In a world grappling with rising healthcare costs, strained supply chains, and growing demands for equitable service delivery, few issues command more urgency than optimizing public health procurement. At the intersection of healthcare efficiency and strategic resource allocation stands a powerful voice, Ogechi Thelma Uzozie, a leading independent researcher based in Lagos, Nigeria. Through her co-authored study, “Achieving Value for Money in the Procurement of Health Supplies: A Strategic Approach”, Uzozie delivers a bold and data-driven roadmap that is as practical for global stakeholders as it is visionary.
The study, recently published in the IRE Journals, offers a comprehensive exploration of how healthcare systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries, can adopt more strategic, transparent, and ethical procurement practices. But far from being a theoretical piece, the study takes a grounded and solution-oriented approach. It delivers timely answers to critical questions: How do we define and measure value for money (VfM) in healthcare procurement? What strategic actions can optimize supply chains? And how can technology and ethics work hand in hand to improve outcomes?
For Uzozie, the stakes are deeply personal and institutional. “When procurement fails, patients pay the price,” she says, “whether through medicine stockouts, substandard equipment, or preventable delays. We can and must do better.”
At the heart of the study lies a reframing of procurement as not merely a transactional function, but a strategic engine capable of driving patient outcomes, institutional performance, and even national development. The researchers outline how healthcare procurement extends beyond cost savings. Instead, it should embody the three E’s: economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Uzozie and her co-authors propose a comprehensive model that assesses the total cost of ownership, quality, reliability, supplier performance, and impact on patient health.
This reframing is particularly relevant in the wake of global health emergencies like COVID-19, which revealed both the fragility and the critical importance of health supply chains. “We saw how even advanced economies struggled to procure PPE, oxygen, and testing supplies. Strategic procurement is not just a developing country issue, it is a global imperative,” Uzozie emphasizes.
The study highlights that achieving VfM requires not just price-consciousness but a multi-dimensional framework that integrates needs assessment, market intelligence, risk management, and long-term supplier relationships. Uzozie insists that procurement cannot operate in silos. “Clinical teams, administrators, suppliers, and policymakers all have a stake. Inclusive stakeholder engagement ensures the supplies we procure match the realities on the ground.”
One of the study’s most compelling sections is its emphasis on data-driven tools and performance tracking. From cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) models to procurement dashboards and supplier scorecards, Uzozie underscores the need for dynamic monitoring systems that enable healthcare administrators to continuously assess procurement performance.
These mechanisms are not mere add-ons—they are game-changers. For instance, supplier dashboards provide real-time analytics on delivery timelines, quality compliance, and cost deviations. According to the study, incorporating these tools enables institutions to anticipate problems, benchmark against global standards, and foster a culture of continuous improvement.
This approach has significant implications not only for Nigerian healthcare systems but also for institutions in the UK and USA. With both countries increasingly focused on value-based healthcare, integrating procurement metrics into health system analytics is key. The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, for example, could benefit from adopting a more holistic VfM model, especially as it navigates complex frameworks for outsourcing and vendor management. Meanwhile, U.S. hospital systems struggling with fragmented supply chains and vendor overcharges may find the proposed frameworks an essential blueprint for reform.
“Technology allows us to transcend manual inefficiencies,” Uzozie notes. “But more importantly, it gives decision-makers the visibility they need to course-correct in real time.”
Beyond diagnostics and dashboards, the study advocates for e-procurement platforms and framework agreements as cornerstones of modern procurement reform. In Uzozie’s view, digitizing procurement workflows can dramatically reduce corruption, human error, and lead times. Moreover, e-procurement systems support centralized tracking, improve auditability, and help enforce accountability across public procurement portfolios.
“Many countries have adopted e-government procurement platforms with impressive results,” she says. “From Rwanda to Chile, we’ve seen how digital transparency reduces opportunities for rent-seeking behavior. It builds trust in public institutions.”
Framework agreements—pre-arranged contracts with approved suppliers—offer another innovation. These agreements reduce the need to start from scratch for each purchase, providing flexibility in emergencies while leveraging economies of scale. For institutions in the UK’s NHS or large hospital networks in the U.S., such agreements can standardize procurement, reduce administrative burden, and ensure compliance.
However, Uzozie cautions that innovation must be implemented with care. “Technology is not a silver bullet. It must be complemented by training, institutional reform, and policies that prioritize long-term health system goals over short-term cost-cutting.”
The study does not shy away from difficult conversations around ethics and sustainability, pressing issues in a world facing climate change and widespread inequities in access to care. Uzozie calls on healthcare institutions to move beyond procurement that is merely compliant, advocating instead for sourcing strategies that are environmentally and socially responsible.
She points to the increasing availability of biodegradable packaging, energy-efficient medical devices, and fair-trade pharmaceutical partnerships as opportunities to align procurement with broader global development goals. “Procurement is not just about what we buy, but how we buy,” she stresses. “We must demand transparency from our suppliers, adhere to codes of conduct, and support vendors who uphold human rights and environmental protections.”
Ethics also extend to the process itself ensuring open bidding, conflict-of-interest safeguards, and audit trails are in place. These are not merely bureaucratic niceties but fundamental to restoring public trust in procurement institutions. As Uzozie puts it, “Opaque procurement breeds suspicion, while transparency builds legitimacy and stakeholder engagement.”
While the study is grounded in African realities, its relevance is undeniably global. In the U.S., healthcare institutions spend billions on procurement each year. Yet, cost overruns, poor vendor management, and supply chain disruptions remain rampant. The study’s emphasis on lifecycle cost analysis, strategic contracts, and performance-based metrics offers a timely corrective.
Likewise, in the UK, recent scrutiny of PPE contracts during the pandemic exposed gaps in public sector procurement. The study’s call for stronger contract oversight and outcome-focused procurement provides a much-needed reform narrative.
Furthermore, the emphasis on collaborative procurement models, where multiple hospitals or regional authorities pool resources resonates with efforts to consolidate public spending and leverage buying power. This approach has already shown promise in pooled procurement of vaccines and essential medicines across parts of Africa and Southeast Asia.
“Procurement doesn’t need to be fragmented,” says Uzozie. “Collaboration across borders, institutions, and sectors can drive down prices, stabilize markets, and promote quality.”
In its closing recommendations, the study outlines a practical agenda for healthcare practitioners, policymakers, and researchers alike. Among the top priorities: capacity building for procurement officers, embedding procurement into public health education, and investing in research on emerging technologies like AI and blockchain in procurement monitoring.
Uzozie is particularly vocal about the need for human capital development. “Even the best systems fail if the people running them are undertrained or overwhelmed. Procurement professionals should be seen as central to healthcare delivery, not back-office personnel.”
She also calls for greater academic and donor attention to the field. “There’s a glaring research gap in procurement science. We need interdisciplinary teams, economists, public health experts, IT specialists to work together to modernize procurement systems.”
Ultimately, “Achieving Value for Money in the Procurement of Health Supplies” is not just a study, it is a manifesto for smarter, fairer, and more effective healthcare systems.
Through rigorous analysis and a clear-eyed vision for reform, Ogechi Thelma Uzozie and her collaborators have done more than diagnose a problem they have offered a way forward.
In a global moment where efficiency, equity, and accountability are more critical than ever, their work offers a guiding light. “Every dollar wasted in procurement is a life potentially lost,” Uzozie concludes. “If we get procurement right, we’re not just saving money, we’re saving lives.”
