| Course | HLTH 5653 Financial Analysis and Assessment in Healthcare Administration |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Board financial recommendation |
| Length | 1,160 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | MHA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5653 Module 6
Approve It in Two Stages: A Board Recommendation to Fund the Observation Unit From Reserves While the Hospital Is Still Losing Money on Operations
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5653: Financial Analysis and Assessment in Healthcare Administration
Module 6 Assignment
Instructor Name
August 7, 2028
The Recommendation
The board should approve the eight-bed observation unit at a total cost of $2.8 million, funded from the hospital's board-designated reserves rather than new borrowing, and released in two stages: $0.3 million now for design and permits, and the remaining $2.5 million for construction only after management demonstrates that the two conditions on which the project's return depends are in place. This is the one decision this paper asks the board to make. Everything below explains why it is the right one and what the board would be agreeing to.
The recommendation has to be defended against an obvious objection. The composite 124-bed hospital lost $2.2 million on patient care operations last year, its budget for next year projects a further operating loss of $1.1 million after management actions, and it would be spending reserves to build something. The question is not whether a hospital losing money should spend money, but whether this particular expenditure makes the loss smaller or larger over the next five years.
The Findings That Bear on It
Four findings from the earlier analyses matter here. First, the hospital's operating loss comes mainly from labor costs growing faster than revenue and a shift in payer mix away from commercial insurance that cost about $5.2 million in a year. Second, its balance sheet is strong: 199 days of cash on hand against a covenant minimum of 75, and moderate debt. Third, its debt service coverage ratio of 2.47 depends on investment income, and a year of deeper operating losses without investment returns could push it below the covenant minimum of 1.25. Fourth, the observation unit's analysis showed a net present value of $3.19 million, an internal rate of return of 24.6 percent and payback in the fourth year, but only if medical-surgical units reduce staffing as observation patients leave them and the hospital recaptures at least 110 of the 310 patients a year it now transfers out or loses for lack of a bed.
The evidence for the unit's clinical and operational effect is strong. Ross et al. (2013) found that dedicated, protocol-driven observation units shortened stays by 23 to 38 percent and reduced subsequent admissions by 17 to 44 percent compared with observation elsewhere in the hospital. The uncertainty lies not in whether such units work, but in whether this hospital will convert the freed capacity into savings and revenue.
Effect on Reserves and Covenants
Funding the project from reserves affects cash but not debt. At the end of the budget year, cash and investments are projected at about $116.2 million, after the budgeted surplus, depreciation, debt principal and routine capital spending, or about 198 days of cash on hand. Spending $2.8 million reduces that to about 193 days, which leaves roughly 118 days of headroom above the covenant floor. Because no new debt is issued, the debt service coverage ratio is unaffected by the financing, and the unit's positive cash flow, about $0.4 million in its first year and $0.9 million a year afterward if the conditions are met, would improve it slightly.
Borrowing instead would preserve five days of cash but add about $0.36 million a year in debt service at current rates, reducing coverage at exactly the moment it is most exposed to a bad year. Paying cash is the more prudent choice for a hospital whose liquidity is strong and whose coverage is not.
The Alternatives
The board has two alternatives. It could defer the project for a year until the operating loss is reversed. Deferral reduces risk in the short term but forgoes about $0.9 million a year in net cash flow once the unit is running, leaves the emergency department crowded through another winter and continues to lose patients to other hospitals for lack of beds. Most importantly, the causes of the operating loss, labor and payer mix, will not be fixed by deferral, so the board would face the same decision next year with less time for the unit to pay back before the plant's other needs arrive.
The board could also decline the project. That would preserve $2.8 million of reserves but leave in place a process that parks observation patients on the medical and surgical floors for close to a day and a half each. Ly et al. (2011) found that hospitals with the lowest operating margins were more likely than those with the highest to close, merge or convert to another type of facility. A sole community hospital with a weakening margin needs projects that improve operations, not only restraint in spending, and this is one of the few available projects with a demonstrated effect on both cost and capacity.
Questions the Board Should Ask
A careful board member will ask what happens if the conditions are not met. The staged release answers that question: if management cannot show a plan that trims medical-surgical schedules by roughly eight beds' worth of nurses and technicians, written into next year's budget, the construction funds are not released, and the hospital has spent $0.3 million on design, which remains usable later. A second question is whether the recaptured admissions are realistic. Last year's 310 lost patients are documented by the transfer center, and the break-even requirement of 110 is about a third of them.
A third question is whether the hospital's early-warning indicators would catch trouble in time. Holmes et al. (2017) developed an index that forecasts financial distress two years ahead from hospital and community characteristics, and the finance committee should adopt a similar habit of looking forward. The committee's quarterly report will add the unit's five cash flow lines beside the operating margin and the debt service coverage ratio calculated without investment income, so that the board sees the project and the hospital's overall position on the same page.
The Resolution and Accountability
The board is asked to adopt the following resolution: that the board approves the observation unit at a total cost not to exceed $2.8 million, funded from board-designated reserves; that $0.3 million is released immediately for design and permits; that the remaining $2.5 million is released by the finance committee only after the chief nursing officer presents a medical-surgical staffing plan reflecting the reduction in the next year's budget and the transfer center confirms a system for reporting recaptured admissions monthly; and that the chief financial officer reports the unit's actual cash flow against the analysis once the unit has run for twelve full months.
Accountability is assigned by name of office. The chief nursing officer owns the staffing reduction, the emergency department medical director and transfer center manager own recaptured admissions and protocol use and the chief financial officer owns the reporting. A board that approves this resolution is not approving a building; it is approving a set of commitments, with money released as they are kept.
References
Holmes, G. M., Kaufman, B. G., & Pink, G. H. (2017). Predicting financial distress and closure in rural hospitals. The Journal of Rural Health, 33(3), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12187
Ly, D. P., Jha, A. K., & Epstein, A. M. (2011). The association between hospital margins, quality of care, and closure or other change in operating status. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(11), 1291-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1815-5
Ross, M. A., Hockenberry, J. M., Mutter, R., Barrett, M., Wheatley, M., & Pitts, S. R. (2013). Protocol-driven emergency department observation units offer savings, shorter stays, and reduced admissions. Health Affairs, 32(12), 2149-2156. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0662
What the HLTH 5653 Module 6 instructions ask for
HLTH 5653 Module 6 asks for one financial recommendation that could be defended in front of a governing board. Most prompts expect the recommendation stated first, the findings that support it, its effect on financial position and covenants, alternatives considered, the questions board members are likely to ask and a resolution with accountability. Many sections ask for board-ready language and brevity. The recommendation paper generally fills five pages. The HLTH 5653 Canvas instructions say whether a draft board resolution or presentation must be attached. Put the recommendation, its cost and its funding source in the opening paragraph, so a board member can act on page one.
How this HLTH 5653 Module 6 example is built
The recommendation opens the paper: approve the observation unit, fund it from reserves rather than new debt, and release the second half of the funds only if the first six months meet protocol and staffing targets. The findings section summarizes the operating loss, the payer mix shift, the strong cash position and the unit's positive but conditional return. The reserves and covenants section calculates days cash and debt service coverage after the spending and shows both stay above covenant minimums. The alternatives section weighs borrowing, waiting a year and declining, with the case for each. The questions section lists what the board should ask and the answers. The final section drafts the resolution and assigns accountability for each stage.
HLTH 5653 Module 6 rubric: what full marks look like
Board recommendations are graded on clarity and defensibility. The opening row usually carries significant weight: the recommendation complete in the first paragraph, with cost and funding. Findings credit requires earlier analysis summarized accurately. The covenant row rewards direct calculation of the decision's effect on reserves and covenant measures. Alternatives earn credit when stated fairly. Graders give credit for anticipating board questions with answers. Staging tied to evidence and a resolution with accountability, plus APA 7, carry the last points. Covenant figures recalculated after the spending, not copied from the prior year, show the effect was actually tested. Graders also reward a recommendation that admits the operating loss and explains why investing still makes sense. Answers to likely board questions written in plain language show the paper was prepared for the room.
HLTH 5653 Module 6 help from the desk
Board recommendations most often repeat the earlier analysis and bury the recommendation. Another frequent weakness is ignoring the effect on covenants. Students also present one option without alternatives. State the recommendation, cost and funding in the first paragraph. Show the covenant measures after the decision. Give each alternative its best case. List the board's likely questions with answers. Tie the second stage to evidence. Keep the paper short enough for a board packet. If your recommendation concerns a merger, a service closure or new borrowing, the desk can prepare a board recommendation for it. Show both covenant measures before and after.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HLTH 5653 and MHA sample papers
- HLTH 5653 Module 1: Financial Statement Analysis
- HLTH 5653 Module 2: Ratio Analysis Paper
- HLTH 5653 Module 3: Payer Mix and Reimbursement
- HLTH 5653 Module 4: Operating Budget Paper
- HLTH 5653 Module 5: Capital Request Analysis
- HLTH 5683 Module 4: Risk Register and Analysis
- HLTH 5633 Module 4: Data Collection Design
- HLTH 5693 Module 6: Capstone Final Synthesis
- HLTH 5623 Module 3: Study Design Appraisal
HLTH 5653 Module 6 questions, answered
How should a board recommendation be structured?
State the recommendation completely at the start, including cost and funding source. Then give only the findings that bear on it, show its effect on key measures such as cash and covenants, compare it with alternatives, answer the questions a skeptical member would ask and end with the exact resolution and who is accountable.
Why stage the release of capital funds?
Staging ties spending to evidence that the assumptions behind a project's return are being met. If conditions such as a staffing plan are not in place, later funds are not released, which limits the loss and gives the board a clear decision point.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5653 Module 6 sample paper?
Yes, above. Start at "The Recommendation"; the HLTH 5653 Module 6 board financial recommendation then turns to "The Alternatives" and closes on "The Resolution and Accountability".
Why fund a project from reserves instead of borrowing?
Borrowing adds debt service and can push coverage toward covenant limits, while reserves avoid that but reduce days cash. The choice depends on which measure has more room.
What should a board resolution include?
The decision, the amount, the funding source, any conditions or stages, who is accountable and when the board will review results.