Truthful Mechanisms for Medical Surplus Product Allocation

We analyze a resource allocation problem faced by Medical Surplus Recovery Organizations (MSROs) that recover medical surplus products to fulfill the needs of under-served healthcare facilities in developing countries. Due to the uncertain, uncontrollable supply and limited information about recipient needs, delivering the right product to the right recipient in MSRO supply chains is particularly challenging. The objective of this study is to identify strategies to improve MSROs’ value provision capability. In particular, we propose a mechanism design approach, and determine which recipient to serve at each shipping opportunity based on recipients’ reported preference rankings of different products. We find that when MSRO inventory information is shared with recipients, the only truthful mechanism is random selection among recipients, which defeats the purpose of eliciting information. Consequently, we propose two operational strategies to improve MSROs’ value provision: i) not sharing MSRO inventory information with recipients; and ii) withholding information regarding other recipients. We characterize the set of truthful mechanisms under each setting, and show that eliminating inventory and competitor information provision both improve MSROs’ value provision. Further, we investigate the value of cardinal mechanisms where recipients report their valuations. We show that in our setting, eliciting valuations has no value added beyond eliciting rankings under a wide class of implementable mechanisms. Finally, we present a calibrated numerical study based on historical data from a partner MSRO, and show that a strategy consisting of a ranking-based mechanism in conjunction with eliminating inventory and competitor information can significantly improve MSROs’ value provision.

[1]  Terry A. Taylor,et al.  Subsidizing the Distribution Channel: Donor Funding to Improve the Availability of Malaria Drugs , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Marek Pycia The Cost of Ordinality , 2014 .

[3]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Designing Efficient Infrastructural Investment and Asset Transfer Mechanisms in Humanitarian Supply Chains , 2012 .

[4]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Dynamic Allocation of Kidneys to Candidates on the Transplant Waiting List , 2000, Oper. Res..

[5]  Canice Prendergast,et al.  The Allocation of Food to Food Banks , 2015, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Josée Hansen,et al.  Medical devices: managing the mismatch : an outcome of the priority medical devices project , 2010 .

[7]  Antonio Miralles,et al.  Cardinal Bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers , 2012, J. Econ. Theory.

[8]  R. Myerson Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem , 1979 .

[9]  L. Dubins Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice : The “ Boston , 2009 .

[10]  L. V. Van Wassenhove,et al.  An Operational Mechanism Design for Fleet Management Coordination in Humanitarian Operations , 2010 .

[11]  Reza Zanjirani Farahani,et al.  Disaster Management from a POM Perspective: Mapping a New Domain , 2016 .

[12]  Stefanos A. Zenios,et al.  KDPI-Dependent Ranking Policies: Shaping the Allocation of Deceased-Donor Kidneys in the New Era , 2017 .

[13]  Jayashankar M. Swaminathan,et al.  Inventory Management in Humanitarian Operations: Impact of Amount, Schedule, and Uncertainty in Funding , 2014, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[14]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  A theory of auctions and competitive bidding , 1982 .

[15]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Medicine Donations: Matching Demand with Supply in Broken Supply Chains , 2014 .

[16]  Duncan Black,et al.  Partial justification of the Borda count , 1976 .

[17]  R. Mayer Production and operations management - 4/E , 2002 .

[18]  Itay P. Fainmesser,et al.  The Public-Housing Allocation Problem : Theory and Evidence from Pittsburgh , 2016 .

[19]  Marshall L. Fisher,et al.  Supply Chain Inventory Management and the Value of Shared Information , 2000 .

[20]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Using OR to adapt supply chain management best practices to humanitarian logistics , 2012, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[21]  P. Reny,et al.  On the failure of the linkage principle in multi-unit auctions , 1999 .

[22]  Children: reducing mortality. , 2014, Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire.

[23]  S. Board,et al.  Revealing information in auctions: the allocation effect , 2009 .

[24]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  Optimal allocation without money: an engineering approach , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Dirk Bergemann,et al.  Information in Mechanism Design , 2005 .

[26]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: The Role of the Queueing Discipline , 2004, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[27]  Eirini Spiliotopoulou,et al.  Information Reliability in Supply Chains: the Case of Multiple Retailers , 2016 .

[28]  M. Bartels,et al.  Overview of the MELD score and the UNOS adult liver allocation system. , 2007, Transplantation proceedings.

[29]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Allocation of Divisible Goods Under Lexicographic Preferences , 2012, FSTTCS.

[30]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model , 2005, Oper. Res..

[31]  Wee Meng Yeo,et al.  Effective Medical Surplus Recovery , 2017 .

[32]  Gérard P. Cachon,et al.  Capacity Choice and Allocation: Strategic Behavior and Supply Chain Performance , 1999 .

[33]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Recipient Choice Can Address the Efficiency-Equity Trade-off in Kidney Transplantation: A Mechanism Design Model , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[34]  Mark Ferguson,et al.  Building Sustainability into Humanitarian Aid Operations: An Efficient Frontier Approach to the Selection of Recipients for Medical Supplies Donation , 2013 .

[35]  Jayashankar M. Swaminathan,et al.  Multi‐Treatment Inventory Allocation in Humanitarian Health Settings under Funding Constraints , 2017 .

[36]  Mustafa Akan,et al.  A Broader View of Designing the Liver Allocation System , 2012, Oper. Res..