What investors need to handle medical waste

• Generally speaking not all hospital waste is hazardous. It can be broadly classified into three groups: non-contaminable, potentially contaminable and contaminable.
• After a recent mapping of facilities with such equipment, it shows that this “product penetration” is still low. Often, facilities cannot afford to buy own incinerators especially in rural areas.
• Today, 75 per cent of our facilities are clinics whose waste volume generation do not warrant owning an incinerator. They will need the equipment occasionally, meaning that while owning is good, it is impractical. If it happened, costs will go up and are transferred to patients.

A challenge facing most medical entrepreneurs thinking expansion is medical waste disposal. While it is possible for a small outpatient clinic to thrive without sophisticated equipment like incinerators, those offering casualty services must have them.

This is so because wounds and injuries will be encountered and if in a busy setup the volume of waste will be high.

Generally speaking not all hospital waste is hazardous. It can be broadly classified into three groups: non-contaminable, potentially contaminable and contaminable.

An example of the first class is medical supplies packaging; the second includes non-reusable items and devices with no blood or tissue contact. Lastly, human tissue and most lab waste contaminated objects. The volume for each increases as the level of specialty goes up.

After a recent mapping of facilities with such equipment, it shows that this “product penetration” is still low. Often, facilities cannot afford to buy own incinerators especially in rural areas.

Today, 75 per cent of our facilities are clinics whose waste volume generation do not warrant owning an incinerator. They will need the equipment occasionally, meaning that while owning is good, it is impractical. If it happened, costs will go up and are transferred to patients.

However, some private and public hospitals have incinerators not being used optimally. Allowing others to use it at a fee would help both parties.

One school of thought is, however, against this especially when it comes to private enterprises using “subsidised” public equipment. The ramifications of such a policy have repercussions on public health.

If facilities were barred from operating because of this, the public ones would be overwhelmed. A common misconception is that public facilities handle more patients. Overall “private” OPD visits outnumber public facility ones 3:1.

As a requirement, some facilities opt to go ahead with such investments despite low waste volumes. This means cost of services is raised. Just like we are now advocating for facilities to pool vehicles, a similar model could be replicated here.

Already in Nairobi, a leading facility is “hiring out” its incinerator. Fears of competition should be banished because as a contributory factor in influencing clients’ hospital selection, sharing such equipment ranks very low. The same applies for sharing ambulances and staff transport.

However, it isn’t just hospitals that should think about such an idea. Private waste disposal companies should also think about venturing here.

Perhaps the municipal and county councils could include this as a premium public utility service. What they need is special vehicles, special containers, and special equipment.

One way of going around this is specialisation such that equipment vendors leave waste disposal to another group. They also should pick up a new model and set up their own medical waste disposal franchises when sales are low.

Any product that stays in the shelf for too long is just tying up capital.