Case 4 Apple Valley

This is a sample of the instructor resources for Cases in Healthcare Finance, Fourth Edition by Louis Gapenski. This sample contains the case questions, case solutions, instructor model, and PowerPoints for Chapter 4. The complete instructor resources consist of 268 pages of instructor’s notes including case questions and case solutions; instructor model spreadsheets; and 623 PowerPoint slides. If you adopt this text you will be given access to complete materials. To obtain access, e-mail your request to [email protected] and include the following information in your message:

• Book title • Your name and institution name • Title of the course for which the book was adopted and season course is taught • Course level (graduate, undergraduate, or continuing education) and expected enrollment • The use of the text (primary, supplemental, or recommended reading) • A contact name and phone number/e-mail address we can use to verify your employment

as an instructor

You will receive an e-mail containing access information after we have verified your instructor status. Thank you for your interest in this text and the accompanying instructor resources.

Cases in Healthcare Finance Case Questions

© Health Administration Press, 2010. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

CASE 4 QUESTIONS

APPLE VALLEY FAMILY PRACTICE Cost Allocation Methods

1. Briefly describe the differences in the four allocation methods discussed in the case. (Hint:

Don’t discuss the mathematics of the schemes, but rather how they differ conceptually.) Which of the four methods is conceptually the most reasonable?

2. What are the allocations to each patient services department, and resulting profitability, under

the four allocation methods using the base case cost amounts (Exhibit 4.1) and allocation rates (Exhibit 4.2)?

3. Now consider the sensitivity of the results to changes in the values of the overhead cost pools.

Repeat Question 2, but now use the overhead cost pool amounts from the first section of Exhibit 4.3 along with the base case allocation percentages contained in Exhibit 4.2. (Note the two different overhead cost pool amounts: Calculation 1 and Calculation 2.)

4. Now consider the sensitivity of the results to changes in the allocation percentages. Repeat

Question 2, but now use the percentages from Exhibit 4.3 along with the base case overhead cost pool amounts given in Exhibit 4.1.

5. Assess the sensitivity of patient services department profitability to: a. The allocation method b. The relative sizes of the overhead cost pools c. The allocation rates 6. What does the analysis indicate about the true (but not really observable) profitability of each

patient services department? 7. What is your recommendation regarding the appropriate cost allocation method for the

practice?

Cases in Healthcare Finance Case 4 Solution

Copyright 2010 Health Administration Press Case 4 - 1

CASE 4 SOLUTION (8/26/09) Copyright 2010 by FACHE

APPLE VALLEY FAMILY PRACTICE

Cost Allocation Methods Case Information Type This case is nondirected, in that it does not contain a specific list of questions that students must answer. Rather, it contains general guidance or concerns expressed by various parties that students should consider when developing their solutions. If you, as the instructor, want to convert this case to a directed case, you may provide your students with the applicable questions for this case in the Case Questions section of the online material for instructors. Purpose This case requires students to apply four different allocation methods (direct, step-down, double apportionment, and reciprocal) to the situation at a large group practice. The purpose is to give students some feel for how much variation in final allocation amounts is due to methodological differences. Of course, the results depend on the assumptions of the case, so there is no guarantee that the conclusions reached here are applicable to all situations. Complexity This case is relatively straightforward, but the calculations are complex and time consuming if the case is attempted without the accompanying model. Model Description The model takes much of the busywork out of the case, enabling students to spend more time on interpretation and evaluation. Like most case models, the student and instructor versions differ only in regard to the input data. The instructor’s version contains the complete base case inputs, while these inputs are zeroed out in the student version of the model.

The model for this case takes the input data (cost pool values and allocation rates) and allocates overhead costs from the three overhead departments to the three patient services departments using all four allocation methods. Additionally, the model calculates the profitability of each patient services department under each allocation method.

The model’s (instructor’s version) Input Data and Key Output sections are as follows:

Case 4 Solution Cases in Healthcare Finance


Case Solution Because the case is nondirected, students have ample opportunity to be creative in their solution approaches. Thus, it is impossible to provide a single solution here that applies to every student’s work. As a starting point in evaluating students’ solutions, we provide a solution based on the questions in the online Case Questions section. However, this solution is merely a starting point, and student work should be graded at least as much on thought processes, assumptions used, creativity, and the ability to express ideas coherently as on the resulting numerical answers. Also, some questions address conceptual issues that most students understand but typically would not include in a case presentation/write-up. Such questions are ideal for instructors to use to extend the case discussion when students are working with the nondirected versions. These questions may be directed to the presenting team, if team presentations are used, or offered to the class in general. 1. Briefly describe the differences in the four allocation methods discussed in the case. (Hint:

Don’t discuss the mathematics of the schemes, but rather how they differ conceptually.) Which of the four methods is conceptually the most reasonable?

