Advertisement

Application of MILP to Strategic Sourcing of High-Cost Medical Devices and Supplies

  • Parimal Kulkarni
  • L. Douglas SmithEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11184)

Abstract

We discuss the application of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to assist in the development of procurement strategies for high-cost medical devices and supplies in one of the largest nonprofit health-care organization in the USA. The MILP model seeks to reduce the costs of providing necessary supplies by qualifying the organization for price discounts through volume purchasing commitments, while maintaining diversity in the supply base, adhering to physicians’ preferences for specific products, and considering ratings given to suppliers on several dimensions on vendor scorecards. With results from multiple optimization scenarios, tradeoffs among procurement costs, requirements for diversity in the supply base, and flexibility of physicians in allowing substitute devices are explored in depth. Also revealed are potential consequences of stipulating formal vendor scorecard requirements when negotiating future contracts.

References

  1. Anderson, M.G., Katz, P.B.: Strategic sourcing. Int. J. Logistics Manage. 9(1), 1–13 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belliveau, J.: 3 Most Common Healthcare Supply Chain Management Challenges (2017). https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/3-most-common-healthcare-supply-chain-management-challenges. Accessed 11 May 2017
  3. Bui, T., Yen, J., Hu, J., Sankaran, S.: A multi-attribute negotiation support system with market signaling for electronic markets. Group Decis. Negot. 10(7), 515–537 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke, G.J., Carrillo, J.E., Vakharia, A.J.: Sourcing decisions with stochastic supplier reliability and stochastic demand. Prod. Oper. Manage. 18(4), 475–484 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chai, J., Liu, J.N., Ngai, E.W.: Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(10), 3872–3885 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiChiara, J. (2016), Why Executives are Demanding Supply Chain Management Value. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://revcycleintelligence.com/news/why-executives-are-demanding-supply-chain-management-value
  7. Galankashi, M.R., Helmi, S.A., Hashemzahi, P.: Supplier selection in automobile industry: a mixed balanced scorecard–fuzzy AHP approach. Alexandria Eng. J. 55(1), 93–100 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamali, A., Ghomi, S.F., Jolai, F.: A multi-objective quantity discount and joint optimization model for coordination of a single-buyer multi-vendor supply chain. Comput. Math Appl. 72(8), 3251–3279 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., Diabat, A.: Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 355–377 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan, R., Norton, D.: The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 70(1), 71–79 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. Karsak, E.E., Dursun, M.: An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 82, 82–93 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lance, C.E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., Hoffman, B.J.: Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organ. Res. Methods 13(3), 435–455 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pan, A.C.: Allocation of order quantity among suppliers. J. Supply Chain Manage. 25(3), 36–39 (1989)Google Scholar
  14. Parlar, M., Wang, D.: Diversification under yield randomness in inventory models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 77(1), 52–74 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Papanicolas, I., Woskie, L.R., Jha, A.K.: Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 319(10), 1024–1039 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterson, R.A., Wilson, W.R.: Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 20(1), 61 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.BJC HealthcareSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations