There has been a lot of conversation lately around vendor neutral vs agency run MSP models. Rather than debating it, it is more helpful to clarify what each model is designed to do and where they tend to perform differently.
At a high level, agency run MSPs can work well. They bring scale through a large internal talent pool, speed to submit in certain specialties, and centralized accountability within a single organization. For some health systems, that level of control and simplicity can be effective.
Vendor neutral MSPs are built differently, and that difference matters. The goal is not just to fill jobs. It is to create a balanced, transparent, and sustainable workforce model.
A true vendor neutral approach is designed to do five things.
First, drive real market competition with access to a broad supplier network. Clinicians follow opportunity, not a single channel. This helps maintain competitive pricing without inflating rates to secure talent.
Second, create transparency into where dollars actually go. With clear visibility into bill rates, margins, and pay structures, health systems can make informed decisions instead of relying on aggregated or internally influenced data.
Third, use multiple levers for fulfillment, not just rate increases. Fill rate should not depend on pay as the primary strategy. Distribution strategy, supplier mix, job design, and technology all play a role.
Fourth, align incentives with the health system, not a single supplier. The model is not built to prioritize one channel over another. It is designed to optimize cost, quality, and speed across the entire program.
Fifth, return value back to the system. When margin is not concentrated in one place, there is more flexibility to support competitive clinician pay, improve cost efficiency, and reinforce long term program sustainability.
At the end of the day, both models can deliver results. The difference between good and great often comes down to transparency versus opacity, market driven pricing versus controlled pricing, and aligned incentives versus competing incentives.
Health systems today are under too much pressure, both financially and operationally, for workforce strategy to rely on a single lever. The question is not which model works. It is which model creates the most sustainable, balanced outcome over time.
At HWL, we take a vendor neutral approach because health systems need more than job fulfillment. They need clarity, control, and long term sustainability. By combining a broad supplier network with transparent data and strategic program design, we help organizations move beyond reactive staffing and build workforce models that balance cost, quality, and access over time.