INPUT DATA: KEY OUTPUT:

Revenues: Profit and Loss Statements:

Adult Medicine 12,000,000$ Direct Method:Obstetrics 6,000,000 A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics AggregatePediatrics 2,000,000 Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Total revenues 20,000,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$

Indirect costs 4,284,559 1,267,647 1,647,794 7,200,000 Direct Costs: Total costs 10,284,559$ 4,867,647$ 2,847,794$ 18,000,000$

Pre-tax profit 1,715,441$ 1,132,353$ (847,794)$ 2,000,000$ Patient Services Departments:Adult Medicine 6,000,000$ Step-Down Method:Obstetrics 3,600,000 A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics AggregatePediatrics 1,200,000 Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Subtotal 10,800,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ Support Departments: Indirect costs 4,273,977 1,333,041 1,592,982 7,200,000 Administration 1,000,000 Total costs 10,273,977$ 4,933,041$ 2,792,982$ 18,000,000$ Facilities 4,400,000 Pre-tax profit 1,726,023$ 1,066,959$ (792,982)$ 2,000,000$ Finance 1,800,000 Subtotal 7,200,000$ Double Apportionment Method: Total costs 18,000,000$ A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate

Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Allocation Matrix: Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$

Indirect costs 4,236,594 1,340,336 1,623,070 7,200,000 Services Percentage of Services Provided by Total costs 10,236,594$ 4,940,336$ 2,823,070$ 18,000,000$ Provided to Administration Facilities Finance Pre-tax profit 1,763,406$ 1,059,664$ (823,070)$ 2,000,000$

Administration 5% 5% Reciprocal Method:Facilities 10% 5% A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics AggregateFinance 10% 10% Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Adult Medicine 35% 55% 50% Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ Obstetrics 20% 10% 25% Indirect costs 4,234,315 1,336,297 1,629,388 7,200,000 Pediatriacs 25% 20% 15% Total costs 10,234,315$ 4,936,297$ 2,829,388$ 18,000,000$ Total 100% 100% 100% Pre-tax profit 1,765,685$ 1,063,703$ (829,388)$ 2,000,000$



The four methods differ in how intra-support department allocations are handled and, consequently, in complexity. The direct method assumes that support departments provide services only to patient services departments. Thus, no intra-support department services are recognized, even though such services exist. This simplifying assumption makes the direct method the easiest to apply but the weakest conceptually. The step-down method recognizes some intra-support department services, but it does so in a relatively simplistic way. In this method, the support department that provides the most services to the other support departments is allocated first (to support and patient services departments). Then the department is closed, and the process steps down to the support department that provides the next highest amount of services to other support departments. Because support departments are closed out in each step, there is no opportunity to allocate support costs back to the departments that have already closed. Thus, this method is not as complex as the remaining two to implement in practice, but it is superior conceptually to the direct method. The double apportionment method first allocates each support department to all other departments, so each support department receives an allocation from all other support departments. After the initial allocation (the first apportionment), the step-down method is used to allocate the costs that remain in the support departments after the first apportionment, which for all support departments consists of direct costs and allocations from other support departments. This method better recognizes intra-support department relationships than do the first two, but it adds complexity. Finally, the reciprocal method uses a system of simultaneous equations (or a number of iterations) to allocate overhead costs simultaneously among support and patient services departments. This method is the most complex, but it does the best job of recognizing intra-support department services. Conceptually, the reciprocal method is best. The double apportionment method is next best, followed by the step-down method and, finally, the direct method. Although the direct method is conceptually the weakest, it is the easiest and least costly to implement. As in most situations, greater accuracy comes at a cost—the greater the accuracy of the allocation method, the greater the implementation cost (and the more difficult it is to explain to department heads and other interested parties). 2. What are the allocations to each patient services department, and resulting profitability, under

the four allocation methods using the base case cost amounts (Exhibit 4.1) and allocation rates (Exhibit 4.2)?

The base case allocations and profit forecasts are summarized in the following table.



