Market Shapers with Inder Singh
Aug 11, 2026 · 47 min · 9 segments
Hema Srinivasan, formerly the Chief Access Officer of MedAccess, a leader of CHAI’s market shaping work, and a former country director for a major pharma company, joins host Inder Singh to discuss how…
Inder SinghHost
Now, if I recall correctly, I don't believe that there's ever been any major volume guarantee ever called in global health.
I think some folks would say if there's only been one call on a guarantee and there've probably been dozens of guarantees deployed over 30, certainly that may mean you're not taking enough risk.
And if you're not taking enough risk, what are the consequences of that? So could you have unlocked more impact had you been willing to guarantee higher volumes for certain products? There's some people who would say, well, The job of being a guarantor is to take on the minimum amount of risk to achieve the impact that you want.
So it would be good if as long as we're getting to the prices that we intended to unlock, the impact is a good thing that there have been no calls.
And then I think there are some people that would say, yeah, categorically, you're not taking enough risk.
The way that you build your models is too conservative and we need to do better.
Yeah, I mean, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and it probably differs deal to deal.
There are probably some deals where our models were far too conservative and it was probably more we could have unlocked in terms of actual impact.
Had we taken on more risk, we probably could have gotten to a lower price and that actually could have made a difference in terms of patient impact.
And there are others where we had to get to the cost-effective price point we didn't need to get any lower than that.
Now, if I recall correctly, I don't believe that there's ever been any major volume guarantee ever called in global health.
I think some folks would say if there's only been one call on a guarantee and there've probably been dozens of guarantees deployed over 30, certainly that may mean you're not taking enough risk.
And if you're not taking enough risk, what are the consequences of that? So could you have unlocked more impact had you been willing to guarantee higher volumes for certain products? There's some people who would say, well, The job of being a guarantor is to take on the minimum amount of risk to achieve the impact that you want.
So it would be good if as long as we're getting to the prices that we intended to unlock, the impact is a good thing that there have been no calls.
And then I think there are some people that would say, yeah, categorically, you're not taking enough risk.
The way that you build your models is too conservative and we need to do better.
Yeah, I mean, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and it probably differs deal to deal.
There are probably some deals where our models were far too conservative and it was probably more we could have unlocked in terms of actual impact.
Had we taken on more risk, we probably could have gotten to a lower price and that actually could have made a difference in terms of patient impact.
And there are others where we had to get to the cost-effective price point we didn't need to get any lower than that.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.