4.7 Article

The value of entrant manufacturers: A study of competition and risk for donor-funded procurement of essential medicines

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 272, 期 1, 页码 292-312

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.06.027

关键词

Humanitarian logistics; Dual sourcing; Competition; Supply risks; Global health

资金

  1. William-Davidson-Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global-health purchasing organizations (POs) want to increase access to essential medicines in low-income countries. One way to purchase more medicines with limited funds is to contract with generics manufacturers, thereby increasing competition and lowering prices. However, many POs fear that these entrants are less reliable than others and increase supply risks: failure to adhere to lead times and supplier defaults may cause disruptions that result in unsuccessful medical treatments. The problem can be remedied or at least reduced if POs have a sound basis for assessing manufacturers. To this end, we develop a mathematical framework that supports decision-makers in an integrated evaluation of an entrant's effect on purchasing costs and supply risks. Our approach accounts for the characteristics of donor-funded global-health markets and the particular tasks and specific challenges of POs in these markets. More specifically, our approach enables a PO to quantify a potential entrant's value depending on important characteristics of the incumbent and the entrant manufacturer. We use data from a project for donor-funded procurement of Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (DMPA) of two large POs. Our results show the feasibility of our approach for POs, manufacturers, and philanthropic investors in the global-health domain, and we explore the trade-off between competition and supply risks and provide insights into how the entrant's value is affected by parameters like production costs, capacity, lead time and default risk, and in-country registration. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据