Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2023; 15(04): 539-544
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768634
Original Article

Impact of Life Cycle Costing in Procurement of Robotic Track-Based Central Laboratory at Apex Medical Institute in India

Amitesh Khare 
1   Department of Hospital Administration, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Angel Rajan Singh 
1   Department of Hospital Administration, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Sudip Kumar Datta 
2   Department of Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Sheetal Singh
1   Department of Hospital Administration, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Anant Gupta
1   Department of Hospital Administration, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Sidhartha Satpathy
1   Department of Hospital Administration, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
D K. Sharma
3   Medical Superintendent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Ritu Gupta 
4   Department of Laboratory Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Life cycle costing is an important management tool that takes into account the implications of planning, acquiring, operating, maintaining, and disposing of an asset during its complete life cycle. A major hindrance to the procurement of expensive equipment in developing countries is the lack of a reliable framework combining and integrating all the equipment life cycle aspects into procurement process.

Methods The study was conducted from the data collected from the bids that were received for procurement of two robotic track-based central laboratories which were installed at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The procurement was done as per the guidelines laid down under General Finance Rules (GFR) 2017 following the two bid systems: technical bid and price/commercial bid.

Results A complete financial analysis of the robotic laboratory was done that involved gathering of all the pertinent financial information into one place and then using that data to analyze the feasibility of the bid. The life cycle costs of both the labs were calculated by assuming the life of equipment as 10 years and by factoring in cost of equipment including 5-year warranty, comprehensive maintenance from years 6 to 10, indicative cost of all reagents for 10 years, and indicative cost of all other consumables for 10 years.

Conclusion Results showed that the cost of equipment alone should not be the sole predictor of making purchase decisions of equipment. Further research may additionally explore differences between processes being followed in government versus private organizations, as well as national guidelines and subnational practices.

Keywords

life cycle costing - equipment procurement


Publication History

Received: 17 November 2022

Accepted: 22 March 2023

Article published online:
12 May 2023

© 2023. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hoffmann JJML. Observing an analyzer's operational life cycle: a useful management tool for clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56 (12) 1979-1980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organization. Procurement Process Resource Guide. WHO Med device Tech Ser [Internet]. 2011;32. Available from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501378_eng.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Sorenson C, Kanavos P. Medical technology procurement in Europe: a cross-country comparison of current practice and policy. Health Policy 2011; 100 (01) 43-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hinrichs S, Dickerson T, Clarkson J. Stakeholder challenges in purchasing medical devices for patient safety. J Patient Saf 2013; 9 (01) 36-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boulding H, Hinrichs-Krapels S. Factors influencing procurement behaviour and decision-making: an exploratory qualitative study in a UK healthcare provider. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 (01) 1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Madhlambudzi P, Papanagnou CI. Stakeholder identification and salience in purchasing: an empirical study from UK hospitals. Int J Healthc Technol Manag 2019; 17 (04) 213-228
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 van der Ham A, Boersma H, van Raak A, Ruwaard D, van Merode F. Identifying logistical parameters in hospitals: does literature reflect integration in hospitals? A scoping study. Health Serv Manage Res 2019; 32 (03) 158-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mohammad K, Lathwal A, Mahesh R, Satpathy S. Economic competition and its determinants in medical equipment public procurement. J Med Eng Technol 2021; 45 (03) 177-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 IRC. Life-cycle costing tools. 2013 ; Available from: www.ircwash.org/projects/life-cycle-costing-tools?tab=posts
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chang X, Zhao Y, Li Y, Bai T, Gao J, Zhao C. Cost-effectiveness of life cycle cost theory-based large medical equipment. Appl Bionics Biomech 2022;2022;
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Dhall A. (2020). Competition Issues in Public Procurement: Is Tender Design the Solution?. Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, 1, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.54425/ccijoclp.v1.13
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Beloeil H, Albaladejo P. Initiatives to broaden safety concerns in anaesthetic practice: the green operating room. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2021; 35 (01) 83-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Alhola K, Ryding SO, Salmenperä H, Busch NJ. Exploiting the potential of public procurement: opportunities for circular economy. J Ind Ecol 2019; 23 (01) 96-109
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sönnichsen SD, Clement J. Review of green and sustainable public procurement: towards circular public procurement. J Clean Prod 2020; 245: 118901
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cheela VRS, John M, Biswas WK, Dubey B. Environmental impact evaluation of current municipal solid waste treatments in India using life cycle assessment. Energies 2021; 14 (11) 1-23
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Gao L, Liu G, Zamyadi A, Wang Q, Li M. Life-cycle cost analysis of a hybrid algae-based biological desalination - low pressure reverse osmosis system. Water Res 2021; 195: 116957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McBain RK, Jerome G, Warsh J. et al. Rethinking the cost of healthcare in low-resource settings: the value of time-driven activity-based costing. BMJ Glob Health 2016; 1 (03) e000134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fernando S, Gunasekara C, Law DW, Nasvi MCM, Setunge S, Dissanayake R. Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of fly ash-rice husk ash blended alkali-activated concrete. J Environ Manage 2021; 295: 113140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Harleen Kaur, Ajay Shah, Siddhartha Srivastava. , 2021. “How elements of the Indian state purchase drugs.” Working Paper 5, xKDR
  • 20 Central TB Division, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt of India, 2019. Guidelines for the condemnation and replacement of Tuberculo- sis (TB) laboratory equipment under the Revised National Tuber- culosis Control Programme (RNTCP). Available at: https://tbcindia.gov.in/WriteReadData/l892s/9369553561Guidelines%20for%20Condemnation%20and%20replacement%20Lab%20equipment-%2030%20August%202019.pdf
  • 21 Salloom AJNH. Medical devices service life cycle cost management in Al Karak Hospital as a case study. J Accounting Marketing 2015; 04 (02) 2-9
    Google Scholar