Under base case conditions, as the allocation method moves from the direct method to the reciprocal method, the allocation of indirect costs mostly decreases to Adult Medicine, increases to Obstetrics, and exhibits random fluctuations to Pediatrics. However, as we discuss in the answer to Question 5, changing allocation methods does not materially change the resulting profitability. 3. Now consider the sensitivity of the results to changes in the values of the overhead cost pools.

Repeat Question 2, but now use the overhead cost pool amounts from the first section of Exhibit 4.3 along with the base case allocation percentages contained in Exhibit 4.2. (Note that there are two different overhead cost pool amounts: Calculation 1 and Calculation 2.)

In this sensitivity analysis, allocation rates are held at their base case values and the cost pool amounts are changed. In the base case, Facilities has by far the largest cost pool. In Calculation 1,

Direct Method:A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate

Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ Indirect costs 4,284,559 1,267,647 1,647,794 7,200,000 Total costs 10,284,559$ 4,867,647$ 2,847,794$ 18,000,000$ Pre-tax profit 1,715,441$ 1,132,353$ (847,794)$ 2,000,000$

Step-Down Method:A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate


Double Apportionment Method:A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate


Reciprocal Method:A. Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate




Administration has the largest cost pool, while in Calculation 2, Finance has the largest cost pool. Here are the results: Calculation 1:

Calculation 2


Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ Indirect costs 3,572,059 1,717,647 1,910,294 7,200,000 Total costs 9,572,059$ 5,317,647$ 3,110,294$ 18,000,000$ Pre-tax profit 2,427,941$ 682,353$ (1,110,294)$ 2,000,000$









In the base case, Facilities has the largest cost pool. In Calculation 1, Administration has the largest cost pool, while in Calculation 2, Finance has the largest. Because Adult Medicine uses the largest amount of Facilities services, its profitability increases substantially when Facilities costs are shifted to Administration. When Facilities costs are shifted to Finance, Adult Medicine’s profitability also increases, but not as much. Conversely, Obstetrics uses the least Facilities services, so its profitability decreases when overhead costs are shifted away from Facilities and into Administration and Finance. The impact of Pediatrics is not as clear-cut: Its profitability lessens when Administration has the largest cost pool, but improves when Finance has the largest. 4. Now consider the sensitivity of the results to changes in the allocation percentages. Repeat

Question 2, but now use the percentages from Exhibit 4.3 along with the base case overhead cost pool amounts given in Exhibit 4.1.


Revenues 12,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ Indirect costs 4,046,650 1,683,987 1,469,363 7,200,000 Total costs 10,046,650$ 5,283,987$ 2,669,363$ 18,000,000$ Pre-tax profit 1,953,350$ 716,013$ (669,363)$ 2,000,000$









The biggest change here is that the overhead departments are using a much greater proportion of services from one another (50 percent) than in the base case (15 percent). Here are the results: Calculation 3

This change in allocation rates results in increased profitability to Adult Medicine, which uses the largest amount of overhead services, and decreased profitability to Obstetrics, which uses only a small amount of Facilities services. Shifting overhead amounts from patient services departments to overhead departments benefits the patient services department that uses the most overhead services. Still, the results are not significantly different from those of the base case. The ten iterations in the model are now insufficient to complete the allocation under the reciprocal method, so that method shows $13 less in indirect costs, and hence $13 more in aggregate profit, than do the other methods.











5. Assess the sensitivity of patient services department profitability to: a. The allocation method b. The relative sizes of the overhead cost pools c. The allocation rates There are many ways to answer this question. In the matrix below, the changes in profitability from the reciprocal method (which is assumed to be the best) are listed using the base case inputs regarding allocation rates and cost pool values. This provides some feel for the impact of a change in allocation methods on departmental profitability, holding other factors constant. Allocation Method Department Direct Step-Down Double Apportionment

Adult Medicine −2.8% −2.2% −0.1% Obstetrics 6.5 0.3 -0.4 Pediatrics −2.2 4.4 0.8 The findings are as we expected—in general the greatest deviation from the reciprocal method occurs in the direct method, while the least deviation occurs with the double apportionment method. As the complexity of the allocation method increases (and the method better allocates intra-overhead department costs), the differences from the reciprocal method results decrease. The next table examines the differences from the base case profitability under the three alternatives examined in Questions 3 and 4 above. To keep things simple, we have listed only the reciprocal method. Alternative Analysis Department Calculation1 Calculation 2 Calculation 3

Adult Medicine 8.7% 10.9% 7.3% Obstetrics -32.6 - 31.8 -13.3 Pediatrics -24.1 17.6 1.5 Here we see that changing the assumptions about the relative sizes of the cost pools and allocation rates can have a significant effect on the resulting profitability. However, this is not a great concern, because these factors are driven by the operating economics of the business, as opposed to arbitrary decisions made by managers regarding which allocation method is used. 6. What does the analysis indicate about the true (but not really observable) profitability of each

patient services department? Over a wide range of assumptions regarding the relative sizes of the cost pools and the allocation rates, we find that Adult Medicine and Obstetrics are profitable, while Pediatrics is not. Thus, the inherent operations of Pediatrics must be examined to see if Westside’s management can take any actions to improve this department’s profitability. However, at least under the revenue and cost framework used in the managerial accounting system, Pediatrics probably is inherently unprofitable. This does not necessarily mean that department closure should be considered. The department may be vital to the practice’s mission, and the practice therefore may be willing to subsidize the losses with profits from the



other two patient services departments. More probably, the true economic contribution of Pediatrics to the organization is not being adequately measured. For example, Pediatrics may be instrumental in creating patient demand for Obstetrics and Adult Medicine. If Pediatrics were closed and patient demand fell significantly, the loss in aggregate profit from falling volume could exceed the losses realized by Pediatrics. If this is the case, Pediatrics is financially justifiable in spite of the losses it shows on the managerial accounting profit and loss statements. 7. What is your recommendation regarding the appropriate cost allocation method for the

practice? Without more information about the current cost accounting system, it is impossible to make an informed decision. However, if the reciprocal method can be implemented without an undue increase in accounting costs, it is preferred. If not, the double apportionment method should be considered. If this is not feasible, the step-down method could be implemented without losing over 5 percent of the accuracy inherent in the reciprocal method. Even the direct method introduces only a 6.5 percent inaccuracy. Another consideration is any third-party payer requirements. For example, hospitals are required to use the step-down method for Medicare cost reporting, which drives most hospitals to use that method in their managerial accounting systems. Similar requirements for group practices, if they exist, could influence the final decision.

CASE 4 Instructor Version Copyright 2018/18/09 by FACHE

APPLE VALLEY FAMILY PRACTICE Cost Allocation Methods

This case illustrates the use of four cost allocation methods: direct, step-down, doubleapportionment, and reciprocal. The model calculates the overhead allocations forall four methods on the basis of cost pool and resource use data that is entered as input.In addition, the model calculates pro forma profit and loss statements for the three patientservices departments.

The model consists of a complete base case analysis--no changes need to be madeto the existing MODEL-GENERATED DATA section. However, in the student version allvalues in the INPUT DATA section have been replaced with zeros. Thus, students mustenter the appropriate input values into the red cells that currently contain a zero or hyphen.When this is done, any error cells will be corrected and the base case solution will appear.Note that the model does not contain any uncertainty analyses, so students will have tocreate their own if required by the case. Furthermore, students must create their owngraphics ouput (charts) as needed to present their results.

INPUT DATA: KEY OUTPUT:

Revenues: Profit and Loss Statements:

Adult Medicine 12,000,000$ Direct Method:Obstetrics 6,000,000 A. MedicinePediatrics 2,000,000 Revenues 12,000,000$ Total revenues 20,000,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$

Indirect costs 4,284,559 Direct Costs: Total costs 10,284,559$

Pre-tax profit 1,715,441$ Patient Services Departments:Adult Medicine 6,000,000$ Step-Down Method:Obstetrics 3,600,000 A. MedicinePediatrics 1,200,000 Revenues 12,000,000$ Subtotal 10,800,000$ Direct costs 6,000,000$ Support Departments: Indirect costs 4,273,977 Administration 1,000,000 Total costs 10,273,977$ Facilities 4,400,000 Pre-tax profit 1,726,023$ Finance 1,800,000 Subtotal 7,200,000$ Double Apportionment Method: Total costs 18,000,000$ A. Medicine

Revenues 12,000,000$ Allocation Matrix: Direct costs 6,000,000$

Indirect costs 4,236,594 Services Percentage of Services Provided by Total costs 10,236,594$ Provided to Administration Facilities Finance Pre-tax profit 1,763,406$

