For years, genomics remained largely confined to research settings and specialised laboratories. As it enters routine clinical practice, hospitals face a different challenge: how to adopt it at scale while keeping it clinically relevant, financially sustainable, and accessible to patients. At the India Precision Health & Genomics Leadership Summit 2026, hosted by Thermo Fisher Scientific in association with The Economic Times, a panel discussion on The Hospital Business Case for Genomics Application took place.
The panel brought together Varun Sharma, Chief Strategy Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital; Dr Shuchin Bajaj, Founder Director, Ujala Cygnus Hospitals; Dr Bishnu Panigrahi, Group Head, Medical Strategy and Operations, Fortis Healthcare; and Tom Berkovits, Commercial Director, Clinical Sequencing Division, Asia Pacific & Japan, Life Sciences Solutions, Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr Shashikant Pawar, Chief Operating Officer, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, moderated the session.
Beyond the laboratory
For Varun Sharma, genomics represents more than a diagnostic technology. “I look at it as a structural force,” he said, describing genomics as a development capable of influencing the entire continuum of care, from prevention and early detection to treatment, follow-up and disease management.
As hospitals invest in genetic expertise, bioinformatics capabilities and data-driven decision-making, clinical pathways themselves begin to evolve. Treatment becomes more precise, care models change and, ultimately, hospital economics change as well. One of the most significant shifts, he argued, will be in how hospitals engage with patients.
“The moment today you have a patient, you are organised around an event or an episode. Five to ten years, this episode economics of a hospital will move towards engagement economics,” he said.
Genomics opens the possibility of continuous engagement through risk assessment, predictive screening, surveillance and long-term monitoring. In oncology, where a large share of cancers in India continue to be detected at advanced stages, earlier diagnosis could lower treatment costs while improving outcomes.
Sharma also challenged healthcare leaders to look beyond conventional financial metrics when evaluating genomics investments. “Don’t look at it from an ROI perspective. Look at it from a value on investment (VOI) perspective,” he said.
Investing with local realities in mind
For Dr Shuchin Bajaj, the discussion around genomics looks very different when viewed from smaller towns and underserved regions. Bajaj argued that before discussions on affordability and accessibility can begin, healthcare providers often face a more basic challenge: availability. In many communities, access to advanced genomic services is limited. Even where such services are available, they must be appropriate for the population they serve. He questioned whether broad genomic testing necessarily improves clinical decision-making in every setting.
“Building volume and aggregation is the first thing we need to do if it has to be successful in a country like ours,” Bajaj said.
Rather than replicating expensive infrastructure across multiple facilities, he suggested that regional hubs could aggregate samples and expertise while allowing patients to remain closer to home. Such models, supported by appropriate payer structures and cross-subsidisation where required, could make genomic services more scalable.
Measuring impact, not volume
As genomic testing becomes more widely adopted, Dr Bishnu Panigrahi argued that hospitals need a clear framework to evaluate success. He proposed four areas for assessment: clinical utility, operational efficiency, patient impact and economic value. The starting point is whether genomics actually changes patient care.
“Does it help you in identifying the right drug to give, the right dose to give, and your treatment modality?” he asked.
Operational efficiency should extend beyond laboratory turnaround times to include the entire pathway from test ordering to clinical action. How quickly genomic findings influence treatment decisions is often more meaningful than testing speed alone.
Few areas to evaluate the value of genomics are improvements in patient survival, reduced recurrence rates and better overall disease management.
“It is not how many tests that you do, but whether the test that you did had a positive impact on the outcome for the patient,” he said.
According to Panigrahi, testing can be centralised or outsourced where appropriate. Clinical decision-making cannot. He reminded the need for India-specific genomic databases and evidence as continued dependence on Western datasets will limit the full potential of precision medicine in the country.
Lessons from global adoption
Drawing on international experience, Tom Berkovits said successful genomics programmes tend to be embedded within broader healthcare systems where testing, treatment and outcomes are closely connected. “They’re managing not only the patient and the patient outcome, but they’re managing the treatment as well,” he said.
In many countries, testing and treatment are funded through separate budgets. Berkovits pointed to examples such as countries in South America, where pharmaceutical companies collaborated to fund testing programmes in areas where reimbursement mechanisms were insufficient.
He also encouraged hospitals to look beyond sequencing alone. “Everybody needs to get better at biobanking, at keeping specimens, and then being able to interrogate those samples and ask further questions down the track,” he said.
As technologies such as proteomics, spatial biology and single-cell analysis continue to advance, hospitals that preserve samples and build local data repositories will be better positioned to generate insights relevant to their own patient populations.
The real challenge ahead
As the discussion drew to a close, Dr Shashikant asked the panelists to identify the biggest hurdle preventing hospitals from scaling genomic testing from hundreds to thousands of patients. Talent emerged as the dominant concern. Sharma said the challenge is not technology but the shortage of trained professionals needed to support scale. Dr Bajaj pointed to two barriers: aligning skilled human resources and securing greater acceptance from insurers, many of whom have yet to support reimbursement models for genomic testing.
Dr Panigrahi summed that growth depends on having the right people in the right roles, backed by accountability and ownership rather than passion alone. Tom echoed concerns around shortages across the genomics workforce, from pathologists to lab technicians, while also highlighting the need for wider education among patients and clinicians to build awareness and confidence in genomics beyond oncology.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this content are those of the speaker ( except for Tom Berkovits who participated as a Thermo Fisher Scientific representative) and do not necessarily represent an endorsement, promotion, or official position of Thermo Fisher Scientific India or reflect any views of Thermo Fisher Scientific India. This content is intended for educational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. The information discussed may not be applicable to all patients or situations. Healthcare professionals should use their own clinical judgment and consult relevant guidelines before making any medical decisions.
Disclaimer: The above content is non-editorial, and TIL hereby disclaims any and all warranties, expressed or implied, relating to it, and does not guarantee, vouch for or necessarily endorse any of the content.
