-club review

Document the complete membership economics and purchasing freedom. If a row truly does not apply, record the reason and reviewer instead of leaving it blank.

Membership fee and complete funding modelOpen
Term, renewal, and notice datesOpen
Minimum spend, volume, or category commitmentOpen
Freedom to purchase elsewhereOpen
Item-level prices and comparable configurationsOpen
Rebates, credits, administrative fees, and recipientOpen
Vendor selection, paid placement, and sponsorshipOpen
Data collection, use, sharing, retention, and deletionOpen
Savings baseline, denominator, period, and exclusionsOpen
Termination, portability, open orders, and surviving dutiesOpen
Hypothetical educational ideal · not a live DenQAI service or legal safe harbor

6 · Shared-infrastructure readiness

This models what transparent, owner-controlled infrastructure should prove before launch. Actual structure remains fact-specific and requires current antitrust, privacy, contracting, security, tax, and professional review.

Member control and reserved powersOpen
Clinical autonomy and exception processOpen
Commercial transparency and conflictsOpen
No-pay-to-rank and vendor-selection independenceOpen
Data minimization, security, audit, and portabilityOpen
Competition boundary and independent practice decisionsOpen
Fact-specific legal and professional reviewOpen
Operating capacity, funding, complaints, and correctionOpen
Member exit, continuity, dissolution, and record returnOpen
7open controls
  1. Coded offer A: 600.00 of promised annual rebate has not been entered as actually received and is not deducted.
  2. Coded offer A: the quote, configuration, period, and limitations have not been independently reviewed with a supporting record.
  3. Coded offer B: the quote, configuration, period, and limitations have not been independently reviewed with a supporting record.
  4. Coded offer C: the quote, configuration, period, and limitations have not been independently reviewed with a supporting record.
  5. 9 sourcing and patient-safety check(s) remain open. High-consequence sourcing requires the strongest identity, provenance, traceability, storage, recall, service, and clinical review.
  6. 10 GPO or buying-club term(s) remain unresolved or lack a documented not-applicable reason.
  7. 9 hypothetical shared-infrastructure launch gate(s) remain open. The educational ideal is not authorization to operate.

7 · Readable output first

Print the summary, use the guided Excel workbook, then save the project.

The project file reopens these inputs on your device. Raw CSV is preserved only for advanced analysis and is not the recommended reading format.

Purchasing and vendor decision workbook

Separate sheets for instructions, quote inputs, calculations, sourcing, GPO terms, the hypothetical charter, questions, definitions, and sources.

Download Excel workbook
Advanced data · not the recommended reading format

Formula-safe CSV files are for advisers or software. They do not include the readable page layout.

Fictional example loaded. Replace every item, quote, period, cost, and document.

Current legal status

No historical formula is treated as permission.

What the federal sources establish
  • The 2000 competitor-collaboration guidelines were withdrawn in 2024.
  • The older healthcare policy statements were withdrawn in 2023.
  • FTC and DOJ opened a 2026 inquiry about possible updated collaboration guidance.
What they do not establish
  • That this hypothetical pilot is lawful for a particular market or membership.
  • That purchasing cooperation permits payer-price coordination or competitive-strategy sharing.
  • That a label such as cooperative, GPO, network, or shared services supplies a safe harbor.
2026 FTC/DOJ inquiry ↗2024 withdrawal ↗Read DenQAI source limits