Administration 5% 5% Reciprocal Method:Facilities 10% 5% A. MedicineFinance 10% 10% Revenues 12,000,000$ Adult Medicine 35% 55% 50% Direct costs 6,000,000$ Obstetrics 20% 10% 25% Indirect costs 4,234,315 Pediatriacs 25% 20% 15% Total costs 10,234,315$ Total 100% 100% 100% Pre-tax profit 1,765,685$

MODEL-GENERATED DATA:

DIRECT METHOD:Adult Medicine Obstetrics Pediatrics PS Total

Administration allocation 437,500$ 250,000$ 312,500$ 1,000,000$ Facilities allocation 2,847,059 517,647 1,035,294 4,400,000 Finance allocation 1,000,000 500,000 300,000 1,800,000 Total 4,284,559$ 1,267,647$ 1,647,794$ 7,200,000$

STEP-DOWN METHOD:Administration Facilities Finance Adult Medicine Obstetrics

Administration allocation 100,000$ 100,000$ 350,000$ 200,000$ Facilities allocation 473,684 2,605,263 473,684 Finance allocation 1,318,713 659,357 Total 4,273,977$ 1,333,041$

DOUBLE APPORTIONMENT METHOD: First Apportionment:

Administration Facilities Finance Adult Medicine ObstetricsAdministration allocation 100,000$ 100,000$ 350,000$ 200,000$ Facilities allocation 220,000 440,000 2,420,000 440,000 Finance allocation 90,000 90,000 900,000 450,000 Total 310,000$ 190,000$ 540,000$ 3,670,000$ 1,090,000$

Second Apportionment:Administration Facilities Finance Adult Medicine Obstetrics

Administration allocation 31,000$ 31,000$ 108,500$ 62,000$ Facilities allocation 23,263 127,947 23,263 Finance allocation 330,146 165,073

Carry-over from 1st Appor. 3,670,000 1,090,000 Total 4,236,594$ 1,340,336$

RECIPROCAL METHOD:

Administration Facilities Finance Adult Medicine Obstetrics First Allocation:

Direct costs 1,000,000$ 4,400,000$ 1,800,000$ -$ -$ Administration allocation (1,000,000) 100,000 100,000 350,000 200,000 Subtotal -$ 4,500,000$ 1,900,000$ 350,000$ 200,000$ Facilities allocation 225,000 (4,500,000) 450,000 2,475,000 450,000 Subtotal 225,000$ -$ 2,350,000$ 2,825,000$ 650,000$ Finance allocation 117,500 117,500 (2,350,000) 1,175,000 587,500 Total 342,500$ 117,500$ -$ 4,000,000$ 1,237,500$

Second Allocation:

Costs brought forward 342,500$ 117,500$ -$ 4,000,000$ 1,237,500$ Administration allocation (342,500) 34,250 34,250 119,875 68,500 Subtotal -$ 151,750$ 34,250$ 4,119,875$ 1,306,000$ Facilities allocation 7,588 (151,750) 15,175 83,463 15,175 Subtotal 7,588$ -$ 49,425$ 4,203,338$ 1,321,175$ Finance allocation 2,471 2,471 (49,425) 24,713 12,356 Total 10,059$ 2,471$ -$ 4,228,050$ 1,333,531$

Third Allocation:

Costs brought forward 10,059$ 2,471$ -$ 4,228,050$ 1,333,531$ Administration allocation (10,059) 1,006 1,006 3,521 2,012 Subtotal -$ 3,477$ 1,006$ 4,231,571$ 1,335,543$ Facilities allocation 174 (3,477) 348 1,912 348 Subtotal 174$ -$ 1,354$ 4,233,483$ 1,335,891$ Finance allocation 68 68 (1,354) 677 338 Total 242$ 68$ -$ 4,234,160$ 1,336,229$

Fourth Allocation:

Costs brought forward 242$ 68$ -$ 4,234,160$ 1,336,229$ Administration allocation (242) 24 24 85 48 Subtotal -$ 92$ 24$ 4,234,244$ 1,336,277$ Facilities allocation 5 (92) 9 51 9 Subtotal 5$ -$ 33$ 4,234,295$ 1,336,287$ Finance allocation 2 2 (33) 17 8

Total 6$ 2$ -$ 4,234,311$ 1,336,295$

Fifth Allocation:

Costs brought forward 6$ 2$ -$ 4,234,311$ 1,336,295$ Administration allocation (6) 1 1 2 1 Subtotal -$ 2$ 1$ 4,234,314$ 1,336,296$ Facilities allocation 0 (2) 0 1 0 Subtotal 0$ -$ 1$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,296$ Finance allocation 0 0 (1) 0 0 Total 0$ 0$ -$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,297$

Sixth Allocation:


Seventh Allocation:


Eighth Allocation:


Ninth Allocation:

Costs brought forward 0$ 0$ -$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,297$

Administration allocation (0) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal -$ 0$ 0$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,297$ Facilities allocation 0 (0) 0 0 0 Subtotal 0$ -$ 0$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,297$ Finance allocation 0 0 (0) 0 0 Total 0$ 0$ -$ 4,234,315$ 1,336,297$

Tenth Allocation:


10

Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$ 1,267,647 1,647,794 7,200,000 4,867,647$ 2,847,794$ 18,000,000$ 1,132,353$ (847,794)$ 2,000,000$


Obstetrics Pediatrics Aggregate6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 10,800,000$

1,340,336 1,623,070 7,200,000 4,940,336$ 2,823,070$ 18,000,000$ 1,059,664$ (823,070)$ 2,000,000$


Pediatrics PS Total250,000$ 800,000$ 947,368 4,026,316 395,614 2,373,684

1,592,982$ 7,200,000$

Pediatrics PS Total250,000$ 1,000,000$ 880,000 4,400,000 270,000 1,800,000

1,400,000$ 7,200,000$

Pediatrics PS Total77,500$ 248,000$ 46,526 197,737 99,044 594,263

1,400,000 6,160,000 1,623,070$ 7,200,000$

Pediatrics Total

-$ 250,000 250,000$ 900,000

1,150,000$ 352,500

1,502,500$ 6,740,000$ Unallocated = 460,000$

1,502,500$ 85,625

1,588,125$ 30,350

1,618,475$ 7,414

1,625,889$ 7,187,470$ Unallocated = 12,530$

1,625,889$ 2,515

1,628,403$ 695

1,629,099$ 203

1,629,302$ 7,199,691$ Unallocated = 309$

1,629,302$ 60

1,629,362$ 18

1,629,381$ 5

1,629,386$ 7,199,992$ Unallocated = 8$

1,629,386$ 2

1,629,387$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 7,200,000$ Unallocated = 0$

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 7,200,000$ Unallocated = 0$

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 7,200,000$ Unallocated = 0$

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 7,200,000$ Unallocated = 0$

1,629,388$

0 1,629,388$

0 1,629,388$

0 1,629,388$ 7,200,000$

Unallocated = 0$

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 0

1,629,388$ 7,200,000$ Unallocated = 0$

END

4 - 1

CASE 4

APPLE VALLEY FAMILY PRACTICE(Cost Allocation Methods)

Introduction

Copyright © 2010 by the Foundation of the American College of Healthcare Executives 7/09

4 - 2

This case illustrates the application of four different cost allocation methods in a large group practice.The primary goal of this case is to give

you the opportunity tolearn more about alternative allocation

methods, andassess the impact of each allocation

method on allocation amounts and, hence, sub-unit (department) profitability.

Introduction

4 - 3

The case has a complex spreadsheet model. It allocates overhead costs from three

overhead departments to three patient service departments using four allocation methods:DirectStep-downDouble apportionmentReciprocal

Spreadsheet Model

4 - 4

Cost Allocation Basics

In general, healthcare organizations’ costs can be classified asdirect, which are costs unique and

exclusive to a sub-unit, orindirect, or overhead, which are costs

associated with shared resources used by the entire organization.

? What are some examples, say, for a hospital clinical laboratory?

4 - 5

Cost Allocation

The purpose of cost allocation is to allocate all overhead costs to the departments that create the need for such costs, typically the patient service departments.There are three primary allocation

methods:Direct methodStep-down methodReciprocal method

4 - 6

Allocation Methods

In the direct method, the costs of each support department are allocated directly to, and only to, the patient service departments. In the step-down method, some (but

not all) of the intra-support department relationships are recognized. This method is more complex than the direct method but still manageable.

4 - 7

Allocation Methods (cont.)

The reciprocal method recognizes all of the intra-support department relationships, but it requires simultaneous equations or a relatively complex set of iterative calculations.

In addition, the case introduces the double-apportionment method, which is a more complex version of the step-down method.

? Which method is used most commonly by healthcare providers?

4 - 8

Cost Pools

A cost pool is the overhead amount to be allocated.

In general, a cost pool consists of the direct costs of one overhead department.

However, if the costs of one overhead department differ substantially in nature, the department may be divided into multiple cost pools. For example, Financial Services might be divided into two pools:Billing and collectionsBudgeting

4 - 9

Cost Drivers

A cost driver is the basis on which the cost pool will be allocated.For example, the cost driver for

facilities overhead (e.g., depreciation, utilities) might be the amount of space used by each patient service department.

4 - 10

Cost Drivers (cont.)

The selection of cost drivers is criticalto the cost allocation process.To create the best possible cost

allocation system, the cost drivers should have two attributes:They should be perceived as fair.They should promote organizational cost

reduction.

4 - 11

Discussion Items

Overhead cost allocation is a “pain.” Why is it necessary?Suppose a hospital uses amount of space occupied (square footage) as the cost driver for the allocation of Housekeeping Services. Does this driver meet the criteria for a good driver?

4 - 12

Direct Method Illustration (situation)

Consider the direct cost allocation system used at Mercy Hospital.To simplify the illustration, we have

reduced the number of departments to four:Overhead departments

• Facilities Services• General Administration

Patient service departments• Routine Care• Critical Care

4 - 13

Direct Method Illustration(situation cont.)

Mercy uses the following cost drivers:The cost driver for the Facilities Services

cost pool is the amount of space used by each patient service department.The cost driver for the General

Administration cost pool is the amount of revenue generated by each patient service department.

4 - 14

Direct Method Illustration (data)

Projected revenues by patient service department:

Routine Care $22,000,000Critical Care 5,000,000Total revenues $27,000,000

Projected costs for all departments:

Patient Service Departments (Direct Costs)

Routine Care $ 8,300,000Critical Care 3,300,000Total direct costs $11,600,000

4 - 15

Direct Method Illustration (data)Projected costs for all departments (cont.):

Support Service Departments (overhead costs)

Facilities Services $ 8,600,000General Administration 5,250,000Total overhead costs $13,850,000

Total costs of both patientand support services $25,450,000

Projected overall profit $ 1,550,000

4 - 16

Direct Method Illustration (data)

Selected patient service department data:

Square Feet Revenue

Routine Care 261,000 $22,000,000Critical Care 39,600 5,000,000Total 300,600 $27,000,000

? Why aren’t the support departments listed here?

4 - 17

DM Illustration (allocation rates)

Facilities Services$8,600,000 in overhead costs to be allocated across 300,600 square feet: $8,600,000 ÷ 300,600 ≈ $28.61 per sq. ft. This is the allocation rate.

General Administration$5,250,000 in overhead costs to be allocated across $27,000,000 in revenue dollars: $5,250,000 ÷ $27,000,000 ≈$0.194 per revenue dollar.

4 - 18

DM Illustration (allocation amounts)

From Facilities Services:To Routine Care

$28.61 × 261,000 = $7,467,066To Critical Care

$28.61 × 39,600 = $1,132,934$8,600,000

4 - 19

DM Illustration (allocation amounts)

From General Administration:To Routine Care

$0.194 × 22,000,000 = $4,277,778To Critical Care

$0.194 × 5,000,000 = $ 972,222$5,250,000

4 - 20

DM Illustration (P&L statements)Routine Care Margin

Revenues $22,000,000Direct costs 8,300,000Profit on direct costs $13,700,000 62.3%

Indirect costs:Facilities Services 7,467,066General Administration 4,277,778

Profit on total(full)costs $ 1,955,156 8.8%

Critical Care

Revenues $ 5,000,000Direct costs 3,300,000Profit on direct costs $ 1,700,000 34.0%

Indirect costs:Facilities Services 1,132,934General Administration 972,222

Profit on total(full)costs −$ 405,156 −8.1%

4 - 21

Discussion Item

Suppose you are the Critical Care department head at Mercy Hospital. Your bonus depends on good financial performance. What would be your reaction to the allocation results?

What would be your first line of defense? (Hint: Think in terms of direct versus full costs.) What are some other lines of defense?

4 - 22

This concludes our introduction of Case 4. Note that this review did not cover all topics needed to work the case.A good starting point to begin your

work is to review the applicable chapter in your reference text:Healthcare Finance, 4th edition: Chapter 6

? Do you have any questions?

Conclusion

Case 4 Apple Valley

Documents

Transcript of Case 4 Apple Valley